PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security AHMADINEJAD: 'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'...


petegz28
01-31-2010, 09:38 PM
Getting a "Server Busy" error when trying to get to the story but this is on Drudge.

Brock
01-31-2010, 09:43 PM
'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'
Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:30:44 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

"If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.

MJ/HGL

Taco John
01-31-2010, 09:45 PM
I wonder if he's introducing a new currency or something.

petegz28
01-31-2010, 09:59 PM
I wonder if they are going to test a nuke?

bluehawkdoc
01-31-2010, 10:04 PM
I'd like to see someone deliver a telling blow from a rifle to this lunatic's temple.
Posted via Mobile Device

CoMoChief
01-31-2010, 10:11 PM
Fuck this bastard, H-bomb the fuck out of Iran and teach them a fucking lesson.

Jenson71
01-31-2010, 10:31 PM
I'd think this is more Ahmadinejad rallying up his base, the lower classes, to fight perceptions that a upward, more western-oriented middle class is soon going to overturn the Revolution. Not really a threat using the bomb.

BigRedChief
01-31-2010, 10:49 PM
**** this bastard, H-bomb the **** out of Iran and teach them a ****ing lesson.Have you been paying attention? You see the millions out in the streets risking their lifes to overthrow the mullahs.The mullahs are the issue, not the IRanian people.

Chocolate Hog
01-31-2010, 10:51 PM
Have you been paying attention? You see the millions out in the streets risking their lifes to overthrow the mullahs.The mullahs are the issue, not the IRanian people.

Wasn't this said when we "liberated" Iraq?

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-31-2010, 11:44 PM
He's basically a wrestling heel.

RNR
02-01-2010, 05:03 AM
'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'
Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:30:44 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

"If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.

MJ/HGL
Please tell me what the hell this third world shitbag is talking about?

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 05:13 AM
I wonder if they are going to test a nuke?

I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map.

I'd think this is more Ahmadinejad rallying up his base, the lower classes, to fight perceptions that a upward, more western-oriented middle class is soon going to overturn the Revolution. Not really a threat using the bomb.

So you have the inside information from Iran? Ever listen to Ahmadinejad's hatred of Israel? The U.S. ?

RNR
02-01-2010, 05:19 AM
I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map.

This third world monkey has some balls but he knows better than that.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 05:27 AM
This third world monkey has some balls but he knows better than that.

Maybe, but crazy has no bounds.

RNR
02-01-2010, 06:01 AM
Maybe, but crazy has no bounds.

Him, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein all sell (in Saddam's case sold) crazy. They talk big, talk tough, in reality all are gutless cowards. They con simple minded men or force them through dictatorship to do their bidding. Take Laden for example he has talked about the virtue of being a martyr for the cause. If he was to back up his boasts and face his enemy his death would give him god status and further his bullshit cause. Instead he runs and hides in caves or where ever he must to avoid confrontation. He poses with weapons and talks tough on tapes yet hides to stay alive at all costs. This tool is no different he will huff and puff but make no mistake he will do nothing that will risk his King like existence~

Radar Chief
02-01-2010, 06:48 AM
Incredibly ironic that we’re currently sending missile boats and systems with the capability of intercepting inbound missiles to the region. :hmmm:

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 06:50 AM
Incredibly ironic that we’re currently sending missile boats and systems with the capability of intercepting inbound missiles to the region. :hmmm:yeah quite the concidence.:rolleyes:

Radar Chief
02-01-2010, 07:02 AM
yeah quite the concidence.:rolleyes:

:LOL: Personally I’m just glad Obama is actually on top of it. :shrug:
What do you think he knows that we don’t? :hmmm: Do you think there actually is a missile threat? Better get those Patriot Batteries lined up in a hurry if there is. Those things actually have a fairly small footprint in which they can take out an inbound missile.

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 07:10 AM
:LOL: Personally I’m just glad Obama is actually on top of it. :shrug:
What do you think he knows that we don’t? :hmmm: Do you think there actually is a missile threat? Better get those Patriot Batteries lined up in a hurry if there is. Those things actually have a fairly small footprint in which they can take out an inbound missile.of course they know something. You don't move ships that are primarily missle defense shipsright outside of Iran. I bet we will find out sometime that Israel or the USA found out about something and Israel said we are going to take that chit out and this was a comprimise.

Radar Chief
02-01-2010, 07:23 AM
of course they know something. You don't move ships that are primarily missle defense shipsright outside of Iran. I bet we will find out sometime that Israel or the USA found out about something and Israel said we are going to take that chit out and this was a comprimise.

Quite possibly. Wouldn’t surprise me if we also have the BFL, big fucking laser, patrolling that air space.

blaise
02-01-2010, 07:28 AM
He's announcing the opening of Iranian Disney.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 07:40 AM
I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map.



So you have the inside information from Iran? Ever listen to Ahmadinejad's hatred of Israel? The U.S. ?

Ahmadinejad is not crazy. And no, I don't have inside information. Consider it a somewhat educated analysis of what Ahmadinejad is talking about.

Hog Farmer
02-01-2010, 07:59 AM
I expect him to finally come clean and announce to the world that "There really are Homo's in Iran" ! Along with a ribbon cutting ceremony of the first Iranian Gay Bar.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 08:03 AM
I smell BS!

Hog Farmer
02-01-2010, 08:12 AM
I smell BS!


Ummm..... That might be me, I had to wade into the Lagoon this morning.

blaise
02-01-2010, 08:13 AM
I expect him to finally come clean and announce to the world that "There really are Homo's in Iran" ! Along with a ribbon cutting ceremony of the first Iranian Gay Bar.

The lesbian version is going to be called Persian Rugs. They have an all you can eat special on Tuesday nights.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 08:38 AM
I'd think this is more Ahmadinejad rallying up his base, the lower classes, to fight perceptions that a upward, more western-oriented middle class is soon going to overturn the Revolution. Not really a threat using the bomb.

Surely no one thinks his statement is a threat to use the bomb (that he probably doesn't even have yet).

patteeu
02-01-2010, 08:41 AM
He's announcing the opening of Iranian Disney.

ROFL

Gay Day at Disney Iran will be interesting.

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Surely no one thinks his statement is a threat to use the bomb (that he probably doesn't even have yet).He's probably talking out his azz anyway. Maybe try a new rocket test or somethng.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Iran is pulling a Bush/Cheney!

Hog Farmer
02-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Let's see:

Iran is at war with Iraq for nine years.

United states destroys Iraq in 3 days.

Iran now is threatening The U.S.

You've gotta be kidding!

Garcia Bronco
02-01-2010, 11:28 AM
**** this bastard, H-bomb the **** out of Iran and teach them a ****ing lesson.

Why do we need to destroy all of Iran to take out a few?

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 11:28 AM
United states destroys Iraq in 3 days.Did I miss something here? Are we not still in Iraq?

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 11:34 AM
Surely no one thinks his statement is a threat to use the bomb (that he probably doesn't even have yet).

No one thought so? Well, okay.

HC_Chief
02-01-2010, 12:10 PM
Did I miss something here? Are we not still in Iraq?

BIG difference between invasion and occupation. We planned and executed the former in brilliant fashion. Half-assing the latter is what led us down a very bloody, expensive path.

kepp
02-01-2010, 12:16 PM
Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.

"And anyone who doesn't will be dealt with accordingly." /Ahmadinejad

kepp
02-01-2010, 12:17 PM
I wonder if they are going to test a nuke?
If this happens^^
**** this bastard, H-bomb the **** out of Iran and teach them a ****ing lesson.
...this will happen^^

BigRedChief
02-01-2010, 12:18 PM
BIG difference between invasion and occupation. We planned and executed the former in brilliant fashion. Half-assing the latter is what led us down a very bloody, expensive path.yeah so, we have lots of bombs and know how to deliver them. If you don't care what happens or the reprucussions after you flatten whatever you wanted to blow up, then thats fine.

kepp
02-01-2010, 12:18 PM
Please tell me what the hell this third world shitbag is talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burka - these

patteeu
02-01-2010, 12:32 PM
If this happens^^

...this will happen^^

Why do you say this? Nothing like that happened when North Korea did it and we had a more serious President then than we do now.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 12:56 PM
Our weak leadership is empowering these despots everywhere. You cannot be a powerful and stabilizing force if you are seen as weak and ineffective.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Our weak leadership is empowering these despots everywhere. You cannot be a powerful and stabilizing force if you are seen as weak and ineffective.

Did Ahmadinejad not say similar things when Bush was in office?

Radar Chief
02-01-2010, 01:45 PM
Please tell me what the hell this third world shitbag is talking about?

The theory is that space aliens came down and taught them algebra, how to build pyramids then left saying, “Don’t do anything until we get back”.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 01:51 PM
Did Ahmadinejad not say similar things when Bush was in office?

Ponder that.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 01:59 PM
Ponder that.

What's different about Bush and Obama in terms of their foreign policy regarding Iran?

HonestChieffan
02-01-2010, 02:03 PM
The difference is that Obama is seen by others, including our allies, as weak. Its not about BUsh. These people dont sit around planning to do what they do and as a part of the process ask, Gee, is he stronger or weaker than Bush?.

They see Obama as weak, ineffective, and incapable of making a decision. All are qualities you want in an opponent.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 02:20 PM
What's different about Bush and Obama in terms of their foreign policy regarding Iran?

Obama has expressed weakness in his public words and in his private letters to the Iranian regime. Iran might have been willing to call Bush's bluff, but Obama isn't even bothering with a bluff. And who knows, when push came to shove, Bush may have even considered a shove. No one thinks Obama has it in him.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 04:39 PM
The difference is that Obama is seen by others, including our allies, as weak. Its not about BUsh. These people dont sit around planning to do what they do and as a part of the process ask, Gee, is he stronger or weaker than Bush?.

They see Obama as weak, ineffective, and incapable of making a decision. All are qualities you want in an opponent.


Obama has expressed weakness in his public words and in his private letters to the Iranian regime. Iran might have been willing to call Bush's bluff, but Obama isn't even bothering with a bluff. And who knows, when push came to shove, Bush may have even considered a shove. No one thinks Obama has it in him.

I disagree, emphatically. Other than the way Obama has agreed to talk with Iran, there's really nothing different about the Bush II and Obama terms. War in Iraq, Obama is only escalating the Afghan war, they have the same Secretary of Defense, the same American military.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 04:58 PM
Obama is the same as Bush on FP because the same people influence and control those ideas. One side just talks angrier and more belligerent. This idea that Obama is a pussy is a red herring.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 05:37 PM
Ahmadinejad is not crazy. And no, I don't have inside information. Consider it a somewhat educated analysis of what Ahmadinejad is talking about.

You are crazy if you believe that Ahmadinejad is sane in any respect of the word. Your educated analysis is just as impressive as your 4 years of political science.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 05:43 PM
I disagree, emphatically. Other than the way Obama has agreed to talk with Iran, there's really nothing different about the Bush II and Obama terms. War in Iraq, Obama is only escalating the Afghan war, they have the same Secretary of Defense, the same American military.

Obama was an idiot thinking he could talk with Iran and they would give a ****. All he did was allow them more time to do whatever it is they want to do while he stood there wagging his finger like an ineffective parent.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 05:44 PM
You are crazy if you believe that Ahmadinejad is sane in any respect of the word. Your educated analysis is just as impressive as your 4 years of political science.

He's actually a pretty smart guy. He just says some outrageous things. Why do you think he's insane in every respect of the word?

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 05:49 PM
Obama was an idiot thinking he could talk with Iran and they would give a ****. All he did was allow them more time to do whatever it is they want to do while he stood there wagging his finger like an ineffective parent.

Iran has previously made an outreach to talk to the US and the US didn't give a ****. Besides, what difference in foreign policy has there been to Iran between Bush and Obama, other than the "formal" talking. Before, Bush just called them part of the axis of evil. Was that a lot of help for you, pete?

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 05:54 PM
He's actually a pretty smart guy. He just says some outrageous things. Why do you think he's insane in every respect of the word?

I didn't say insane. I said he was crazy, believe it or not there is a difference.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 05:56 PM
Iran has previously made an outreach to talk to the US and the US didn't give a ****. Besides, what difference in foreign policy has there been to Iran between Bush and Obama, other than the "formal" talking. Before, Bush just called them part of the axis of evil. Was that a lot of help for you, pete?

When was that outreach? When they took Americans hostage during Jimmy Carter's presidency? When they overthrew the Shaw?

Are they not evil? ARe you married to Frankie?

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 05:58 PM
I didn't say insane. I said he was crazy, believe it or not there is a difference.

You are crazy if you believe that Ahmadinejad is sane in any respect of the word. Your educated analysis is just as impressive as your 4 years of political science.

Anyway, what's the difference between insane and crazy?

Taco John
02-01-2010, 06:01 PM
What has Ahmadeinejad done that would qualify him as insane? I presume we're talking clinically insane, right? Or are we talking a soft sort of insane like "he disagrees with my world view" insane.

If that's the case, Obama is insane.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 06:01 PM
When was that outreach? When they took Americans hostage during Jimmy Carter's presidency? When they overthrew the Shaw?

Are they not evil? ARe you married to Frankie?

The outreach can be read about here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050800141.html

Are they evil? No, not really. And no, I'm not married to Frankie.

SNR
02-01-2010, 06:05 PM
What has Ahmadeinejad done that would qualify him as insane? I presume we're talking clinically insane, right? Or are we talking a soft sort of insane like "he disagrees with my world view" insane.

If that's the case, Obama is insane.Heh.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 06:18 PM
Iran has previously made an outreach to talk to the US and the US didn't give a ****. Besides, what difference in foreign policy has there been to Iran between Bush and Obama, other than the "formal" talking. Before, Bush just called them part of the axis of evil. Was that a lot of help for you, pete?

What "formal talking"??? And BTW, Bush was right, as Obama sends military ships and missiles into the region.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 07:20 PM
I disagree, emphatically. Other than the way Obama has agreed to talk with Iran, there's really nothing different about the Bush II and Obama terms. War in Iraq, Obama is only escalating the Afghan war, they have the same Secretary of Defense, the same American military.

We'll have to agree to disagree emphatically then. Obama has been exceedingly week on Iran. Can you imagine Bush standing by silently and watching the Iranians put down the freedom protests that took place immediately following the suspect Iranian elections? Does Bush calling Iran a member of the Axis of Evil and Obama assuring the Ayatollahs that he has no intention of overthrowing their regime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/28/barack-obama-letter-to-iran) sound the same to you?

In Iraq there is a huge difference between the two men. Bush intended to persevere until a satisfactory victory was achieved and all the way to the end of his regime left some ambiguity in his plan to drawdown US forces. Obama intends to leave regardless of the consequences as he's made clear as recently as this past week.

I realize these tonal differences are fairly subtle and maybe a bit difficult for the casual observer to notice but we can be sure that our adversaries are watching with keen interest and no shortage of the cunning required to take the proper measure of these two men. From his world apology tour to his efforts to reach out to adversarial leaders while snubbing our closest allies, Obama exudes weakness.

DJ's left nut
02-01-2010, 07:26 PM
Ahmadinejad says something similar to this every year at about this time.

This is a whole lotta nothin'

petegz28
02-01-2010, 07:28 PM
Ahmadinejad says something similar to this every year at about this time.

This is a whole lotta nothin'

Normally I would agree if it weren't for the military movements we are making.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 07:32 PM
Iran has previously made an outreach to talk to the US and the US didn't give a ****. Besides, what difference in foreign policy has there been to Iran between Bush and Obama, other than the "formal" talking. Before, Bush just called them part of the axis of evil. Was that a lot of help for you, pete?

When George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 attack by first toppling the Afghan regime and then by toppling Saddam's regime, the Iranians took notice and became very cooperative.

Later, as democrats and other members of the anti-war movement undermined our war efforts and eroded public support, the Iranians became more beligerent and less cooperative because even though they still were unsure about how far GWBush would go, they were confident that he didn't have the domestic support for a third major war.

Now, after seeing Obama rush to retreat in Iraq and stand by idly while Iranian citizens were brutalized in the streets, Iran's regime can be extremely confident that the US is very little threat to them. And while Obama has increased troop strength in Afghanistan, he's done so with a very weak message suggesting that the window of his commitment, even for the war he called the good war, is pretty short.

Moral: It's not just talk, it's talk plus action, plus a realistic view of the mood of the nation.

whatsmynameagain
02-01-2010, 08:08 PM
I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map.



So you have the inside information from Iran? Ever listen to Ahmadinejad's hatred of Israel? The U.S. ?

Do you realize Isreal is considered a holy land to muslims as well? Do you really think they would destroy that, they being Iran? Do you realize the backlash something like that would encourage?

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 08:27 PM
Do you realize Isreal is considered a holy land to muslims as well? Do you really think they would destroy that, they being Iran? Do you realize the backlash something like that would encourage?

Did you read what I wrote?

"I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map."

When you have someone in charge (if he is) that is crazy there is no telling what could happen.

RNR
02-01-2010, 08:59 PM
Normally I would agree if it weren't for the military movements we are making.

This mutt ain't going to do shit. He is running a bluff and Barry is showing the balls to call it. He is nothing more than a coward talking tough and he will back the fuck off before losing his comfortable life of luxury.

Hog Farmer
02-01-2010, 09:14 PM
Do you realize Isreal is considered a holy land to muslims as well? Do you really think they would destroy that, they being Iran? Do you realize the backlash something like that would encourage?


Are you a fucking moron ? Just asking ! In case you haven't noticed these muslims have been killing muslims too.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 09:29 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree emphatically then. Obama has been exceedingly week on Iran. Can you imagine Bush standing by silently and watching the Iranians put down the freedom protests that took place immediately following the suspect Iranian elections? Does Bush calling Iran a member of the Axis of Evil and Obama assuring the Ayatollahs that he has no intention of overthrowing their regime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/28/barack-obama-letter-to-iran) sound the same to you?

In Iraq there is a huge difference between the two men. Bush intended to persevere until a satisfactory victory was achieved and all the way to the end of his regime left some ambiguity in his plan to drawdown US forces. Obama intends to leave regardless of the consequences as he's made clear as recently as this past week.

I realize these tonal differences are fairly subtle and maybe a bit difficult for the casual observer to notice but we can be sure that our adversaries are watching with keen interest and no shortage of the cunning required to take the proper measure of these two men. From his world apology tour to his efforts to reach out to adversarial leaders while snubbing our closest allies, Obama exudes weakness.

Obama wasn't silent on the Iranian crackdown: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/28/president-speaks-out-iran-violence

He also renewed sanctions on Iran: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Message-on-Iranian-Sanctions

Obama's video to the Iranian people and their leaders: http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-Presidents-Message-to-the-Iranian-People

whatsmynameagain
02-01-2010, 09:30 PM
Are you a fucking moron ? Just asking ! In case you haven't noticed these muslims have been killing muslims too.

not the same as holy land, there is a difference
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 09:32 PM
not the same as holy land, there is a difference
Posted via Mobile Device


Holy land as in Israel? Last time I checked Israel was mostly Jewish.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 09:33 PM
When George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 attack by first toppling the Afghan regime and then by toppling Saddam's regime, the Iranians took notice and became very cooperative.

That's because they hated Hussein and the Baathist party. They figured they could really benefit from a Hussein-less Iraq, not because they were frightened by George Bush into cooperation.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 09:37 PM
That's because they hated Hussein and the Baathist party. They figured they could really benefit from a Hussein-less Iraq, not because they were frightened by George Bush into cooperation.

That's just your opinion, and not a lucid one at that. Iran saw Bush as a loose cannon. Your best buddy, Admadinejad is crazy, but as you said he is very smart. :rolleyes:

RNR
02-01-2010, 09:37 PM
Holy land as in Israel? Last time I checked Israel was mostly Jewish.

The Holy Land Hebrew: ארץ הקודש Erets HaQodesh; (Ancient Aramaic: ארעא קדישא Ar'a Qaddisha;Greek: Άγιοι Τόποι Agioi Topoi; Latin: Terrae Sanctae; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة, al-Arḍ ul-Muqaddasah), generally refers to the geographical region of the Levant called Land of Canaan or Land of Israel in the Bible, and constitutes the Promised land. This area, or sites within it, hold significant religious importance to at least four monotheistic Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. Part of its sanctity stems from the religious significance of Jerusalem, the holiest city to Judaism, the third-holiest to Islam, and part of the proposed Christian Pentarchy.

The holiness of this land was the ideological driving force behind the Crusaders' re-conquest from the Muslim rulers who controlled it since the Islamic conquests. Numerous pilgrims visited that land throughout history.

Although the Zionism movement, the current State of Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict are largely political, the dispute around the control of the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem is based on religious beliefs. Some have proposed the founding of a Federal Republic of the Holy Land as a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1]

whatsmynameagain
02-01-2010, 09:37 PM
Did you read what I wrote?

"I don't know if they would test one or try to use one. He has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map."

When you have someone in charge (if he is) that is crazy there is no telling what could happen.

he is not in charge and its all rhetoric, it wont happen. when he speaks of isreal you need to understand the context. like his denial of the holocaust, he isnt saying it didnt happen as much as he is saying if it did happen, why were the jews relocated to isreal when it was germany/euros problem and the palestineans have to suffer. its point of view i suppose
Posted via Mobile Device

whatsmynameagain
02-01-2010, 09:39 PM
Holy land as in Israel? Last time I checked Israel was mostly Jewish.

please never quote any of my posts again.
Posted via Mobile Device

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 09:44 PM
That's just your opinion, and not a lucid one at that. Iran saw Bush as a loose cannon. Your best buddy, Admadinejad is crazy, but as you said he is very smart. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, is that treason or something?

He's got a degree in civil engineering and an advanced degree in engineering, as well. That takes some brains.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 10:18 PM
I'm sorry, is that treason or something?

He's got a degree in civil engineering and an advanced degree in engineering, as well. That takes some brains.

Not really. What takes some brains is to be able to pass a civil engineering PE without a college education. All a degree tells anyone is that you know where to go to reference data.

What takes brains is to not say the things he has said, some of that shit sounds like your diatribes.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 10:25 PM
Not really. What takes some brains is to be able to pass a civil engineering PE without a college education. All a degree tells anyone is that you know where to go to reference data.

It tells me they can pass complicated math classes.

Norman Einstein
02-01-2010, 10:35 PM
It tells me they can pass complicated math classes.

You think a civil engineer with a PE can't work complicated math functions in his profession? WTF are those professors selling you? It certainly isn't intelligence.

Jenson71
02-01-2010, 10:37 PM
You think a civil engineer with a PE can't work complicated math functions in his profession? WTF are those professors selling you? It certainly isn't intelligence.

Huh?

I said having an engineering degree tells me that the person with the degree can pass complicated math courses.

petegz28
02-01-2010, 10:46 PM
Ahmenutjob is not dumb. He is just stupid.

spicygirl
02-02-2010, 01:59 AM
This time around I didn’t second guess myself and I bought the colours I wanted right away, instead of waiting till the collection was almost completely sent back/sold out and me scrambling still not finding the polish (hello, essie nail polish (http://www.essienailpolish.org/) First Timer!). I definitely think that this is going to be a popular collection and is going to sell out fast, like most Essie collections.
P90X, or p90x schedule (http://www.p90xworkoutschedule.me/) Extreme, is a home exercise system developed by Tony Horton. Just after a couple days, a man finds himself in the hospital because of this workout routine. Claiming that after P90X Workout Calendars (http://www.mygogowebs.com/) 90 days, you will "become this super fit guy"

Norman Einstein
02-02-2010, 04:00 AM
Huh?

I said having an engineering degree tells me that the person with the degree can pass complicated math courses.

And I answered with "You think a civil engineer with a PE can't work complicated math functions in his profession?"

It seems you were attacking my comment, it not then wth are you trying to say? Your favorite son might have a college degree but that does not make him smart, nor intelligent. It only makes him a college graduate.

Norman Einstein
02-02-2010, 05:49 AM
please never quote any of my posts again.
Posted via Mobile Device

Dude, you started the quoting, I'm just responding. If you feel your quoted posts make you look stupid then you might just might not be the communicator you feel you are.

whatsmynameagain
02-02-2010, 06:13 AM
Dude, you started the quoting, I'm just responding. If you feel your quoted posts make you look stupid then you might just might not be the communicator you feel you are.

Please child, it has more to do with your lack of knowledge on matters you try to interject in. It's best to keep thy mouth shut and let people think you're stupid then opening it and proving them right.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 06:57 AM
Obama wasn't silent on the Iranian crackdown: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/28/president-speaks-out-iran-violence

Dude. The elections were in June. The protests and the crackdowns started immediately thereafter. That statement is from December. :shake:

Great example of Obama's weakness though.

He also renewed sanctions on Iran: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Message-on-Iranian-Sanctions

*Yawn*

Obama's video to the Iranian people and their leaders: http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-Presidents-Message-to-the-Iranian-People

:shrug:

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 07:16 AM
Dude. The elections were in June. The protests and the crackdowns started immediately thereafter. That statement is from December. :shake:

Great example of Obama's weakness though.


Obama also released this: The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Obama_calls_on_Iran_to_stop_all_violent_and_unjust_actions.html

Obama's move was cautious, as Iran accused us of meddling in their affairs. You would have what? Threw up some rockets? Said we weren't talking to Iran again?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 07:34 AM
Obama also released this: The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Obama_calls_on_Iran_to_stop_all_violent_and_unjust_actions.html

Obama's move was cautious, as Iran accused us of meddling in their affairs. You would have what? Threw up some rockets? Said we weren't talking to Iran again?

You say cautious, I say weak.

"We're watching!" They must have had a good laugh over that one.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 07:37 AM
Dude. The elections were in June. The protests and the crackdowns started immediately thereafter. That statement is from December. :shake:

Instigated by our own CIA internal agitation because we have to take another country down.

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 07:45 AM
You say cautious, I say weak.

"We're watching!" They must have had a good laugh over that one.

Do you ever think that when Bush labeled them an Axis of Evil or a threat to mankind, the Iranian government used that to brush off criticism facing themselves and refocusing it on the American government?

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:19 AM
Normally I would agree if it weren't for the military movements we are making.

"If Chewbacca lives on Endor...you must acquit. Now look at the monkey..."

http://dakotawarcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/chewb4.jpg

Obama needs a win somewhere. Iran's going to do the same whole lot of nothing they always do and he's going to say it was because he intervened. It'll win him some moderate votes and the O-bots are so far in his pocket that they'll just sit idly by.

It's little more than duping an easily distracted public.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:20 AM
Do you ever think that when Bush labeled them an Axis of Evil or a threat to mankind, the Iranian government used that to brush off criticism facing themselves and refocusing it on the American government?

No. Did Bush's critics rally to support him when foreigners called him names? Are Iranians less sophisticated than Bush critics?

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:25 AM
You say cautious, I say weak.

"We're watching!" They must have had a good laugh over that one.

No kidding.

This is Jenson's 'tough' Obama?

It amazes me that people refuse to acknowledge how poorly Obama has handled the middle-east. For all the liberal yammering about a 'new day on the international stage', Obama has been a completely innefectual foreign policy President.

What a shill.

Baby Lee
02-02-2010, 08:26 AM
Not really. What takes some brains is to be able to pass a civil engineering PE without a college education. All a degree tells anyone is that you know where to go to reference data.

What takes brains is to not say the things he has said, some of that shit sounds like your diatribes.

Thanks for being so stupid that I have to step in to speak well of a nutjob like Ammyhammy.

But you don't pass a PE exam by being fluent in accessing 'reference data.' You have to be versed in the inner workings of myriad mathematical tools and know which one to apply to each question.
And the only 'reference data' you are provided for the exam are raw formulas and physical constant values. It's up to the testee to know which formulas apply, how to apply them, and which constants, if any need to be incorporated.
There's not some book where you match up, say, a particular RLC configuration, with every possible RLC values iterated, that gives you the linear equation for every possible response. You look at the configuration and the values and have to crank the required equation out based on your tutelage.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:27 AM
No kidding.

This is Jenson's 'tough' Obama?

It amazes me that people refuse to acknowledge how poorly Obama has handled the middle-east. For all the liberal yammering about a 'new day on the international stage', Obama has been a completely innefectual foreign policy President.

What a shill.

Obama's policies are not different from Bush in the Middle East. Oh, and I am a conservative not a liberal, progressive or lefty. I mean come on....wake up and smell the coffee. Surge in Afghanistan wtf?

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 08:31 AM
Obama's policies are not different from Bush in the Middle East.

What?

Obama's capitulation vs. Bush's cowboy routine and you don't see a difference in policy?

patteeu
02-02-2010, 08:33 AM
What?

Obama's capitulation vs. Bush's cowboy routine and you don't see a difference in policy?

Anyone who hasn't brought our entire military home, decommissioned half of it, barred the door and shuttered the windows looks the same to her.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 08:34 AM
Obama's policies are not different from Bush in the Middle East. Oh, and I am a conservative not a liberal, progressive or lefty. I mean come on....wake up and smell the coffee. Surge in Afghanistan wtf?

BEP your "conservative" credentials do NOT represent the posture or attitude of modern conservatives--not since the end of WW II anyway. From what I've seen, the only "conservative" faction your credentials align you with that I've seen...is the Buchanan-Isolationist-Chickenhawk-1920s-If-We-Pretend-No-One-Else-Exists-We-Will-Be-Fine crowd.

If our foreign policy during the Cold War had been left to you...the USSR would still be dominating world affairs, and our own country would very likely be much, much farther down the road toward genuine Socialism than we are now.

How ironic....

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:35 AM
What?

Obama's capitulation vs. Bush's cowboy routine and you don't see a difference in policy?

Only in tone. He still has a surge in Afghanistan just like Bush, wouldn't listen to his Generals on that, just like Bush. The big deals by the right are on his bowing and things like that. Meanwhile not a single base is planned for removal in Iraq or even Afghanistan. He bombed Yemen even. The only that's different is the tone of the rhetoric.He's just not as in people's face with belligerence.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 08:38 AM
Only in tone. He still has a surge in Afghanistan just like Bush, wouldn't listen to his Generals on that, just like Bush. The big deals by the right are on his bowing and things like that. Meanwhile not a single base is planned for removal in Iraq or even Afghanistan. He bombed Yemen even. The only that's different is the tone of the rhetoric.He's just not as in people's face with belligerence.

Yeah. Let's just ignore the real world; and real bastards and threats will just, magically, dissappear.

Yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:41 AM
BEP your "conservative" credentials do NOT represent the posture or attitude of modern conservatives--not since the end of WW II anyway.
That's a strawman if I ever saw one. I wasn't trying to say or imply that—just pointing out that I am not someone on the left. Because that's usually been assumed by some who aren't that familiar with my views. I already know that conservatives like me are a small minority in the GOP but we do exist.

If our foreign policy during the Cold War had been left to you...the USSR would still be dominating world affairs, and our own country would very likely be much, much farther down the road toward genuine Socialism than we are now.
Another strawman. I've said I was pro-Cold War in the main. That post Cold War I do not support deeper military intervention in the ME—which is the same position of Ronald Reagan who pulled out of Beirut and who states these things in his autobiography. Why? Because that's the cause of terrorism, is blowback and these guys never forget.

Sorry but it was the GOP and conservatives who were against our interventions in the Balkans under Clinton if you recall. That's traditional conservativism. Modern conservativism is a creature from the left. It's just hard to tell who is who because it's been the modern conservatives aka NeoCon who have been framing the arguments out of DC which has hoodwinked the other conservatives. Not to mention their natural allies on ME issues such as the Christian right which stems from end-of-times issues. Although, it amazes me how many Rs support corporatism too. As in we need the military for trade and for oil. ( like patteeu) On the grounds of pragmatism.

Using the military for the defense of the United States is a key component of conservativism; and that protecting our lives is the first duty of govt. Expanding it's use for other reasons is not at all conservative. It's neo conservative.

So get your logical fallacies out of the way first before you open your big angry Neo Con yap.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 08:44 AM
That's a strawman if I ever saw one. I wasn't trying to say or imply that—just pointing out that I am not someone on the left. I already know that conservatives like me are a small minority in the GOP but we do exist.

Another strawman. I've said I was pro-Cold War in the main. That post Cold War I do not support deeper military intervention in the ME—which is the same position of Ronald Reagan who pulled out of Beirut and who states these things in his autobiography.

Sorry but it was the GOP and conservatives who were against our interventions in the Balkans under Clinton if you recall. That's traditional conservativism. Modern conservativism is a creature from the left. It's just hard to tell who is who because it's been the modern conservatives aka NeoCon who have been framing the arguments out of DC which has hoodwinked the other conservatives. Not to mention their natural allies on ME issues such as the Christian right which stems from end-of-times issues.

So get your logical fallacies out of the way first before you open your Neo Con yap.

Your inability to accept reality does not constitute a lack of logic. It only exposes your own limitations.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:45 AM
Yeah. Let's just ignore the real world; and real bastards and threats will just, magically, dissappear.

Yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:

Yeah, like tone is really going to do something. Seems to encourage nuclear proliferation if you ask me.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:47 AM
Your inability to accept reality does not constitute a lack of logic. It only exposes your own limitations.

There you go again.

My limitations don't extend to believing in lies and false reports by the same interests that took us into Iraq. That's common sense which you lack.

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."-- Ronald Reagan's Autobiography


You got nothin'. But it wouldn't stop you from calling out RR for the same pov and saying he's devoid of reality. You certainly have no clue as to what conservativism is. You think it means social values only. It doesn't. It's a support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the main. But then you're a democrat....you support activist govt including around the world.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 08:54 AM
There you go again.

My limitations don't extend to believing in lies and false reports by the same interests that took us into Iraq. That's common sense which you lack.

You got nothin'. But it wouldn't stop you from calling out RR for the same pov and saying he's devoid of reality. You certainly have no clue as to what conservativism is. You think it means social values only. It doesn't. It's a support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the main. But then you're a democrat....you support activist govt including around the world.

Selective citations don't erase conservative foreign policy over a period of decades. It's an exception, to be sure. However, RR whose political "hero" at one time was FDR understood this, even if you don't.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 09:01 AM
Selective citations do not erase the totality of conservative foreign policy over a period of decades. It's an exception, to be sure. However, RR whose political "hero" at one time was....FDR understood this, even if you do not.

It's not a selective citation if you read more about what he said. RR recognized the dangers of getting more involved in the ME because of how they are and how we'd become a target if we didn't get out. RR said it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Too bad Bush Sr didn't have the same sense. It's the building of military bases since PGWI and all through the 90's that was the beginning of terrorism coming to our shores.

There also happens to be some conservative history scholars like Robert Pape who researched this and makes the same claims.... as well as former CIA including whistleblowers like Scheuer. So it's is far from a selective citation...it hits right at the heart of the problem and RR and the rest of them are right about it.

FDR is someone I have given credit for steering us through a war successfully BUT HE DID it it HALF the TIME too and had congress Declare War. The difference being of course that he was fighting nation states which requires conventional war....this is not apples and oranges. We're fighting the people of those areas who don't want us there. Instead the entire target of terrorism in America has been shifted to nation states NOT involved in 9/11!

DJ's left nut
02-02-2010, 09:02 AM
Anyone who hasn't brought our entire military home, decommissioned half of it, barred the door and shuttered the windows looks the same to her.

Ah, isolationism or bust.

I'm sure a supercarrier would make a great false reef somewhere.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Ah, isolationism or bust.

I'm sure a supercarrier would make a great false reef somewhere.

No patteeu is a liar....like the real NCs in DC. He twists. He spins. He deflects with strawmen and red herrings. This has ZERO to do with isolationism...it has to do with taking responsibility by analyzing policies in a part of the world that the peoples in that area are unhappy with.

I am using the same analysis that the CIA has used and properly labeling it as "blowback." Go check some of my earlier threads particularly the one on Robert Pape's interview and book.
Pape wasn't even opposed to PGWI and cites the permanent bases in the ME being built all during the 1990's.

The irony is patteeu was a so called "isolationist" during the Balkan intervention. It's only when a D intervenes he takes issue.

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 09:09 AM
No. Did Bush's critics rally to support him when foreigners called him names? Are Iranians less sophisticated than Bush critics?

We didn't just call Iran's president names. We called Iran an Axis of Evil. Plus, and most importantly, we are in two totally different positions. In one case, we are the super power of the world. In the other, Iran is a country that in recent generations witnesses serious occupation from Western countries, and they reside in a region that has experienced significant imperialism from Western civilization. It's not at all realistic to think that Iran can significantly influence United States domestic affairs and government. However, it is very possible (and historically true), to think that the United States can significantly influence Iranian domestic affairs and government.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 09:15 AM
...We're fighting the people of those areas who don't want us there. Instead the entire target of terrorism in America has been shifted to nation states NOT involved in 9/11!

When nations harbor/permit/accommodate terrorist organizations/groups that are responsible for terrorist acts, they have themselves to "blame" for whatever interventions may result. And, in truth, many of their citizens if not most hate terrorists among them as much as we do. It isn't black and white, or neat, as you would have it. Complication and nuance make foreign policy very difficult....and sitting on the sidelines, while appealing in many ways, solves nothing. Appeasement did not work in 1938, and it still doesn't.

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 09:22 AM
Another strawman. I've said I was pro-Cold War in the main. That post Cold War I do not support deeper military intervention in the ME—which is the same position of Ronald Reagan who pulled out of Beirut and who states these things in his autobiography. Why? Because that's the cause of terrorism, is blowback and these guys never forget.

I'm not sure why you think you need to make Reagan an example of someone you think the U.S. needs to "get back to." He was completely interventionist. Completely. Latin America, Europe, the Middle East. I know your movement needs to connect to Reagan to maintain some sort of popular presence, but it's completely dishonest.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 09:37 AM
I'm not sure why you think you need to make Reagan an example of someone you think the U.S. needs to "get back to." He was completely interventionist. Completely. Latin America, Europe, the Middle East. I know your movement needs to connect to Reagan to maintain some sort of popular presence, but it's completely dishonest.

Their "faction" has no real credibility without some sort of connection to an authentic modern conservative presence, like Reagan; so they grasp at straws, emphasizing their few commonalities in hopes of achieving some measure of credibility, and thus, relevance. It's worked to some degree, I suppose. Lew Rockwell and company have a devoted and passionate, if misguided, following.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 09:47 AM
Another strawman. I've said I was pro-Cold War in the main. That post Cold War I do not support deeper military intervention in the ME—which is the same position of Ronald Reagan who pulled out of Beirut and who states these things in his autobiography.

Not true. This is a lie that you've peddled again and again. He didn't say this in his autobiography.

I actually picked up a copy of Reagan's autobiography specifically to check on this and found, to no surprise, that it wasn't true. Ron Paul, or whoever writes his columns, fabricated the quote that you rely on for this falsehood. Look it up and you'll see. Shame on Paul and shame on you.

Here, I found a google books copy for you so you can see for yourself: An American Life by Ronald Reagan (http://books.google.com/books?id=cYnFVI7PW1YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=an+american+life+reagan&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

What you'll find, if you bother to look, is that a couple of the sentences used in Paul's fabricated quote are in the book but they are in completely different passages not part of a single passage as Paul indicates. Furthermore, part of the Paul "quote" isn't in the book at all. What Paul does is he drags a couple of sentences from various parts of the book and glues them together with some completely bogus material in order to create what looks like a re-thinking of Reagan's entire attitude toward US involvement in the middle east. If you actually read the book though, that's not the case at all. This is worse than taking a quote out of context. This is taking a couple of out of context quotes and stitching them together into a completely different concept in the most fraudulent of ways.

Oh, and when you decide to keep your head in the sand and ignore this, don't forget to tell me that I've got nothing. LOL

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 09:56 AM
When nations harbor/permit/accommodate terrorist organizations/groups that are responsible for terrorist acts, they have themselves to "blame" for whatever interventions may result. And, in truth, many of their citizens if not most hate terrorists among them as much as we do. It isn't black and white, or neat, as you would have it. Complication and nuance make foreign policy very difficult....and sitting on the sidelines, while appealing in many ways, solves nothing. Appeasement did not work in 1938, and it still doesn't.

Al Qaeda is not a state-sponsored terrorist group. It is stateless.
That's one of the half-truths being used to go after states like Iraq and Iran. AQ is Iran's enemy too. We did them a big favor breaking up the camps in Afghanistan.

In the case of Afghanistan, however, AQ sponsored the Taliban—not the other way around. The Taliban has disconnected from AQ and has made offers to settle if we get out. Except we have our bases all along that natural gas pipeline....which is classic mercantilism using conflict, exaggerating it spicing it with half-truths to stay into the country permanently. This is NO different what the British Empire did in India.

We did what we had a right to do there—break up the camps try to capture AQ heads. But our work is done except for the border area and working with Pakistan. But Iraq and Iran have nothing to do with the terrorists that make America a target at home. That's being done for Israel and pushed by the Israel Lobby who the NC get huge donations from and are closely connected to. That's why I joined J street which another pro-Israel lobby that disagrees with the NCs.

So calling another country's terrorists ours is another NC lie.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 09:57 AM
Not true. This is a lie that you've peddled again and again. He didn't say this in his autobiography.

I actually picked up a copy of Reagan's autobiography specifically to check on this and found, to no surprise, that it wasn't true. Ron Paul, or whoever writes his columns, fabricated the quote that you rely on for this falsehood. Look it up and you'll see. Shame on Paul and shame on you.

Here, I found a google books copy for you so you can see for yourself: An American Life by Ronald Reagan (http://books.google.com/books?id=cYnFVI7PW1YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=an+american+life+reagan&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Oooppsie-Pooopsie....... LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 09:58 AM
Kotter I'm done. So don't think I agree with anything you post on this if I don't respond. It's just that I've gone through all the same arguments before with patteeu ad nauseum. It's a waste of time. So just look up my archive.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 10:00 AM
Kotter I'm done. So don't think I agree with anything you post on this if I don't respond. It's just that I've gone through all the same arguments before with patteeu ad nauseum. It's a waste of time. So just look up my archive.

I'll do better....and check the autobiography. I suspect Patty is right on this point anyway. Heh.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:00 AM
I didn't get that quote from Ron Paul btw. Fact remains, RR pulled out of Beirut.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:02 AM
I'll do better....and check the autobiography. I suspect Patty is right on this point anyway. Heh.

LMAO
Google books huh? Not the hard copy?

I suspect it could be a later reprinting too. Check the ©s. That's happened before, even in just cookbooks where things get changed. So I supsect this or it's another book which I will check.....but the quote is not from Ron Paul.

Fact still remains RR did pull out of Beirut. What an appeaser per your logic.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 10:03 AM
I didn't get that quote from Ron Paul btw. Fact remains, RR pulled out of Beirut.

Yet, you/someone else manufactures a quote on the important points of "why" we left, and "how" it applies to foreign policy in the ME, generally....in a transparent attempt to buttress your own isolationist lunacy and to associate yourselves with RR, to gain some phoney measure of credibility for your fringe group?

Nice. LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:06 AM
Yet, you/someone else manufacture a quote on the important points of "why" we left, and "how" it applies to foreign policy in the ME, generally....in a transparent attempt to associate yourselves with RR, to gain some phoney measure of credibility for your fringe group?

Nice. LMAO
Yeah right, but I can be accused of manufacturing quotes. Do you not see the irony in your statement? And google books? LOl!
If NCs engaged in known forgeries, like the yellow cake forgeries....do you not think they'd not alter other things? I did not say this was a fact. I said I suspected it.
Until I check it further that is. I am not going to take pat's word for it.

Go ahead and justify mass murder of Persians all you want.


Fact remains RR pulled out of Beirut due to the bombing of the Marine barracks. You have proof otherwise? Guess not...hence the smiley.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:16 AM
I'll do better....and check the autobiography. I suspect Patty is right on this point anyway. Heh.

LMAO
You say he's right BEFORE you actually check the actual hard copy book?
Epic FAIL....you're mind is made up. Hope you don't ever sit on a jury! ROFL

I just googled the quote. Ron Paul is on OFFICIAL record in the House on using those quotes by RR. Still that's not where I first got it.

Here's the evidence:
So both you and patteeu claim one of the most honest men in politics is making up the quote now?

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html)


I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.

Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.



When a dyed-in-the-wool NeoCon says Paul is a liar by making up out of whole cloth these words and spoke about them officially to be part of the record....one has to wonder about patteeu's claims and his google-book! ROFLROFL

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:23 AM
What you'll find, if you bother to look, is that a couple of the sentences used in Paul's fabricated quote are in the book but they are in completely different passages not part of a single passage as Paul indicates.

That's not at all material. So what if it's another passage. That would only be material if it alters that one point by removing context. Fact is Ronald Reagan did pull us out of Beirut.


Furthermore, part of the Paul "quote" isn't in the book at all. What Paul does is he drags a couple of sentences from various parts of the book and glues them together with some completely bogus material in order to create what looks like a re-thinking of Reagan's entire attitude toward US involvement in the middle east. If you actually read the book though, that's not the case at all. This is worse than taking a quote out of context. This is taking a couple of out of context quotes and stitching them together into a completely different concept in the most fraudulent of ways.
Then provide your full quotes here and save the time.

Don't just talk about it by demanding the reading of a whole book on the spot. ( I am trying to get out of here and this is making me late...but you'll accuse me of running or that you're correct if I go off.)

There is nothing really wrong with taking parts of quotes that are relevant to a situation if it's still essentially true. Or if there's a lot of material in between that's irrelevant or just too long winded. People take quotes out of more material here all the time.

I'll do even better than Mr. Kotter, I'll go to the library and get the book. Just as you posted with me on other issues in the past, I suspect this is a huge deflection and red herring.

Oh, and when you decide to keep your head in the sand and ignore this, don't forget to tell me that I've got nothing. LOLThere you go again...projecting.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:26 AM
My original analysis of this lie was done with the hard copy from my local library, BEP. After checking that google book entry for Reagan's autobiography, I can see it's going to be difficult for you to verify that I'm right about my accusation because some of the key pages are missing. I believe you can get to those pages through the search function, but they aren't easy to browse to. It should be adequate for proving that Paul's quote (a lie you regurgitated in post 105 with a false citation) doesn't appear in the text in it's entirety, but my more detailed allegations are difficult to see so here is a breakdown. You're welcome to find a hard copy for verification.


Paul's quote attributed falsely to Ronald Reagan:

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."

Dark Orange - p466 of An American Life (Reagan's autobiography)

Purple - p462 of An American Life

Dark Green - different part of p462 of An American Life

Blue - Not present in An American Life

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:28 AM
My original analysis of this lie was done with the hard copy from my local library, BEP. After checking that google book entry for Reagan's autobiography, I can see it's going to be difficult for you to verify that I'm right about my accusation because some of the key pages are missing. I believe you can get to those pages through the search function, but they aren't easy to browse to. It should be adequate for proving that Paul's quote (a lie you regurgitated in post 105 with a false citation) doesn't appear in the text in it's entirety, but my more detailed allegations are difficult to see so here is a breakdown. You're welcome to find a hard copy for verification.


Paul's quote attributed falsely to Ronald Reagan:



Dark Orange - p466 of An American Life (Reagan's autobiography)

Purple - p462 of An American Life

Dark Green - different part of p462 of An American Life

Blue - Not present in An American Life

That doesn't change anything but the position of the quotes. RR still said those things. I asked you to put the stuff in between to see if it had nothing to do with Reagan's point and would therefore not be necessary to include.

That does not make it a fabrication but in the delusional reality of a NC it would.

You've proved nothing certainly not it being a "fabrication." EPIC FAIL on this being your argument. What a red herring.

Now include the rest.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:31 AM
We didn't just call Iran's president names. We called Iran an Axis of Evil. Plus, and most importantly, we are in two totally different positions. In one case, we are the super power of the world. In the other, Iran is a country that in recent generations witnesses serious occupation from Western countries, and they reside in a region that has experienced significant imperialism from Western civilization. It's not at all realistic to think that Iran can significantly influence United States domestic affairs and government. However, it is very possible (and historically true), to think that the United States can significantly influence Iranian domestic affairs and government.

Sorry Jenson, but I've got bigger fish to fry right now. I didn't mean to ignore you, but I've been waiting for BEP to retell this lie for a while now. She's used that quote something like 18 times now and it's time she and Ron Paul were exposed.

Foreign critics of Bush didn't always limit their criticisms to Bush by name either, but democrats and other domestic critics of Bush were able to understand that any foreign anger directed toward America was, in their opinion, directed at Bush and not them. I don't think the Axis of Evil speech helped the Iranian regime, just like I don't think media hit jobs against people like Dan Quayle, George Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin help those people.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:32 AM
Sorry Jenson, but I've got bigger fish to fry right now.
I'm so flattered you see me, a true conservative and RR supporter, as a threat! LMAO

I didn't mean to ignore you, but I've been waiting for BEP to retell this lie for a while now. She's used that quote something like 18 times now and it's time she and Ron Paul were exposed.
But you haven't prooved it. Johnny Cochran!

Think I'll make it my sig line.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:39 AM
That doesn't change anything but the position of the quotes. RR still said those things. I asked you to put the stuff in between to see if it had nothing to do with Reagan's point and would therefore not be necessary to include.

That does not make it a fabrication but in the delusional reality of a NC it would.

You've proved nothing certainly not it being a "fabrication." EPIC FAIL on this being your argument. What a red herring.

Now include the rest.

I borrowed the book from the library. I took notes. I don't have it memorized. I'm sure your library has a copy. There's enough of the book available on googlebooks to prove that the Ron Paul quote is fabricated because it's presented as a contiguous whole when the parts that actually came from the book are, in reality scattered. Beyond that, I've given the specific page numbers of the parts of the quote that actually appear in the text. If I haven't carried the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Reagan didn't believe what you want to think he believed, I've at least carried the burden on proving that Paul lied and IMO I've shifted the burden to you to find out just how far that lie goes if you have any sense of self-respect at all.

Your quote is a lie. That's on Ron Paul. Continuing to stand by it without doing any due diligence now that you've been given the heads up is on you.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Your desperation is showing by your grabbing at straws and strawmen, Mr. Cochran.
You just showed those words of RR are not lies but true.

Your only argument, a weak one, is the sentences are from different parts. Pure deflection, spin and twisting. You're a master at this.
It doesn't change the FACT the RR pulled out and that's what RR thought of it. Nope not at all. You're just acting like a swarmy defense attorney.

And saying it's on Ron Paul with no evidence of anyone in Congress challenging him on the record is actually proof it was never considered a lie.

NeoCons=lie factories

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:47 AM
I'm not sure why you think you need to make Reagan an example of someone you think the U.S. needs to "get back to." He was completely interventionist. Completely. Latin America, Europe, the Middle East. I know your movement needs to connect to Reagan to maintain some sort of popular presence, but it's completely dishonest.

Yes it is.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 10:49 AM
It's not a selective citation if you read more about what he said. RR recognized the dangers of getting more involved in the ME because of how they are and how we'd become a target if we didn't get out. RR said it was the biggest mistake of his presidency. Too bad Bush Sr didn't have the same sense. It's the building of military bases since PGWI and all through the 90's that was the beginning of terrorism coming to our shores.

There also happens to be some conservative history scholars like Robert Pape who researched this and makes the same claims.... as well as former CIA including whistleblowers like Scheuer. So it's is far from a selective citation...it hits right at the heart of the problem and RR and the rest of them are right about it.

FDR is someone I have given credit for steering us through a war successfully BUT HE DID it it HALF the TIME too and had congress Declare War. The difference being of course that he was fighting nation states which requires conventional war....this is not apples and oranges. We're fighting the people of those areas who don't want us there. Instead the entire target of terrorism in America has been shifted to nation states NOT involved in 9/11!

:LOL: I can't decide whether it's more funny that you didn't think it was selective (when really it was slapped together like sausage from bits and pieces and filler material that didn't even come from the pig in the first place) or that you pretend that you've actually read what Ronald Reagan said instead of just fraudulent reflections on Lew Rockwell's website.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:51 AM
You still have NOT proved it's a lie and have zero leg to stand on. As evidenced with your nervous laughing.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:55 AM
I borrowed the book from the library. I took notes. I don't have it memorized. I'm sure your library has a copy. There's enough of the book available on googlebooks to prove that the Ron Paul quote is fabricated because it's presented as a contiguous whole when the parts that actually came from the book are, in reality scattered. Beyond that, I've given the specific page numbers of the parts of the quote that actually appear in the text. If I haven't carried the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Reagan didn't believe what you want to think he believed, I've at least carried the burden on proving that Paul lied and IMO I've shifted the burden to you to find out just how far that lie goes if you have any sense of self-respect at all.

I don't believe you or you'd type those notes out to fill in the missing passages. Contiguous whole? You mean out of context? Which you haven't used as terms yet. I suspect the words you use are selectively being done because it's not out of context. Lawyers manipulate language like that so they can claim they said otherwise at a later point. I mean really should we put the contiguous whole to every quote by each Founder? You don't do that.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 10:57 AM
You sound awefully defensive about this one patteeu. Very suspicious.
Me thinks you doth protest too much....afterall you believed forgerers.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:03 AM
Your desperation is showing by your grabbing at straws and strawmen, Mr. Cochran.
You just showed those words of RR are not lies but true.

Your only argument, a weak one, is the sentences are from different parts. Pure deflection, spin and twisting. You're a master at this.
It doesn't change the FACT the RR pulled out and that's what RR thought of it. Nope not at all. You're just acting like a swarmy defense attorney.

And saying it's on Ron Paul with no evidence of anyone in Congress challenging him on the record is actually proof it was never considered a lie.

NeoCons=lie factories

Here's a quote from BEP that came from different parts of her posts in this thread:

Conservatives like me encourage nuclear proliferation.

Post 102

Post 104

And another:

Bush is someone I have given credit for steering us through a war successfully

Post 100

Post 107

And one more:

patteeu is right about it, we need the military for trade and for oil.

We have to take another country down.

Post 109

Post 107

Post 102

Post 90

KC native
02-02-2010, 11:05 AM
Here's a quote from BEP that came from different parts of her posts in this thread:



Post 102

Post 104

And another:



Post 100

Post 107

And one more:



Post 109

Post 107

Post 102

Post 90

/thread rofl

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:06 AM
You sound awefully defensive about this one patteeu. Very suspicious.
Me thinks you doth protest too much....afterall you believed forgerers.

Yeah, you sound like the black knight in a Monte Python skit.

http://ripplingpond.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/monty_python_black_knight.jpg

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 11:08 AM
Here's a quote from BEP that came from different parts of her posts in this thread:



Post 102

Post 104

And another:



Post 100

Post 107

And one more:



Post 109

Post 107

Post 102

Post 90

Except what you're claiming Paul did is not that. I said if it changed the context it would be one thing ( paraphrased) but you haven't used those terms.

I see you keep avoiding answering the clarification of the words you claim being re-positioned to mean otherwise. You're just deflecting here by avoiding an answer to this.

You must really have nuthin' pat.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:12 AM
I don't believe you or you'd type those notes out to fill in the missing passages. Contiguous whole? You mean out of context? Which you haven't used as terms yet. I suspect the words you use are selectively being done because it's not out of context. Lawyers manipulate language like that so they can claim they said otherwise at a later point. I mean really should we put the contiguous whole to every quote by each Founder? You don't do that.

You quoted my post where I called the parts of the quote that were actually from the book "out of context." Of course, the parts that weren't in the book to begin with didn't ever have a context.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:15 AM
Except what you're claiming Paul did is not that. I said if it changed the context it would be one thing ( paraphrased) but you haven't used those terms.

I see you keep avoiding answering the clarification of the words you claim being re-positioned to mean otherwise. You're just deflecting here by avoiding an answer to this.

You must really have nuthin' pat.

I've already said it very clearly, but I'll repeat here for your benefit.

The words that were repositioned are out of context AND they mean otherwise. The context changes Reagan's meaning as does the elimination of the completely fabricated passage. Reagan didn't say or mean what you and Ron Paul tried to make people believe he said or meant.

Let me know if there are any other magic words I need to use.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 11:27 AM
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/abinidab/straws.jpg

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 11:29 AM
I've already said it very clearly, but I'll repeat here for your benefit.

The words that were repositioned are out of context AND they mean otherwise. The context changes Reagan's meaning as does the elimination of the completely fabricated passage. Reagan didn't say or mean what you and Ron Paul tried to make people believe he said or meant.

Let me know if there are any other magic words I need to use.

I asked you that earlier but you never answered it. It's not me that's the problem here it's your communication. ( barring not seeing some of your posts) I am still not taking your word for it ( until I see the omitted passages myself which you fail to provide mysteriously) since RR did in FACT remove us from Beirut.

KC native
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
I asked you that earlier but you never answered it. It's not me that's the problem here it's your communication. I am still not taking your word for it ( until I see the omitted passages myself which you fail to provide mysteriously) since RR did in FACT remove us from Beirut.

Yea, but he put us in Latin America. Don't forget about his "drug war" excursions into the southern hemisphere.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 11:45 AM
I asked you that earlier but you never answered it. It's not me that's the problem here it's your communication.

Wrong again. It's ridiculous that you think there's any significance in these magic words, but I used them in post 114. You didn't start to make a big deal out of the (mistaken) idea that I hadn't used them until post 134.

I am still not taking your word for it ( until I see the omitted passages myself which you fail to provide mysteriously) since RR did in FACT remove us from Beirut.

I think it's good that you want to see the passages in full and I applaud you if you're actually going to go get the book and look at them. I've saved you a lot of effort by providing page numbers (I was using a hard back version).

But what you can do right now is go back and look at that quote and read it without the parts that were made up out of thin air (the final two sentences that are in blue in my color coded version). Without those two sentences, the quote is ambiguous about what policy changes Reagan thought were necessary. Leaving aside the dishonesty of slapping actual quotes together as if they were intended to flow directly from one to the other, the bigger problem is the money shot at the end that Paul (or whoever writes his column) just made up.

Removing us from Beirut and coming to the conclusion that we should withdraw from the entire region and adopt a non-interventionist policy there are two completely different propositions.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 12:05 PM
Where are the omitted passages? I see you still got nothing.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 12:22 PM
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have.”


Orange part all one section undivided. Changes nothing.

4 pages later we have the next two which do not materially alter the message.To boot these two lines are both on the same page 462:

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave.

Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.
He doesn’t like to think of turning tail and leaving yet still admits due to ME politics he was forced to rethink our policy. This is not any evidence of a lie. This is the same message in the quote even if combined together. You make them purple and green as that makes them distinctly different but it's not material at all.
There's probably just other material in between that's not necessary to the basic message.

"If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."
Are you sure you just missed it? I doubt Paul is wrong on missing this as he would have noticed it more than you.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2010, 12:36 PM
A + B = X, true...okay, fine.

B + C = Y, true...okay. fine.

C + D = Z, true...okay, fine.

HOWEVER BEP, that does NOT mean that:

A + D = Z

It may, it could....but it does NOT logically follow from what we know to be facts. In this case, actually, most of RR's other action and statements would suggest it does NOT.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 12:58 PM
Orange part all one section undivided. Changes nothing.

Read by itself or in it's original context it means something much more limited and quite different than as a part of the Paul's fabricated paragraph. Without the rest of the fabricated paragraph, it doesn't carry Paul's water the way he wants it to.

4 pages later we have the next two which do not materially alter the message.To boot these two lines are both on the same page 462:


He doesn’t like to think of turning tail and leaving yet still admits due to ME politics he was forced to rethink our policy. This is not any evidence of a lie. This is the same message in the quote even if combined together. You make them purple and green as that makes them distinctly different but it's not material at all.
There's probably just other material in between that's not necessary to the basic message.

Not 4 pages later. 4 pages EARLIER. I have no problem with leaving out material in the middle of a quote if it doesn't materially change the nature of the message and if the author indicates to the reader that he's done so. Clearly Paul failed in the latter (and, of course, I'm asserting that the message was altered too). Even if you don't have a problem with Paul's deception with respect to omitted material, how can you justify the fact that he's changed the order of these quotes?

The purple and green indicate that, once again, despite coming from the same page, the text being quoted as a continguous passage, in fact, is not.

Are you sure you just missed it? I doubt Paul is wrong on missing this as he would have noticed it more than you.

I looked carefully and I'm sure it isn't there. On the slim chance that I somehow missed it, I'm confident that you will set the record straight.

I doubted that he'd completely fabricate a quote too, but then I doubted that he'd mix and match disparate quotes in the dishonest way that I've already demonstrated. I expected to find the whole quote and wondered whether or not the context would support Paul's conclusion. I expected spin but what I found was fraud.

Norman Einstein
02-02-2010, 05:00 PM
Please child, it has more to do with your lack of knowledge on matters you try to interject in. It's best to keep thy mouth shut and let people think you're stupid then opening it and proving them right.

Dumb ass punk kid, go back to momma.

Hog Farmer
02-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Damn, you guys have too much energy for me.

Ok, it looks now that Armadeginacrackdead is having second thoughts since our so called missile defense system is headed that way. It's reported he is willing to trade prisoners, which means we get our three spys back and he's also willing to send nuclear material to Russia in return for fuel.

Get back on the subject guys !

HC_Chief
02-03-2010, 09:41 AM
I wonder if the little f*cker was referring to this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575042512362580720.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

Looks like Iran will have satellites soon.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2010, 09:51 AM
Just so you know pat I went to my local library today for RR autobio book....but have to wait a few days for it to come from another larger library in the county.

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 10:45 AM
Damn, you guys have too much energy for me.

Ok, it looks now that Armadeginacrackdead is having second thoughts since our so called missile defense system is headed that way. It's reported he is willing to trade prisoners, which means we get our three spys back and he's also willing to send nuclear material to Russia in return for fuel.

Get back on the subject guys !

You are absolutely no fun! whatsmynameagain is really a dumb ass that needs to be sent to the corner.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 06:04 PM
Well, I believe its February 11th in Iran. I'm all excited!

BIG_DADDY
02-10-2010, 06:08 PM
Well, I believe its February 11th in Iran. I'm all excited!

That guy is such a douchebag.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 06:10 PM
That guy is such a douchebag.

Sorry. I don't mean to be.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 06:12 PM
Well, I believe its February 11th in Iran. I'm all excited!

Today is the 10th, big Daddy :D

Iowanian
02-10-2010, 06:14 PM
I'm Shocked by the statement just released in Iran....but valentines day seems more appropriate

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U54NM9QE5VY/ScSXN_hYBFI/AAAAAAAAGdU/GHUfS91CSS0/s400/Obama-Iran.jpg

Iowanian
02-10-2010, 06:18 PM
America Trembles with the release of Iran's new division of Super-Tank

http://www.irintech.com/x1/images/jean/spiderman_camel.jpg

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 06:18 PM
Today is the 10th, big Daddy :D


Irans on the other side of the world. Ima thinkin they're 12 hours ahead.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 07:44 PM
Irans on the other side of the world. Ima thinkin they're 12 hours ahead.

LMAO....fair enough

VAChief
02-10-2010, 08:28 PM
I'm Shocked by the statement just released in Iran....but valentines day seems more appropriate

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U54NM9QE5VY/ScSXN_hYBFI/AAAAAAAAGdU/GHUfS91CSS0/s400/Obama-Iran.jpg

In that spirit...

91436

whatsmynameagain
02-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Dumb ass punk kid, go back to momma.


:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

kid? exactly the kind of response i would expect from a retard like you. keep on talking to me and ill keep on ROFL, AT YOU!

whatsmynameagain
02-10-2010, 10:36 PM
You are absolutely no fun! whatsmynameagain is really a dumb ass that needs to be sent to the corner.

:thumb:

alanm
02-10-2010, 10:49 PM
I'm Shocked by the statement just released in Iran....but valentines day seems more appropriate

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_U54NM9QE5VY/ScSXN_hYBFI/AAAAAAAAGdU/GHUfS91CSS0/s400/Obama-Iran.jpg

I'm not shocked. I mean after seeing stories on the cover of Globe, National Examiner and such it was only a matter of time before they they were uncovered. NTTATWWT. Personally I can't see what Barry sees in the little guy. :hmmm:

L.A. Chieffan
02-10-2010, 10:53 PM
so?

orange
02-10-2010, 10:59 PM
so?

Iran permanently suspends Gmail, announces national e-mail s3rvice
February 11th, 2010 - 12:46 pm ICT by ANI

Tehran (Iran), Feb 11(ANI): Iran’s telecommunications agency has announced that it has permanently suspended Google’s e-mail s3rvices and plans to roll out a national e-mail s3rvice for Iranian citizens.

The announced suspension of gmail comes as Iranian authorities have deployed force across Tehran to conduct last-minute security sweeps and warn residents to refrain from joining anti-government protests planned for Thursday, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Fox News reports.

According to reports, police have confiscated satellite dishes from residential rooftops, and mobile phones are being searched, and in some cases, taken by patrolling officials in certain areas of the capital where protests have erupted in the past.

Iranians have also reported widespread s3rvice disruptions of text messaging s3rvices.

Criticizing the Government over the move, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said: “While information technologies are enabling people around the world to communicate like never before, the Iranian government seems determined to deny its citizens access to information, the ability to express themselves freely, network and share ideas.”

“Virtual walls won’t work in the 21st century any better than physical walls worked in the 20th century. The Iranian people are dynamic and determined and will find a way to overcome the obstacles the Iranian Government puts in their way,” he added.

Iranian authorities tasked with upholding Islamic values have also been scouring the streets, harassing people wearing green, the trademark colour of the opposition, according to witness accounts posted on opposition Web sites.

The government typically orchestrates large, carnival-like rallies and demonstrations to mark the February 11 anniversary of the Islamic Republic.

For this year’s events, opposition leaders have called for protesters to demonstrate against the regime. That has set the stage for clashes between authorities and demonstrators, who have taken to the streets repeatedly to protest the outcome of presidential elections in June.

Government officials, meanwhile, ratcheted up threats against any protests, vowing to confront demonstrators on the streets and calling for government supporters to turn out in large numbers. (ANI)


More at :http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/iran-permanently-suspends-gmail-announces-national-e-mail-ShamWow!_100318248.html

Taco John
02-10-2010, 11:05 PM
Apparently Gmail was a powerful tool of the Iranian resistance.

munkey
02-10-2010, 11:15 PM
Iran permanently suspends Gmail, announces national e-mail s3rvice
February 11th, 2010 - 12:46 pm ICT by ANI

Tehran (Iran), Feb 11(ANI): Iran’s telecommunications agency has announced that it has permanently suspended Google’s e-mail s3rvices and plans to roll out a national e-mail s3rvice for Iranian citizens.

The announced suspension of gmail comes as Iranian authorities have deployed force across Tehran to conduct last-minute security sweeps and warn residents to refrain from joining anti-government protests planned for Thursday, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Fox News reports.

According to reports, police have confiscated satellite dishes from residential rooftops, and mobile phones are being searched, and in some cases, taken by patrolling officials in certain areas of the capital where protests have erupted in the past.

Iranians have also reported widespread s3rvice disruptions of text messaging s3rvices.

Criticizing the Government over the move, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said: “While information technologies are enabling people around the world to communicate like never before, the Iranian government seems determined to deny its citizens access to information, the ability to express themselves freely, network and share ideas.”

“Virtual walls won’t work in the 21st century any better than physical walls worked in the 20th century. The Iranian people are dynamic and determined and will find a way to overcome the obstacles the Iranian Government puts in their way,” he added.

Iranian authorities tasked with upholding Islamic values have also been scouring the streets, harassing people wearing green, the trademark colour of the opposition, according to witness accounts posted on opposition Web sites.

The government typically orchestrates large, carnival-like rallies and demonstrations to mark the February 11 anniversary of the Islamic Republic.

For this year’s events, opposition leaders have called for protesters to demonstrate against the regime. That has set the stage for clashes between authorities and demonstrators, who have taken to the streets repeatedly to protest the outcome of presidential elections in June.

Government officials, meanwhile, ratcheted up threats against any protests, vowing to confront demonstrators on the streets and calling for government supporters to turn out in large numbers. (ANI)


More at :http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/iran-permanently-suspends-gmail-announces-national-e-mail-ShamWow!_100318248.html


How does this line of thinking even exist anymore...it's amazing to me. Maybe they'll blow themselves up....one can only hope.

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 03:14 AM
OK, its 4 a.m. which means it's 4 p.m. in Iran.

I haven't been shocked by a damn thing.

If They think cutting off G mail to it's own people is going to shock the arrogarant powers it ain't workin.

If they're not gonna blow something up we need for Israel to remind them what shock really is.

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 03:23 AM
This is it . still not shocked, but let the pounding begin! The IAEA says Iran could develope a bomb within two years. Thats what the idiots said about NK two days before they tested their first. If you don't think Iran is already there you're probably dead wrong.


Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a 'Nuclear State'
Thursday, February 11, 2010







TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Thursday that the Islamic republic has produced its first package of highly enriched uranium just two days after beginning the process.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday told hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state."

"The first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said, referring to the recently begun process of enriching Iran's uranium stockpile to higher levels.

Enriching uranium produces fuel for a nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons.

Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level.

The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new U.N. sanctions.

Tehran has said it wants to further enrich the uranium — which is still substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.

But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran's position that it was not seeking to build nuclear weapons.

"When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb," he told the crowd. "If we wanted to manufacture a bomb we would announce it."

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to export its enriched uranium and have it enriched further and returned to the country in the form of fuel rods for the Tehran reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.

Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested changes to the international plan were rejected.

DJ's left nut
02-11-2010, 08:09 AM
The answer to Iran is the same as it's ever been -- alternative energy.

Make crude oil obsolete and these guys don't have a pot to piss in. Let them wander about blindly in the desert for another thousand years.

Sanctions won't do a damn thing because we still need Iran. We can't go to war with them because they'll jack up crude costs so much that we'll barely be able to pay to keep our armored divisions running. One the homefront we'll have another economic crapfest (remember, it was rising fuel costs that set this whole thing off).

We need to keep plugging away on alternative energies so we can tell these lunatics to piss off once and for all.

InChiefsHell
02-11-2010, 08:20 AM
Not hearing anything on the news about this yet...if this is the announcement...my reaction is...meh...

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 09:25 AM
The answer to Iran is the same as it's ever been -- alternative energy.

Make crude oil obsolete and these guys don't have a pot to piss in. Let them wander about blindly in the desert for another thousand years.

Sanctions won't do a damn thing because we still need Iran. We can't go to war with them because they'll jack up crude costs so much that we'll barely be able to pay to keep our armored divisions running. One the homefront we'll have another economic crapfest (remember, it was rising fuel costs that set this whole thing off).

We need to keep plugging away on alternative energies so we can tell these lunatics to piss off once and for all.


Or , we can kill Imanutjob and Khomeni , dismantle their nuclear plants ,set their people free and take their oil.

wild1
02-11-2010, 09:32 AM
Not hearing anything on the news about this yet...if this is the announcement...my reaction is...meh...

From the discussion in another thread, they are confirming that they are <=1 year away from weapons grade.

Norman Einstein
02-11-2010, 09:53 AM
:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

kid? exactly the kind of response i would expect from a retard like you. keep on talking to me and ill keep on ROFL, AT YOU!

You don't really have anything in your life to cling to do you?

If you aren't a kid < 12, I'd be surprised. Your actions give account for your mental age at the least. Keep giggling little girl, it's the best you've got.

banyon
02-11-2010, 09:58 AM
The answer to Iran is the same as it's ever been -- alternative energy.

Make crude oil obsolete and these guys don't have a pot to piss in. Let them wander about blindly in the desert for another thousand years.

Sanctions won't do a damn thing because we still need Iran. We can't go to war with them because they'll jack up crude costs so much that we'll barely be able to pay to keep our armored divisions running. One the homefront we'll have another economic crapfest (remember, it was rising fuel costs that set this whole thing off).

We need to keep plugging away on alternative energies so we can tell these lunatics to piss off once and for all.

Agree with this 1000%

Donger
02-11-2010, 10:04 AM
The answer to Iran is the same as it's ever been -- alternative energy.

Make crude oil obsolete and these guys don't have a pot to piss in. Let them wander about blindly in the desert for another thousand years.

Sanctions won't do a damn thing because we still need Iran. We can't go to war with them because they'll jack up crude costs so much that we'll barely be able to pay to keep our armored divisions running. One the homefront we'll have another economic crapfest (remember, it was rising fuel costs that set this whole thing off).

We need to keep plugging away on alternative energies so we can tell these lunatics to piss off once and for all.

We actually very little crude from Iran.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 10:10 AM
We actually very little crude from Iran.

Sure, but you can't pretend that any action involving Iran wouldnt' greatly affect the spot price of oil, etc.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 10:11 AM
Or , we can kill Imanutjob and Khomeni , dismantle their nuclear plants ,set their people free and take their oil.

You want to run through exactly how we pull that off? Another Iraq style invasion?

Donger
02-11-2010, 10:11 AM
Sure, but you can't pretend that any action involving Iran wouldnt' greatly affect the spot price of oil, etc.

Oh, it most certainly would. I was referring directly to the "we need Iran" part.

DJ's left nut
02-11-2010, 11:12 AM
We actually very little crude from Iran.

Directly, perhaps not.

But they play a large role in the international market and if they start dinking with the price, it's going to get to us. Additionally, we do get a lot from Venezuela and I believe they would absolutely directly raise prices. If Iran simply pulled their exports from the market or drove the prices up, it would cause such a strain on demand that we would be in trouble no matter who we get our oil from.

I'll be honest - from a purely theoretical perspective, I'm hawkish on Iran. I'd love nothing more than to go over there and topple the crazy MFers. However, we'd have to undertake the greatest nation-building project the world's seen since WWII. With our already precarious economic footing, not to mention a military that's already spread thin, it's just not a good idea. Once you throw in the fact that our petroleum prices will certainly go up on account of it, it seems like a trap we certainly don't want to fall into.

These are guys we should never have shown our bellies to. When they thought we might be just crazy enough to blow them off the map, they were pretty compliant. Over the last 5 years, they've seen that the country lacks the nerve follow through on any major threats. Over the last 12 months they've seen that the country's leadership lacks the nerve to do much of anything at all. Do you think it's mere coincidence that he's gotten more mouthy since we sat idly by during the protests?

We've screwed Iran up to the point that we may just be stuck with them. Hopefully Iraq gets on track and a thriving democracy next door will be enough to create an uprising among the Iranian people, but even that timeframe is going to be over decades rather than years.

At this point, unless we can eliminate our dependance on the one thing they have to offer anyone in this world, we're really at an impasse. Should they take pro-active measures like the actual creation/test of a nuke, we might have the political will and international capital to rally enough allies to keep petroleum costs down, but it's hard to say.

The moment we showed that we were paper tigers, we lost the chance to get any kind of pre-emptive traction in Iran.

Norman Einstein
02-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Agree with this 1000%

Sorry, 100% is all anyone is allowed. The other 900% is pure bullshit.

DJ's left nut
02-11-2010, 11:49 AM
Sorry, 100% is all anyone is allowed. The other 900% is pure bullshit.

STFU.

I'm going to bank that other 900% and use it later; I never agree with the guy on anything. I need as many allies as I can come across, be they real, imagined or purely mathmatical.

Taco John
02-11-2010, 11:57 AM
We actually very little crude from Iran.

Oil is a fungible resource.

BigChiefFan
02-11-2010, 12:25 PM
The answer to Iran is the same as it's ever been -- alternative energy.

Make crude oil obsolete and these guys don't have a pot to piss in. Let them wander about blindly in the desert for another thousand years.

Sanctions won't do a damn thing because we still need Iran. We can't go to war with them because they'll jack up crude costs so much that we'll barely be able to pay to keep our armored divisions running. One the homefront we'll have another economic crapfest (remember, it was rising fuel costs that set this whole thing off).

We need to keep plugging away on alternative energies so we can tell these lunatics to piss off once and for all.Good point, however BIG Oil is firmly entrenched in D.C. I agree with your solution, but money talks and the lobbysists, know how to get what they want. Most politicians are bought and paid for. The system is corrupted. What sounds like common sense approaches to people like you and me, have far too many under-the table and sweetheart deals in place, to break the current Good 'Ol Boy Network, for this to be attainable at this point, IMO.

Boone Pickens can't even get Washington to take action, on an abundant amount of Natural Gas in our country.

bowener
02-11-2010, 12:29 PM
**** this bastard, H-bomb the **** out of Iran and teach them a ****ing lesson.

So just to be clear, you want to kill all Iranians because of what one man said?

So, hypothetically you wouldn't mind being absolutely obliterated by a nuclear weapon for something that Obama has said (or whoever you see as representing you personally)?

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 01:59 PM
You want to run through exactly how we pull that off? Another Iraq style invasion?


No invasion:
1) General Patreas requests a face to face meeting with Imanutjob and Iwearadressman. At this meeting he pulls his .45 and shoots both 4 times each. Two in the head, two in the chest

2) Next we send some construction company over with a bunch of pipe wrenches and screwdrivers and take all the bolts out of the Nuc plants until they fall down.

3)Next we announce over the radio that everyone is free to do as they please and that they can even be ghey if they want.

4) we get a bunch of empty barrels and get all their oil and put it in the barrels. we then take the barrels and put them on a boat and point the boat towards Florida.

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 06:15 PM
Just think, If Iran was off the map, what a peacefull middleeast there could be ! There wouldn't be anybody left for us to attack.

Ebolapox
02-12-2010, 07:18 AM
No invasion:
1) General Patreas requests a face to face meeting with Imanutjob and Iwearadressman. At this meeting he pulls his .45 and shoots both 4 times each. Two in the head, two in the chest

2) Next we send some construction company over with a bunch of pipe wrenches and screwdrivers and take all the bolts out of the Nuc plants until they fall down.

3)Next we announce over the radio that everyone is free to do as they please and that they can even be ghey if they want.

4) we get a bunch of empty barrels and get all their oil and put it in the barrels. we then take the barrels and put them on a boat and point the boat towards Florida.

you're missing two steps, HF

5) ???????
6) PROFIT!