PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Ahmadinejad: Iran is determined to eradicate Israel


Donger
08-26-2011, 10:51 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-iran-is-determined-to-eradicate-israel-1.380629

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran was determined to eradicate Israel, ISNA news agency reported Thursday.

"Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA.

"Iran follows this issue (the eradication of Israel) with determination and decisiveness and will never ever withdraw from this standpoint and policy," the Iranian president added in the interview with the Al-Manar network.

The remarks by Ahmadinejad came one day before the annual anti-Israeli rallies named Qods (Jerusalem) Day, which are held nationwide in Iran on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.

Ahmadinejad on Monday said that Iranians and Muslim nations worldwide should hold Qods rallies and show their willingness to dispose of this "infectious tumor and this regime full of rascality."

The Iranian president provoked international condemnation in 2005 when he said that Israel should be eliminated from the map of the Middle East and transferred to Europe or North America.

Jaric
08-26-2011, 10:53 AM
Great. He said the same thing about a week ago.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 10:54 AM
. . . and?

vailpass
08-26-2011, 10:55 AM
How long before Russia slips him an isotope martini to keep him from dragging them into trouble they don't need?

Donger
08-26-2011, 10:55 AM
. . . and?

And nuclear weapons are a good method of achieving that goal.

durtyrute
08-26-2011, 11:01 AM
We will be in Iran soon

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 11:09 AM
We will be in Iran soon

We're already in here, at least since 2003, kidnapping officials and doing terrorist car bombs via CIA and proxies.

Pants
08-26-2011, 11:13 AM
Why can't Israel act on that?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 11:14 AM
Why can't Israel act on that?

Because Donger thinks we're the police of the world and resents the country because it kicked out British Petroleum years ago. Plus he's paranoid.

Pants
08-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Because Donger thinks we're the police of the world and resents the country because it kicked out British Petroleum years ago. Plus he's paranoid.

So you'd be OK if Israel fucked that country up tomorrow?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 11:18 AM
So you'd be OK if Israel ****ed that country up tomorrow?

I wouldn't like the idea ( because we will be accused of supporting it or being behind it) but it's not my job to tell them how to deal with their enemies.


This is my concern on this issue:

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."- Ariel Sharon, 11th Prime Minister of Israel, October 3, 2001.


I think Donger may be Lord Balfour reincarnated.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 11:18 AM
Why can't Israel act on that?

Iran does not yet have the right level of material for a weapon. And Israel carries out missions to prevent them from having it.

Donger
08-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Why can't Israel act on that?

They could, I guess, but I think it would be a little premature.

WilliamTheIrish
08-26-2011, 11:39 AM
We must be nearing the end of the month.

Iran must have a canned press release where they change about six words to their monthly threat to "wipe out the zionists".

World response: *yawn*

Donger response: "We are gonna die". Or: "Iran gonna be rapin' ever'body out there".

vailpass
08-26-2011, 11:41 AM
We must be nearing the end of the month.

Iran must have a canned press release where they change about six words to their monthly threat to "wipe out the zionists".

World response: *yawn*

Donger response: "We are gonna die". Or: "Iran gonna be rapin' ever'body out there".

Do you mean to imply that Iran does not bear being watched very closely?

Donger
08-26-2011, 11:45 AM
Donger response: "We are gonna die". Or: "Iran gonna be rapin' ever'body out there".

I don't understand why anyone would have that impression.

Pants
08-26-2011, 12:27 PM
They could, I guess, but I think it would be a little premature.

Premature? What should be Israel's trigger on this?

Bowser
08-26-2011, 12:30 PM
You forgot to add "BREAKING:" to the thread title.

patteeu
08-26-2011, 12:33 PM
We're already in here, at least since 2003, kidnapping officials and doing terrorist car bombs via CIA and proxies.

Good, if true.

Donger
08-26-2011, 12:35 PM
Premature? What should be Israel's trigger on this?

Confirmation of work on a physics package would be my guess.

Pants
08-26-2011, 12:44 PM
Confirmation of work on a physics package would be my guess.

If another country comes out and says they're committed to destroying the US, I would have no issue with America taking action immediately. I don't understand how those kind of threats can go unpunished. Maybe Iran is devising other ways to harm Israel, it doesn't have to be a nuke.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Maybe Iran is devising other ways to harm Israel, it doesn't have to be a nuke.

You're right it doesn't have to be a nuke and it hasn't been a nuke all these years. They fund a covert proxy war instead. ( The way we do in some countries.) The whole nuke scare thing is just a boogeyman for regime change.

Donger
08-26-2011, 12:53 PM
If another country comes out and says they're committed to destroying the US, I would have no issue with America taking action immediately. I don't understand how those kind of threats can go unpunished. Maybe Iran is devising other ways to harm Israel, it doesn't have to be a nuke.

Iran had a CW program, which they claim has been eliminated.

Pants
08-26-2011, 12:59 PM
Iran had a CW program, which they claim has been eliminated.

Well my point is that even if it's just Iran supplying Hamas/Hezbollah/whatever with weapons, training, agents etc, it should be enough for Israel to act on it using their military since Iran admits it's committed to destroying her.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Well my point is that even if it's just Iran supplying Hamas/Hezbollah/whatever with weapons, training, agents etc, it should be enough for Israel to act on it using their military since Iran admits it's committed to destroying her.

I'm sure it's just a mis-translation....

But, yes, I think that Israel has shown considerable restraint.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 01:10 PM
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-iran-is-determined-to-eradicate-israel-1.380629

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran was determined to eradicate Israel, ISNA news agency reported Thursday.

"Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA.

"Iran follows this issue (the eradication of Israel) with determination and decisiveness and will never ever withdraw from this standpoint and policy," the Iranian president added in the interview with the Al-Manar network.

The remarks by Ahmadinejad came one day before the annual anti-Israeli rallies named Qods (Jerusalem) Day, which are held nationwide in Iran on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.

Ahmadinejad on Monday said that Iranians and Muslim nations worldwide should hold Qods rallies and show their willingness to dispose of this "infectious tumor and this regime full of rascality."

The Iranian president provoked international condemnation in 2005 when he said that Israel should be eliminated from the map of the Middle East and transferred to Europe or North America.

Who gives a fuck? I couldn't care less if both countries engaged in mutual genocide. Fuck em. It is not our concern.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:25 PM
Who gives a ****? I couldn't care less if both countries engaged in mutual genocide. **** em. It is not our concern.

You really think that Israel and Iran going at it wouldn't involve us eventually?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2011, 01:26 PM
You really think that Israel and Iran going at it wouldn't involve us eventually?

I really think it shouldn't.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:26 PM
I really think it shouldn't.

Okay, now let's deal with reality.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2011, 01:29 PM
Okay, now let's deal with reality.

The reality is our national defense is much weaker having to defend Israel, to say nothing of our current economic state.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 01:36 PM
Okay, now let's deal with reality.

We talking about how we think it should be — not how it is. Silly!

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 01:41 PM
You really think that Israel and Iran going at it wouldn't involve us eventually?

Of course it would involve us. Because people like you want it to involve us.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:42 PM
The reality is our national defense is much weaker having to defend Israel, to say nothing of our current economic state.

I don't see how supporting Israel weakens our national defense capability.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:42 PM
Of course it would involve us. Because people like you want it to involve us.

No, I'd much rather Iran not back up its threats with action.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-26-2011, 01:43 PM
I don't see how supporting Israel weakens our national defense capability.

We fight all of their wars, send them billions in weapons and dollars. They have a budget surplus, do we have a surplus? Perhaps i am unawares.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 01:47 PM
We fight all of their wars, send them billions in weapons and dollars. They have a budget surplus, do we have a surplus?.

God I hope that is not true.

Donger
08-26-2011, 01:53 PM
We fight all of their wars

:spock:

send them billions in weapons and dollars. They have a budget surplus, do we have a surplus? Perhaps i am unawares.

I'm pretty sure they actually have debt, and we are the largest country they owe.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:02 PM
I wouldn't like the idea ( because we will be accused of supporting it or being behind it) but it's not my job to tell them how to deal with their enemies.


This is my concern on this issue:

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."- Ariel Sharon, 11th Prime Minister of Israel, October 3, 2001.


I think Donger may be Lord Balfour reincarnated.


Do you have a really big ass?

Just wondering, since you pull so much out of it, plus walk around all day with your head shoved so far up it.

Where did you get that quote, your monthly Nazi KKK meeting?

Any dumbass would know if the jews did control America, we wouldn't be trillions of dollars in debt. Duh.

Sucks that you teach children with all the hate you have towards Israel.

Is your husband middle eastern?

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:10 PM
Who gives a fuck? I couldn't care less if both countries engaged in mutual genocide. Fuck em. It is not our concern.

Because one of them is our ally, and the other one is our enemy, the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism, and wants the destruction of the west our allies, and everyone who has our values. That's why we give a fuck.

Something to not give a fuck, and none of our concern, would be if you nibbled on the end of a shotgun before you decided to post again you stupid fucking douchbag.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Anyone who stands up for this assclown, deserves the same fate.



Iran's Ahmadinejad: No place for Israel in region

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — The Iranian president said on Friday there will be no room for Israel in the region after the formation of a Palestinian state, and that once the state is established, the liberation of all Palestinian lands should follow.

The comments by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reflected his typical anti-Israeli rhetoric, which has drawn international condemnation since he first said in 2005 that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Ahmadinejad spoke at a Tehran ceremony following nationwide pro-Palestinian rallies marking Quds Day. Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem. The annual demonstration is an occasion for Iranian officials to show off their support for Palestinians and condemn archenemy Israel.

The remarks come as the Palestinians are pushing this year to achieve recognition at the United Nations during the General Assembly meeting in September. The statehood bid comes amid stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and although the U.N. vote in New York will be largely symbolic, the Palestinians believe it will send a powerful message to Israel.

"Do not assume you will be boosted with a (U.N.) recognition of a Palestinian state," Ahmadinejad said, addressing Israel. "There is no room for you in the region."

"Recognition of a Palestinian state is the first step in the liberation of the entire Palestine," he added.

Since the 1979 Islamic revolution that brought hardline Islamists to power in Tehran, Iran's leadership has been hostile to Israel, backing anti-Israel groups like the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Ahmadinejad also urged the West to stop supporting Israel.

"You (the West) and the Zionist regime will have no base in the Middle East," he warned, and dismissed the West's support for a two-state solution as a tactic meant "to save" Israel.

Reiterating his anti-Holocaust rhetoric, Ahmadinejad also said Israel was created on lies and added, "the Zionist regime is the axis of unity among all thieves and criminals of the world."

He also called on rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas to form as strong, unified state and not "consider it sufficient to have minor and weak governments in a small area."

In 2007, the militant Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, leaving Fatah only in control of the West Bank.

Iran faces increased pressure from the West over its controversial nuclear program that Israel, the United States and others contend is intended for nuclear weapons making. Tehran denies the charge, insisting the program is for peaceful purposes only, such as generating power.

Tens of thousands attended the Quds Day rally in Tehran. State TV said millions of Iranians participated in the rallies in cities and towns across Iran.

Jaric
08-26-2011, 02:19 PM
Because one of them is our ally, and the other one is our enemy, the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism, and wants the destruction of the west our allies, and everyone who has our values. That's why we give a ****.

Something to not give a ****, and none of our concern, would be if you nibbled on the end of a shotgun before you decided to post again you stupid ****ing douchbag.

Much anger I sense in you.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 02:26 PM
Because one of them is our ally, and the other one is our enemy, the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism, and wants the destruction of the west our allies, and everyone who has our values. That's why we give a ****.

Something to not give a ****, and none of our concern, would be if you nibbled on the end of a shotgun before you decided to post again you stupid ****ing douchbag.

Somebody must be Jewish. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:30 PM
Do you have a really big ass?

Just wondering, since you pull so much out of it, plus walk around all day with your head shoved so far up it.

Where did you get that quote, your monthly Nazi KKK meeting?

Any dumbass would know if the jews did control America, we wouldn't be trillions of dollars in debt. Duh.

Sucks that you teach children with all the hate you have towards Israel.

Is your husband middle eastern?

Typical NeoCon tripe when you can't refute something with any truth or intelligence.
I don't see you condemning Sharon for that statement or stand—just the messenger.

I NEVER said that I agreed with Sharon's statement. I don't—at all. I thought it was obnoxious of him and feeds that whole line. I put it up to show where HE is at and that it IS Israel pushing for us to attack Iran who wants us to do the heavy lifting on THIS matter. That happens to be the truth of the matter with trips being given to Congress to pledge support for Israel. I consider that too much foreign influence in our govt no matter who does it. I never even said I felt we should dictate to Israel what they should do to deal with its enemies. But you can't bother to read—only attack like a war monger would. Most American Jews don't even support this idea of another war either.

Jaric
08-26-2011, 02:31 PM
Typical NeoCon tripe when you can't refute something with any truth or intelligence.
I don't see you condemning Sharon for that statement—just the messenger.

I NEVER said that I agreed with Sharon's statement. I don't—at all. I thought it was obnoxious of him and feeds that whole line. I put it up to show where HE is at and that it IS Israel pushing for us to attack Iran who wants us to do the heavy lifting on this matter. I never even said I felt we should dictate to Israel what they should do to deal with its enemies. But you can't bother to read—only attack like a war monger would.

Nothing wrong with a little junk in the trunk...

;)

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:32 PM
Much anger I sense in you.

Nah, I ain't mad.

Donger
08-26-2011, 02:35 PM
Do you have a really big ass?

Just wondering, since you pull so much out of it, plus walk around all day with your head shoved so far up it.

Where did you get that quote, your monthly Nazi KKK meeting?

Any dumbass would know if the jews did control America, we wouldn't be trillions of dollars in debt. Duh.

Sucks that you teach children with all the hate you have towards Israel.

Is your husband middle eastern?

The funny part is that Sharon didn't say that. But it wouldn't be the first time (nor will it be the last) that BEP has fallen for a such a thing.

FishingRod
08-26-2011, 02:35 PM
We fight all of their wars, send them billions in weapons and dollars. They have a budget surplus, do we have a surplus? Perhaps i am unawares.

From what I can tell they have a deficit. Can you point us to something showing a surplus?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:36 PM
Because one of them is our ally, and the other one is our enemy, the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism, and wants the destruction of the west our allies, and everyone who has our values. That's why we give a ****.

Something to not give a ****, and none of our concern, would be if you nibbled on the end of a shotgun before you decided to post again you stupid ****ing douchbag.

That Iran is our enemy is a propaganda attempt to gin up another war already. I've sick of war by haters. Iran hasn't invaded or attacked any country in over 200 years. They use a proxy war on one country and it's not us—not unless we put a military installation in the middle of their conflict anyway.

Our Founders were opposed to permanent entangling alliances because of the problems it would create for us longterm. This includes the UN.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:36 PM
Somebody must be Jewish. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

No, I am not jewish.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 02:39 PM
No, I am not jewish.

Evangelical Christian?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:39 PM
The funny part is that Sharon didn't say that. But it wouldn't be the first time (nor will it be the last) that BEP has fallen for a such a thing.

I saw it on PP this morning by a poster. If he didn't say it then show how he didn't. I'm fine on it if he didn't.
But AIPAC is pushing for this war with Iran—no doubt about it.

BTW no one proved that Reagan didn't say that other quote which was right from his autobiography. There was a typo regarding a comma that made it longer than it should have been by ONE sentence, which didn't alter the message or take it out of context either. It was also distilled like many quotes are but it never changed the fact that RR did say what he said about Beirut and his actions spoke louder than words since he pulled out. The part I could fit in my sig are definitely Reagan's words though.

You're the one falling for the half-truths and falsehoods with no evidence. It's no wonder you see the same trait in others.

Donger
08-26-2011, 02:42 PM
I saw it on PP this morning by a poster. If he didn't say it then show how he didn't. I'm fine on it if he didn't.
But AIPAC is pushing for this war with Iran—no doubt about it.

You want me to prove that he didn't say it?

LMAO

How about you prove that he did, honey.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:43 PM
Evangelical Christian?

They're more pro war with Israel than the Jews. Jews in Israel are divided over attacking Iran. It's the Likuds that are pro war.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:45 PM
You want me to prove that he didn't say it?

LMAO

How about you prove that he did, honey.

I already told you where I got it and that I accepted it on face value. That's all I have. So you must be able to find some refutation he didn't say it since I linked the Farsi mistranslation that Ahmadinejad did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel "off the map." You got nuthin' I presume.

Donger
08-26-2011, 02:46 PM
I already told you where I got it and that I accepted it on face value. That's all I have. So you must be able to find some refutation he didn't say it since I linked the Farsi mistranslation that Ahmadinejad did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel "off the map." You got nuthin' I presume.

Look for it yourself.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:47 PM
Evangelical Christian?

Lemme guess, you are athiest, or democrat, same thing.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 02:47 PM
They're more pro war with Israel than the Jews. Jews in Israel are divided over attacking Iran. It's the Likuds that are pro war.

The Evangelicals are an "end of the world scenario" sect that believe Israel is where Jesus will come down for the rapture. In order for their to even be a "rapture", Israel must exist. If it doesn't it throws a big kink in their entire belief system.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:47 PM
Look for it yourself.

I only tell you that when I've already posted something here or it's requires a longer read. You should be able to do it. Besides I rarely ask and do check claims using googling on my own but you seem to know he didn't. Come on patteeu made an attempt even though he failed only finding a minor typo. I want to know why.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:49 PM
They're more pro war with Israel than the Jews. Jews in Israel are divided over attacking Iran. It's the Likuds that are pro war.

you are very delusional.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:50 PM
you are very delusional.

So you've conceded the argument. Thank you very much for admitting it.


I know J Street, doesn't want an attack but a broad multilateral diplomatic approach, because I am a member and they were an answer to AIPAC.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 02:52 PM
I already told you where I got it and that I accepted it on face value. That's all I have. So you must be able to find some refutation he didn't say it since I linked the Farsi mistranslation that Ahmadinejad did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel "off the map." You got nuthin' I presume.

Ahmadinejad DID say it. Please educate yourself. It makes the conversations so much easier.

Donger
08-26-2011, 02:54 PM
I only tell you that when I've already posted something here or it's requires a longer read. You should be able to do it. Besides I rarely ask and do check claims using googling on my own but you seem to know he didn't. Come on patteeu made an attempt even though he failed only finding a minor typo. I want to know why.

Could I? Sure, but I would think you'd be willing to do the work necessary to verify your own assertion.

Or not.

Donger
08-26-2011, 02:56 PM
Ahmadinejad DID say it. Please educate yourself. It makes the conversations so much easier.

It's silly. He's said things like this multiple times before. And, he now says this right before Quds Day.

But, I'm sure he's being translated wrong.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:56 PM
Ahmadinejad DID say it. Please educate yourself. It makes the conversations so much easier.

Nope. I did educate myself I read the whole translation vis a vis the mistranslation and linked it here years ago. Haters are quick to believe anything. It goes with the hate.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:57 PM
Could I? Sure, but I would think you'd be willing to do the work necessary to verify your own assertion.

Or not.

I did the work. I told you where I saw it and when and that I took it on face value and that was all. May I ask what part of that you do not understand?

Don't play games Donger....it looks like you got nuthin'.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 02:58 PM
It's silly. He's said things like this multiple times before. And, he now says this right before Quds Day.

But, I'm sure he's being translated wrong.

LMAO

He didn't say it in the military sense it was said in. HCf put something up the other day and I posted that there was no violence in his words as claimed.

The nervous laughter is noted as some disability to provide evidence.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Nope. I did educate myself I read the whole translation vis a vis the mistranslation and linked it here years ago. Haters are quick to believe anything. It goes with the hate.


Yes, and your hatred for Israel has you believing anything and everything anti Israel.

Pants
08-26-2011, 03:00 PM
I did the work. I told you where I saw it and when and that I took it on face value and that was all. May I ask what part of that you do not understand?

Don't play games Donger....it looks like you got nuthin'.

How can you prove that someone didn't say something? Prove to me that you never said "I want the United States of America to attack Iran as soon as possible."

Jaric
08-26-2011, 03:02 PM
I bet if we invaded Iran we'd be greeted as liberators.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:02 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6124893&postcount=135


I will take part from the link to Mondoweiss the site of Philip Weiss, who is Jewish and a Founder of J Street on September 28, 2009

I wish someone had dealt with the Iranian bluster question. Ahmadinejad has never said that he aims to destroy Israel; he has said that it will vanish from the page of time. Not that different from anti-Zionists in the U.S. who call Israel the Temporary Zionist Entity. Also, Ahmadinejad has said that he defers to the political wishes of the Palestinians. Would he really aim to destroy the Palestinians? Ahmadinejad is angered by the unending occupation, which is a red flag of injustice across the Muslim world. And as Steve Walt has pointed out, the Iranians would never fire one missile at a country that has 200– why, to watch their country get burnt to a crisp?

Bowser
08-26-2011, 03:02 PM
Wait. Where's the Frankie posts?

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:05 PM
He didn't say it in the military sense it was said in. HCf put something up the other day and I posted that there was no violence in his words as claimed.

The nervous laughter is noted as some disability to provide evidence.

Okay, now let's look at what he said in the OP. Another mistranslation?

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:05 PM
While looking for the "controls America" statement (which I have neither confirmed or disproved yet, I will say what I have found is skechy evidence at best) I bumped into this and thought it was interesting~

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pIOyI7LNuQo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:05 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4243231&postcount=95

Rumor of the century. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025)

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:07 PM
I bet if we invaded Iran we'd be greeted as liberators.

By the same people who would be our enemies after we left~

BWillie
08-26-2011, 03:08 PM
Why do you give a shit if Israel gets blown up? I. Don't. Care.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:08 PM
Yes, and your hatred for Israel has you believing anything and everything anti Israel.

That's your own delusional dub in....a typical Neo Con smear and lie to shut down debate on a controversial topic much like the left uses the "racist" smear. I consider myself neutral on Israel and think they should be able to deal with their own enemies. That doesn't make me anti — not unless your a pesky interventionist.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:10 PM
He didn't say it in the military sense it was said in. HCf put something up the other day and I posted that there was no violence in his words as claimed.

The nervous laughter is noted as some disability to provide evidence.

Yes, him denying the Holocaust, saying Israel must be eradicated, and no longer exist, and wiped off the map on his many anti-Israel days, among thousands with guns while funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to groups whose only stated purpose is to destroy Israel and blow up innocent women and children, is only for peaceful purposes.

Even though everyone in the international community believe otherwise. BEP believes he didn't say it.

Wow. I have some shit I'd like to sell you. I bet you spend a lot on infomercials.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:10 PM
While looking for the "controls America" statement (which I have neither confirmed or disproved yet, I will say what I have found is skechy evidence at best) I bumped into this and thought it was interesting~


Well that's the AIPAC lobby. That's not what Sharon said exactly. AIPAC does have influence over our Mid East policy, probably more than ever but I wouldn't say that is the same as "Jews control" America which is more expansive.

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:10 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4243231&postcount=95

Rumor of the century. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025)

We are talking about this idiot right?
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4_3RUwAJ_MI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Yes, him denying the Holocaust,
Who cares? They have those types in Europe even. Does that mean they want to start a war? Nope.

...saying Israel must be eradicated, and no longer exist, and wiped off the map on his
Nope he didn't say that.

Even though everyone in the international community believe otherwise.
The article shows how the mistranslation was not caught and traveled across communication lines just being accepted without fact checking. Hey it happens. That's why it's called a rumor. Oh and multiple opinion does mean something is true. But it's still not everyone. Otherwise others would not have written about the mistranslation. It's everyone who wants to attack Iran militarily pretty much the same as when some wanted to attack Iraq.

BEP believes he didn't say it.

No. It's not a matter of belief. I read two translations. It's a belief for you and your "everyones" — ya' know flat earthers of our day.

Wow. I have some shit I'd like to sell you. I bet you spend a lot on infomercials.

Thank you for conceding the argument again.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:16 PM
We are talking about this idiot right?
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4_3RUwAJ_MI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's irrelevant.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:19 PM
Why do you give a shit if Israel gets blown up? I. Don't. Care.

And neither do your KKK Nazi skinheads brothers.



No one would also give a shit if you blew your brains out..oh wait looks like you already did before you made your post.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:23 PM
I am done talking to you FC, so you can bloviate all you want like Bill O'Reilly. Your tourette syndrome and inability to hold a civil discussion isn't worth the effort.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 03:24 PM
Did Israel send even one troop into Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya to support us, their "Allies" there?

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:25 PM
That's irrelevant.

So this has no bearing on his mental stability? or creditability? Are you really defending this guy? really?

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:25 PM
Holy shit. That's all you have to do to get her to shut up?

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 03:26 PM
A better question: Has Israel suffered any casualties in support of the USA their supposed Ally in the wars of Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya?

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:26 PM
Did Israel send even one troop into Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya to support us, their "Allies" there?

:spock:

Are you being serious?

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:27 PM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hLDjGdJC0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:27 PM
A better question: Has Israel suffered any casualties in support of the USA their supposed Ally in the wars of Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya?

Yes. Are you familiar with the events of the Gulf War?

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:28 PM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_9zcElqetqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 03:29 PM
Boom BEP I just dropped the hammer on you.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:31 PM
but doesn't have much factual detail just another claim saying it came from an American pro-Hamas group.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=373&x_context=7

According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying “ . . . I want to tell you something clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”…

Elsewhere in the press release, the quote was repeated, albeit slightly altered to: “we control America.”

The link at the bottom within the above link has more evidence that the columnist who reported it was interpreting it. Sounds a lot like interpreting passing from the sands of time to "wiped off the map". In a conflict it's hard to trust the info on both sides.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=108&x_article=34

Now see there Donger, I could do it but you couldn't? Yet you never do it when I ask you to even when it's in the same thread already posted.

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 03:31 PM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_9zcElqetqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I guess Israel better do something about it then with their own money, weapons and troops. They wipe Iran out for all I care and Iran can wipe Israel out to. It would be preferable if they wiped each other out actually.

Chocolate Hog
08-26-2011, 03:33 PM
This worked so well with Iraq.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:33 PM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_9zcElqetqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Except that it's still being translated for you. I remember watching a speech at the UN with a translation with a commentator saying what the person was saying which didn't even match the subtitles.

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:34 PM
but doesn't have much factual detail just another claim saying it came from an American pro-Hamas group.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=373&x_context=7



The link at the bottom within the above link has more evidence that the columnist who reported it was interpreting it. Sounds a lot like interpreting passing from the sands of time to "wiped off the map". In a conflict it's hard to trust the info on both sides.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=108&x_article=34

Now see there Donger, I could do it but you couldn't? Yet you never do it when I ask you to even when it's in the same thread already posted.

Good woman. Happy to guide you toward the facts, as always.

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:36 PM
I guess Israel better do something about it then with their own money, weapons and troops. They wipe Iran out for all I care and Iran can wipe Israel out to. It would be preferable if they wiped each other out actually.

Just so I am clear on your stance: You think Iran launching nukes at Israel, which in turn would cause Israel to launch nukes at Iran is a good thing?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Good woman. Happy to guide you toward the facts, as always.

You did nothing!

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Except that it's still being translated for you. I remember watching a speech at the UN with a translation with a commentator saying what the person was saying which didn't even match the subtitles.

So, until you hear him say these things in English, you aren't going to believe any translation?

Chocolate Hog
08-26-2011, 03:38 PM
This worked out well in Iraq didn't it Donger?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:38 PM
So, until you hear him say these things in English, you aren't going to believe any translation?

No but I remember watching it with a friend laughing at how his words were being altered to worsen for propaganda. I wasn't the only one who didn't notice.

I told you already, I prefer to see a side-by-side translation ( which I saw and as I recall it had the mistranslation in another color) by someone who is not as emotionally tied to the issue. Or who is not invested in either side.

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:39 PM
This worked out well in Iraq didn't it Donger?

What is "this"?

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:40 PM
No but I remember watching it with a friend laughing at how his words were being altered to worsen for propaganda. I wasn't the only one who didn't notice.

I told you already, I prefer to see a side-by-side translation ( which I saw and as I recall it had the mistranslation in another source) by someone who is not as emotionally tied to the issue. Or who is not invested in either side.

What about Frankie? Would you trust him to watch those videos and see if he really is chanting "Death to Israel!" along with the crowd?

Cannibal
08-26-2011, 03:41 PM
Just so I am clear on your stance: You think Iran launching nukes at Israel, which in turn would cause Israel to launch nukes at Iran is a good thing?

Prefer conventional warfare due to the fallout, but yes, I'd like them to wipe each other out without any involvement from the United States.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 03:42 PM
I edite post #103. From source to color. Don't know how I wrote that.

Chocolate Hog
08-26-2011, 03:43 PM
What is "this"?

Saving the world from terrorist with WMD's. How would we pay for this war with Iran?

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:43 PM
Prefer conventional warfare due to the fallout, but yes, I'd like them to wipe each other out without any involvement from the United States.

Well that is a very naive wish to say the least. The worldwide ramifications would be devastating~

Donger
08-26-2011, 03:44 PM
Saving the world from terrorist with WMD's. How would we pay for this war with Iran?

I wouldn't be in agreement with attacking Iran unless and until there was demonstrable proof that they were close to have a physics package.

RNR
08-26-2011, 03:44 PM
Saving the world from terrorist with WMD's. How would we pay for this war with Iran?

Paying for it would be the least of our worries~

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 04:08 PM
Saving the world from terrorist with WMD's. How would we pay for this war with Iran?


No boots on the ground. No rebuilding. Just flyovers. Dirt cheap.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 04:18 PM
No boots on the ground. No rebuilding. Just flyovers. Dirt cheap.

And we would do this continually for how many years?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 04:21 PM
No boots on the ground. No rebuilding. Just flyovers. Dirt cheap.

Yeah that's what we were told on Libya yet those boots were already there before we bombed.

We were told that Iraq would be over with in maybe a month or less than two. How'd that turn out? Guess what we're never coming out of there not even with Obama. We pick on countries that can't defend themselves then act like we're brave. We hurl bombs from thousands of feet in the air with small chance at being shot down by third world nations.

Iran can do a lot more damage to us than Libya or Iraq even if they can't ultimately prevail. But it's still morally wrong. So much for worshipping the Prince of Peace.

vailpass
08-26-2011, 04:21 PM
Why do you give a shit if Israel gets blown up? I. Don't. Care.

If true then You. Are. Retarted.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 04:28 PM
And we would do this continually for how many years?

It wouldn't take long.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 04:29 PM
It wouldn't take long.

So we bomb them, and take out their regime, and then stop?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 04:30 PM
Paying for it would be the least of our worries~

No it's not. We're bankrupt already. And these wars have something to do with that. Using percentage of GDP is just a way to make it look better since GDP includes govt spending. Then a lot of these wars expenses are off budget too.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 04:34 PM
So we bomb them, and take out their regime, and then stop?

Sounds like a great plan. I wonder what would have happened had we done this to Afghanistan and Iraq.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 04:35 PM
It won't happen that way.

RNR
08-26-2011, 04:48 PM
No it's not. We're bankrupt already. And these wars have something to do with that. Using percentage of GDP is just a way to make it look better since GDP includes govt spending. Then a lot of these wars expenses are off budget too.

Pea if we start trading swats with Iran we are going to have our hands full even if we had the money to pay for it. People have this image that we are so superior that wars are some sort of video game. Iran is not Iraq and we are not going to launch some real smart missiles and then waltz in and gather up all the troops waiting to surrender. This would cause a ripple effect through out the Middle East and it will get mighty ugly. It is not a fight we should seek and only pursue if we have no other choice~

RNR
08-26-2011, 04:49 PM
Sounds like a great plan. I wonder what would have happened had we done this to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nobody has ever tried that in Afghanistan before :rolleyes:

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 04:50 PM
Sounds like a great plan. I wonder what would have happened had we done this to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you think pro-American regimes would sprout up after that?

RNR
08-26-2011, 04:51 PM
Do you think pro-American regimes would sprout up after that?

This question has to be tic~

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 04:54 PM
Yes, it is. It's to drive the point home to ForeverChiefs58 that bombing, leaving, and hoping it all stops isn't go to help.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 04:55 PM
Pea if we start trading swats with Iran we are going to have our hands full even if we had the money to pay for it. People have this image that we are so superior that wars are some sort of video game. Iran is not Iraq and we are not going to launch some real smart missiles and then waltz in and gather up all the troops waiting to surrender. This would cause a ripple effect through out the Middle East and it will get mighty ugly. It is not a fight we should seek and only pursue if we have no other choice~

I thought you were for it based on that last post. My bad.

Jaric
08-26-2011, 04:56 PM
Yes, it is. It's to drive the point home to ForeverChiefs58 that bombing, leaving, and hoping it all stops isn't go to help.

It would most likely just make things worse.

RNR
08-26-2011, 04:58 PM
Yes, it is. It's to drive the point home to ForeverChiefs58 that bombing, leaving, and hoping it all stops isn't go to help.

I knew it was and and was using your post to make the same point~

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:00 PM
I thought you were for it based on that last post. My bad.

What I wish we could do and what I think we should are two different things~

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
What I wish we could do and what I think we should are two different things~

Ahh...I see. You'd like to but feel we can't for some reason. So I wasn't completely off there?

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Nobody has ever tried that in Afghanistan before :rolleyes:


Obviously the bombs weren't big enough.

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:05 PM
Ahh...I see. You'd like to but feel we can't for some reason. So I wasn't completely off there?

No you were not. I have no use for the clown that runs that country~

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:06 PM
No you were not. I have no use for the clown that runs that country~

I just don't care about him. He has no power just words. I think he's not worth any attention at all. Nor is it our business to police the world.

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:07 PM
Obviously the bombs weren't big enough.

Less turning it into glass it is wishful thinking~

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 05:07 PM
Do you think pro-American regimes would sprout up after that?


Make the bombs big enough that the next regime is irrelevant

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:08 PM
I just don't care about him. He has no power just words. I think he's not worth any attention at all. Nor is it our business to police the world.

That is a whole thread by its self. I think any leader with the power he has and will have is worthy of our attention~

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:10 PM
Make the bombs big enough that the next regime is irrelevant

I assume you are joking now~

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:15 PM
That is a whole thread by its self. I think any leader with the power he has and will have is worthy of our attention~

Except he doesn't hold any real power in Iran. It's much ado about nothing.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 05:17 PM
Make the bombs big enough that the next regime is irrelevant

Just kill everybody? Let God sort em out?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Ahmadinejad is the Dick Cheney of Iran. :D

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Except he doesn't hold any real power in Iran. It's much ado about nothing.

Another time pea~

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 05:22 PM
I assume you are joking now~

I am on a Chiefs message board in the DC section on a Friday night when a game is getting ready to start and I've been drinking...Of course I am joking ya big silly willy.



Seriously though. This. ;)

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WwlNPhn64TA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:22 PM
Another time pea~

It's true.He does not hold any real power. But if you mean you have to leave well I do too.

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button.- Fareed Zakaria

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/10/20/stalin-mao-and-ahmadinejad.html

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 05:23 PM
Just kill everybody? Let God sort em out?

More people should have this tattoo. ;)

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:25 PM
I am on a Chiefs message board in the DC section on a Friday night when a game is getting ready to start and I've been drinking...Of course I am joking ya big silly willy.



Seriously though. This. ;)

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WwlNPhn64TA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Valid point~

RNR
08-26-2011, 05:26 PM
It's true.He does not hold any real power. But if you mean you have to leave well I do too.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/10/20/stalin-mao-and-ahmadinejad.html

Just too lazy to type~

Chocolate Hog
08-26-2011, 05:30 PM
Paying for it would be the least of our worries~

You are absolutely correct. Iran is well armed and trained see a few years ago with Hezbollah was a thorn in the side of Israel.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 05:47 PM
It's true.He does not hold any real power. But if you mean you have to leave well I do too.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/10/20/stalin-mao-and-ahmadinejad.html


Meh. Have you ever heard of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemning Ahmadinejad's rhetoric? Instead he leads thousands in chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel".

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 05:50 PM
Meh. Have you ever heard of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemning Ahmadinejad's rhetoric? Instead he leads thousands in chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel".

It's still just talk. That's not grounds for starting a war. That would be immoral and if you can't see the difference between right and wrong it means there's no sanity.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 06:01 PM
It's still just talk. That's not grounds for starting a war. That would be immoral and if you can't see the difference between right and wrong it means there's no sanity.

You are silly.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Saving the world from terrorist with WMD's. How would we pay for this war with Iran?

We could always use their oil to pay for it. Nothing like a good pillaging.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 06:33 PM
We could always use their oil to pay for it. Nothing like a good pillaging.

They can't even use their oil to raise themselves from Third World status.

HonestChieffan
08-26-2011, 07:32 PM
Except he doesn't hold any real power in Iran. It's much ado about nothing.
Chamberlin said same about Hitler.

WilliamTheIrish
08-26-2011, 07:48 PM
Do you mean to imply that Iran does not bear being watched very closely?

Forgive me for going all Donger Here:

What would give you that impression?

go bowe
08-26-2011, 07:53 PM
We could always use their oil to pay for it. Nothing like a good pillaging.

that didn't work out so well with iraqi oil, did it?

BucEyedPea
08-26-2011, 07:55 PM
Chamberlin said same about Hitler.

No you're merely citing WWII cliches, which is over BTW. Those cliches don't even apply here. Pay attention — Ahmadinejad has no real power. He just makes noise whereas Hitler consolidated his power into a dictatorship. You all fall for his noise and make him more significant than he is. You don't understand their system and your hysteria puts your logic into suspended animation.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 09:01 PM
that didn't work out so well with iraqi oil, did it?


Hey go bowe. How you doing brah?

We didn't do iraq right. I never heard of us taking their oil. I know a lot of people said Bush was only interested in oil...but we foot the bill wayyy too much for a war. We should have taken everything that wasn't nailed down.

Jenson71
08-26-2011, 09:13 PM
Hey go bowe. How you doing brah?

We didn't do iraq right. I never heard of us taking their oil. I know a lot of people said Bush was only interested in oil...but we foot the bill wayyy too much for a war. We should have taken everything that wasn't nailed down.

Ah, the best kind of liberation. When all they have left afterwards is nothing.

ForeverChiefs58
08-26-2011, 09:16 PM
Ah, the best kind of liberation. When all they have left afterwards is nothing.

Yep, if you are going to start over, better to start from scratch. ;)

Frankie
08-26-2011, 09:25 PM
No you're merely citing WWII cliches, which is over BTW. Those cliches don't even apply here. Pay attention — Ahmadinejad has no real power. He just makes noise whereas Hitler consolidated his power into a dictatorship. You all fall for his noise and make him more significant than he is. You don't understand their system and your hysteria puts your logic into suspended animation.

This.

HonestChieffan
08-26-2011, 09:29 PM
No you're merely citing WWII cliches, which is over BTW. Those cliches don't even apply here. Pay attention — Ahmadinejad has no real power. He just makes noise whereas Hitler consolidated his power into a dictatorship. You all fall for his noise and make him more significant than he is. You don't understand their system and your hysteria puts your logic into suspended animation.

Easy to say when the gun isnt aimed at you.

dirk digler
08-26-2011, 09:36 PM
I wish he would just hurry up and get it over with. Geez quit talking about it and do it already

HonestChieffan
08-26-2011, 09:40 PM
I wish he would just hurry up and get it over with. Geez quit talking about it and do it already

I would hope he never attacks and eliminates Israel. To hope he does and does it soon is disturbing.

Brock
08-26-2011, 09:53 PM
Easy to say when the gun isnt aimed at you.

Yeah, we don't have a target on us or anything.

dirk digler
08-26-2011, 10:09 PM
I would hope he never attacks and eliminates Israel. To hope he does and does it soon is disturbing.

Where is your sense of adventure?

go bowe
08-26-2011, 10:32 PM
Hey go bowe. How you doing brah?

We didn't do iraq right. I never heard of us taking their oil. I know a lot of people said Bush was only interested in oil...but we foot the bill wayyy too much for a war. We should have taken everything that wasn't nailed down.
doin' good, thanks, how 'bout you?

we could have taken everything that wasn't nailed down but the iraqi looters got there first...

patteeu
08-27-2011, 07:28 AM
That Iran is our enemy is a propaganda attempt to gin up another war already. I've sick of war by haters. Iran hasn't invaded or attacked any country in over 200 years. They use a proxy war on one country and it's not us—not unless we put a military installation in the middle of their conflict anyway.

Our Founders were opposed to permanent entangling alliances because of the problems it would create for us longterm. This includes the UN.

Even if that were true, your own admission that they wage war by proxy makes it irrelevant.

BTW, I don't know what to call it when Iran sends Iranian military into Iraq to work with the insurgency if we don't call it an attack.

patteeu
08-27-2011, 07:30 AM
BTW no one proved that Reagan didn't say that other quote which was right from his autobiography.

:spock: I don't think you could get a single person to agree with you on that.

Donger
08-27-2011, 07:41 AM
This.

Hey Frankie? Can you translate what Ahmadnutjob is saying in those clips? Does he say, "Death to Israel!" to the crowd?

DJJasonp
08-27-2011, 08:56 AM
Even if that were true, your own admission that they wage war by proxy makes it irrelevant.

BTW, I don't know what to call it when Iran sends Iranian military into Iraq to work with the insurgency if we don't call it an attack.

With all due respect, the "evidence" that supports what you mentioned there is about on par with "Saddam's stockpile of mustard gas and WMD's".

Dont be manipulated by the MSM into believing this too.

Iran, when put to a lie-detector test, wants absolutely nothing to do with Israel or the US. They try to talk tough (just tough enough), in the hopes that they'll be left alone.

ForeverChiefs58
08-27-2011, 08:56 AM
doin' good, thanks, how 'bout you?

we could have taken everything that wasn't nailed down but the iraqi looters got there first...





Good to hear. I am good. Can't wait till the regular season starts, but after the long lay off, I'll even watch practice.

We should have imposed a war indemnity, it makes the loser of the war pay for all of the costs for that war.

I also hope we were the ones behind the Central Bank of Iraq—Nearly US$1 billion is stolen on March 18, 2003, just hours after the United States began bombing Baghdad. This is considered the largest bank heist in history.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-27-2011, 08:57 AM
Yeah, we don't have a target on us or anything.

Only by the Military Industrial Complex.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2011, 08:59 AM
With all due respect, the "evidence" that supports what you mentioned there is about on par with "Saddam's stockpile of mustard gas and WMD's".

Dont be manipulated by the MSM into believing this too.

Iran, when put to a lie-detector test, wants absolutely nothing to do with Israel or the US. They try to talk tough (just tough enough), in the hopes that they'll be left alone.

Exactly.

:thumb:


Also, Iran has also helped us in Iraq because the new govt is aligned with them being Shia.
Even if they weren't it's their backyard—not ours and they have more of a right to be there than us.
Interests are okay for us but not for anyone else in pat's world.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2011, 09:00 AM
Easy to say when the gun isnt aimed at you.

The gun isn't aimed at me or us. It IS aimed at Iran and you're aiming it.
So this is not an argument but another emotional cliche.

Cannibal
08-27-2011, 09:31 AM
Well that is a very naive wish to say the least. The worldwide ramifications would be devastating~

If they were going to fight I'd prefer them both annihilated. I think it would solve more problems that it would create. You'd get rid of Iran and their sponsoring of terror and you'd get rid of Israel, the reason terrorism exists. The problem would be the void created by the mutual destruction of both countries and how to fill them. If we could figure that out we'd be golden.

ForeverChiefs58
08-27-2011, 09:48 AM
Even if that were true, your own admission that they wage war by proxy makes it irrelevant.

BTW, I don't know what to call it when Iran sends Iranian military into Iraq to work with the insurgency if we don't call it an attack.

Ha. It is NOT true.

Afghan-Persian War-(1816)-Persia invaded Afghanistan and occupied the western Afghan city of Herat. Local Afghan guerrillas forced the Persians to exit Afghanistan.

Turkish-Persian War-(1821-1823)-The regime of Crown Prince Abbas Mirza launched an attack on Ottoman Turkey due to Turkish aid to Azerbaijani rebels in Persia. The rebels had fled from Persia and were given refuge by the Ottomans. The war opened with a Persian invasion of Turkey in the Lake Van region, and a counter-invasion by the Ottoman Pasha of Baghdad (Iraq belonged to the Ottoman Empire), who invaded western Persia. This invasion force was driven back across the border, but the newly modernized Persian army of 30,000 troops defeated 50,000 Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Erzurum near Lake Van in 1821. A peace treaty in 1823 ended the war with no changes to their mutual border.

Russo-Persian War --(1825-1828)--This war resulted from the ongoing border disputes arising from the Treaty of Gulistan (1813) between Persia and Russia. Persian forces were initially successful, capturing the Georgian capital of Tbilisi in 1825. Russian forces led by General Ivan Fedorovich Paskievich went on the offensive against the invading Persians and defeated them at the Battle of Ganja (also known as the Battle of Kirovabad) on September 26, 1826. Abbas Mirza led a Persian force of 30,000 which was defeated and routed by a Russian army of 15,000 troops. In 1827, General Paskievich captured Erevan and Tabriz in the the northwest of Persia. The Russians captured the Persian capital of Tehran in the winter of 1827-28, along with the Persian army's total inventory of artillery pieces. The resulting peace Treaty of Turkomanchi recognized Russian rule of Armenia, forbade Persia to station warships on the Caspian Sea. This defeat basically ended Persia's role as a major power among the nations of the Gulf and the Caucuses region.

Afghan-Persian War-(1836-1838)-Persia invaded Afghanistan partly in response to Britain's influence in the region, and laid siege to the western Afghan city of Herat. The Herat defenders were aided by a British military advisor named Eldred Potter. Potter offered his services to the Afghans and set about organizing the city's defenses. Persian assaults on the city failed, and the invading army gave up the siege (September 28, 1838), and returned home.

Afghan/Anglo-Persian War-(1855-1857)-Persia again invaded Afghanistan, this time successfully capturing Herat. This upset the British, who claimed influence over Afghanistan. The British Empire declared war on Persia (Nov. 1, 1856), and proceeded to invade Persia both by sea and by land. British forces landed and took the Persian port of Bushire in January, 1857. An Anglo-Indian army invaded Persia, which soon gave up and agreed to evacuate Herat.

Iran-Iraq Border Battles -(1969-1970)--Disputes over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, claimed by both nations, led to hostilities in the late 1960s.

Kurdish Rebellion -(1970-1980)--During the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini against the Shah, Iranian Kurdistan rose in rebellion. The Iranian Army and the Revolutionary Guards crushed the rebellion. Kurdish losses were around 10,000.

Iranian Seizure of Gulf Islands -(1970-1980)--Iran occupied several Persian Gulf islands claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

Dhofar War-(1973-1975)--Iran sent troops to Oman to aid the Sultan of Oman, who was fighting against Marxist rebels aided by South Yemen. The Shah of Iran reportedly wanted to not only support a fellow pro-Western Gulf Monarch, but also wanted to give his troops combat experience in the field.

The First Persian Gulf War (also known as the Iran-Iraq War)—(1980-1988).

Iran's Proxy War with Israel -(1980s-Present)--Iran openly supports and arms Israel's enemies, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Israel and the United States consider Iran to be a party to the warfare waged by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the tensions with Syria.

PEJAK Kurdistan -(1998-Present)-

ForeverChiefs58
08-27-2011, 09:51 AM
If they were going to fight I'd prefer them both annihilated. I think it would solve more problems that it would create. You'd get rid of Iran and their sponsoring of terror and you'd get rid of Israel, the reason terrorism exists. The problem would be the void created by the mutual destruction of both countries and how to fill them. If we could figure that out we'd be golden.

:spock::spock::spock:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qWhA3Yty4fM/TZkmEMlBgRI/AAAAAAAAKuM/aUCWhR8RGys/s1600/Epic_Facepalm_by_RJTH%2525255B1%2525255D%255B1%255D.jpg

ForeverChiefs58
08-27-2011, 09:57 AM
If they were going to fight I'd prefer them both annihilated. I think it would solve more problems that it would create. You'd get rid of Iran and their sponsoring of terror and you'd get rid of Israel, the reason terrorism exists. The problem would be the void created by the mutual destruction of both countries and how to fill them. If we could figure that out we'd be golden.

Holy fuckin shit man. You are sooo wrong on so many levels, I really don't even know where to begin. I would guess the only reason you would be against an ally that shares our same values is because you are a jew hater or extremly ignorant. Pick up a fucking book every once in a while.

patteeu
08-27-2011, 10:29 AM
Yes, it is. It's to drive the point home to ForeverChiefs58 that bombing, leaving, and hoping it all stops isn't go to help.

It would most likely just make things worse.

It doesn't get much worse than a nuclear-armed country that hates the US, supports islamist terrorists and isn't reluctant to use proxy armies against it's neighbors.

If we gave birth to an anti-US Iranian regime that worried we might come back and remove them like we did the last group, it would be an improvement over what we're facing now and in the near future. It's not like a successful attack there is going to make them hate us more or turn them into a superpower.

ForeverChiefs58
08-27-2011, 10:36 AM
It doesn't get much worse than a nuclear-armed country that hates the US, supports islamist terrorists and isn't reluctant to use proxy armies against it's neighbors.

If we gave birth to an anti-US Iranian regime that worried we might come back and remove them like we did the last group, it would be an improvement over what we're facing now and in the near future. It's not like a successful attack there is going to make them hate us more or turn them into a superpower.

Yes, I fail to see how knocking down the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism would be a bad thing.

patteeu
08-28-2011, 11:29 AM
With all due respect, the "evidence" that supports what you mentioned there is about on par with "Saddam's stockpile of mustard gas and WMD's".

Dont be manipulated by the MSM into believing this too.

Iran, when put to a lie-detector test, wants absolutely nothing to do with Israel or the US. They try to talk tough (just tough enough), in the hopes that they'll be left alone.

Where did you get these ideas?

As far as the evidence is concerned, it's the difference between our own troops capturing Iranians in the act versus listening to the stories of dissidents who have a motive to want the US to overthrow their dictator. Doesn't sound like "on par" to me.

How do you come by this secret knowledge of what Iran, put to a lie-detector, would want?

ForeverChiefs58
08-28-2011, 01:28 PM
Gen.: Iran may seek mass U.S. casualties in Iraq

(AP)
WASHINGTON - Iran's stepped-up arming of Shiite militiamen in southern Iraq who are targeting American troops may be designed to trigger a "Beirut-like moment" of mass U.S. casualties, the Obama administration's nominee to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Tuesday.


Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., about a previous statement Dempsey had made in which he expressed concern that Iran might miscalculate the level of U.S. resolve to assist Iraq.


Dempsey said his Iraqi contacts have told him it appears "Iran's activities in southern Iraq are intended to produce some kind of Beirut-like moment and, in so doing, to send a message that they have expelled us from Iraq." He did not specify which Iraqis said this, although he noted that their view is "in some cases supported by intelligence."


Dempsey was alluding to the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. service members and drove the U.S. out of Lebanon.


In follow-up questioning on this issue, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Dempsey what Iran should know about prospects for driving the U.S. out of Iraq by inflicting mass casualties.


"It would be a gross miscalculation to believe that we will simply allow that to occur without taking serious consideration of reacting to that," he replied.


The U.S. currently has about 46,000 troops in Iraq; virtually all of them are due to leave by the end of this year, although senior U.S. officials have said they believe Iraq will need U.S. security assistance beyond 2011. Dempsey said he would favor extending the U.S. troop presence, if Iraq asks.


Dempsey, who currently is the Army's chief of staff, fielded questions from the committee on a wide variety of topics, but the predominant issue was the U.S. debt crisis and the prospects for further cuts to the defense budget. Dempsey said he realizes that if he is confirmed by the full Senate — as is widely anticipated — he expects to lead a military that faces "a new fiscal reality."


He said the military needs to contribute to deficit reduction in order to avoid the impression of being isolated from the rest of society.


Dempsey also said he expects cybersecurity to be one of the defining issues of his tenure. And he expressed support for President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year and another 23,000 by September 2012.


Obama picked Dempsey to succeed Navy Adm. Mike Mullen as Joint Chiefs chairman. Mullen is due to retire Oct. 1.


Mullen's departure follows the retirement of Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month and the pending move of Gen. David Petraeus from commander of international forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA. Former CIA chief Leon Panetta has taken over for Gates at the Pentagon.


Next week, Marine Gen. James Cartwright will finish his term as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and retire, to be succeeded by Navy Adm. James Winnefeld, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate shortly. Also awaiting Senate approval is the nomination of Gen. Ray Odierno to succeed Dempsey as Army chief.


The new lineup appears to offer the promise of stability in Obama's relations with the military as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The president will look to Dempsey and Panetta for advice on managing future defense spending cuts without undercutting military strength and morale.


The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command that runs from the president to the secretary of defense to commanders in the field.


Dempsey has taken an unusually twisted path to the military's top job. He has joked that he may go down in history as the shortest-serving Army chief. He took that job April 11. Barely a month later Obama picked him to succeed Mullen, reflecting a presidential change of heart about Cartwright, who for months had been widely assumed to be a shoo-in for the prestigious post.


After two tours in Iraq — first as commander of the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad and later as commander of the organization charged with training and equipping Iraqi security forces — Dempsey was serving behind the scenes as deputy to Adm. William J. Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, when Fallon resigned suddenly in 2008. Gates installed Dempsey as interim commander, even though he had already been nominated and confirmed to become the top commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe.


After several months Petraeus took over at Central Command and Dempsey was given command of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., where he developed the Army's thinking on how to prepare for future wars. There, he preached "the gospel of adaptation" — a conviction that in uncertain times, soldiers and their leaders must be versatile and open to new ways of doing things.


Dempsey, who grew up in New Jersey and New York, received a master's degree in English from Duke University in 1984 and then taught English at West Point. He also earned master's degrees from the Army's Command and General Staff College in 1987 and from the National War College in 1995.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/26/501364/main20083599.shtml?tag=re1.channel

Jaric
08-28-2011, 01:51 PM
Ah, the best kind of liberation. When all they have left afterwards is nothing.

I said earlier in the thread we'd be greeted as liberators.