US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Options
2»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,224
    Last Exodus wrote:
    gotcha. cant help you with that. weve got out own whacky government to deal with...

    Our government has a very solid backbone. It's just not a morning government.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 29,003
    Last Exodus wrote:
    Now you know how we americans who didnt vote for Bush feel....

    i've always felt empathy for the non bush supporter.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 29,003
    Last Exodus wrote:
    But that can have very many connotations....

    inded it can. just pick one and i'm sure it'll fit. :D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 1,224
    catefrances wrote:
    i've always felt empathy for the non bush supporter.


    lol We actually have government funded programs here to help people get over that sickness.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 29,003
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    Ohhh no no no. Australia voted the guy into office. So...


    BLAME YOURSELF!

    i can't take responsibility for something i had no part in. i am not australia. just cause the majority got hoodwinked, doesn't mean i stand by their side in agreement.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 29,003
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    lol We actually have government funded programs here to help people get over that sickness.

    really?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 782
    catefrances wrote:
    inded it can. just pick one and i'm sure it'll fit. :D
    I WOULD BUT IM A GENTLEMAN
  • Posts: 1,224
    catefrances wrote:
    really?


    Oh yeah. You haven't heard of Post-Traumatic Election Disorder? The virus is usually dormant during a Democrats terms.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 1,224
    Last Exodus wrote:
    I WOULD BUT IM A GENTLEMAN


    Well, that's good. She doesn't like it gentle in the first place.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 29,003
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    Well, that's good. She doesn't like it gentle in the first place.

    and you'd know that how?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 782
    catefrances wrote:
    and you'd know that how?
    GLAD HE SAID IT AND I DIDNT
  • Posts: 29,003
    Last Exodus wrote:
    GLAD HE SAID IT AND I DIDNT

    nothing ventured, nothing gained Exodus.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 1,224
    catefrances wrote:
    and you'd know that how?


    Just assuming.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 782
    catefrances wrote:
    nothing ventured, nothing gained Exodus.
    thats what i get for being a gentleman?
  • Posts: 29,003
    Last Exodus wrote:
    thats what i get for being a gentleman?

    no. but sometimes you don't get anything if you act like a gentleman. :p:D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 1,224
    catefrances wrote:
    no. but sometimes you don't get anything if you act like a gentleman. :p:D


    lol Great post.

    Exodus, be a prick by default. Your chances with women increase exponentially from there.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Posts: 782
    ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:
    lol Great post.

    Exodus, be a prick by default. Your chances with women increase exponentially from there.

    Your damned if you do and damned if you dont
  • Posts: 29,003
    Last Exodus wrote:
    Your damned if you do and damned if you dont

    yeah it's hell being held to ransom by the fickleness of women. :rolleyes:
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 143
    last month the guardian "revealed" israel's plans for attacking iran.
    british periodicals must be staffed by mi6 agents.
    or they'll publish whatever any anonymous source tells them (which is always what any civilian think-tank could have told them) and say that it's fact. all to preemptively whip up the indignity of those who think that the west is inherently evil.
    Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism

    Most antizionists are antisemites
  • Posts: 782
    Rue D'Awakening wrote:
    last month the guardian "revealed" israel's plans for attacking iran.
    british periodicals must be staffed by mi6 agents.
    or they'll publish whatever any anonymous source tells them (which is always what any civilian think-tank could have told them) and say that it's fact. all to preemptively whip up the indignity of those who think that the west is inherently evil.
    ditto that
  • Posts: 29,003
    Rue D'Awakening wrote:
    last month the guardian "revealed" israel's plans for attacking iran.
    british periodicals must be staffed by mi6 agents.
    or they'll publish whatever any anonymous source tells them (which is always what any civilian think-tank could have told them) and say that it's fact. all to preemptively whip up the indignity of those who think that the west is inherently evil.

    so what did these plans say? are they going to fly their jets into iranian airspace under the bellies of commercial airliners to thwart the iranian radar? or are they just gonna roar across the open sky and bomb the crap out of whatever the target will be?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Posts: 368
    enharmonic wrote:
    If we invade Iran, we deserve whatever we get.


    you brought it to the point.
    I was reading through the article and followed post, but it ended here.

    yup, guess so, too:
    if the US invade Iran, we deserve whatever we get.
    -if this happens, we couldn't be any more suicidal or stupid.

    and I ask myself: what does it take to USA to let go of the military solution.

    But it is a big industry... well but the orient is bigger... it is nearly a quarter of the world itself. alot of people to kill....
    but it will kill us all and for the last days it will be such an ugly and dangerious world... not much fun anymore.
    there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
    ...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
  • Posts: 782
    breakmarysfall wrote:
    you brought it to the point.
    I was reading through the article and followed post, but it ended here.

    yup, guess so, too:
    if the US invade Iran, we deserve whatever we get.
    -if this happens, we couldn't be any more suicidal or stupid.

    and I ask myself: what does it take to USA to let go of the military solution.

    But it is a big industry... well but the orient is bigger... it is nearly a quarter of the world itself. alot of people to kill....
    but it will kill us all and for the last days it will be such an ugly and dangerious world... not much fun anymore.


    The US can drop its military options when international organizations tasked with keeping the peace, and preventing nuclear proliferation actually DO THEIR JOB. They didn't do it in Iraq. They Didn't do it in North Korea, and they are not doing it in Iran. No one else is willing to step up and keep rogue countries from going nuclear. And the IAEA is a limp dick organization.
  • Posts: 4,984
    Last Exodus wrote:
    The US can drop its military options when international organizations tasked with keeping the peace, and preventing nuclear proliferation actually DO THEIR JOB. They didn't do it in Iraq. They Didn't do it in North Korea, and they are not doing it in Iran. No one else is willing to step up and keep rogue countries from going nuclear. And the IAEA is a limp dick organization.


    You have it backwards. US policy is actually driving "rogue nations" to pursue WMD's. Why hasn't N. Korea been invaded? The thousands of pieces of artillery aimed at the dmz and the fact that they have nukes are a major deterant. If Iraq actually had WMD's they would probably be ruled by Saddam Hussein right now, instead of the US mililtary. And the US State Department has put out reports echoing that statement...

    The reason international orginizations haven't been doing there job is because the US has refused to play along...because in most cases the United States has been the aggressor and those international bodies are trying to stop them. Since the 70's the US leads the world in UN vetoes, which says alot about US stances on internationl issues. Most of the world would agree on something and the US would step in and vetoe the resolution. They even vetoed a resolution calling on all states to obey international law, a direct reference to US terrorist attacks on Nicauragua.
  • Posts: 143
    Last Exodus wrote:
    The US can drop its military options when international organizations tasked with keeping the peace, and preventing nuclear proliferation actually DO THEIR JOB. They didn't do it in Iraq. They Didn't do it in North Korea, and they are not doing it in Iran. No one else is willing to step up and keep rogue countries from going nuclear. And the IAEA is a limp dick organization.


    well put. Iran is very vulnerable country, economically-speaking. real sanctions along the lines of the n. korea sanctions regime could work, and they would certainly galvanize the liberal-minded people in iran to confront their government. The US and Israel would obviously opt for this but China, Russia, and France would never allow it because they're too greedy, too thirsty for Iran's oil, and they know that if Iran did have nukes, they wouldn't be at the top of the list of potential targets. They are the ones responsible for preventing the UN responsible from doing anything about this situation. They are responsible for limiting the only viable options to the military option.
    Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism

    Most antizionists are antisemites
  • Posts: 226
    Last Exodus wrote:
    The US can drop its military options when international organizations tasked with keeping the peace, and preventing nuclear proliferation actually DO THEIR JOB. They didn't do it in Iraq. They Didn't do it in North Korea, and they are not doing it in Iran. No one else is willing to step up and keep rogue countries from going nuclear. And the IAEA is a limp dick organization.

    you are talking nonsense. the international organizations can't do their job if the US keep mining those organizations and prevent them to do their job. The IAEA is doing its job, but if the US just don't care about that job, the IAEA can't really do nothing about it, and so the rest of the world.
    The US won't drop the military option for one reason only: it is the only option they have not to have the US economy and the US economical egemony on the world collapse.
    http://www.myspace.com/stoikaestinta
  • Posts: 143
    Eva7 wrote:
    you are talking nonsense. the international organizations can't do their job if the US keep mining those organizations and prevent them to do their job. The IAEA is doing its job, but if the US just don't care about that job, the IAEA can't really do nothing about it, and so the rest of the world.
    The US won't drop the military option for one reason only: it is the only option they have not to have the US economy and the US economical egemony on the world collapse.

    the US is interferng witht he IAEA in Iran? that's news to me. care to provide examples?
    Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism

    Most antizionists are antisemites
  • Posts: 4,984
    Rue D'Awakening wrote:
    the US is interferng witht he IAEA in Iran? that's news to me. care to provide examples?
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913629943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



    "Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, the official says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms."


    well, they are at least ignoring...
  • Posts: 226
    Rue D'Awakening wrote:
    the US is interferng witht he IAEA in Iran? that's news to me. care to provide examples?

    never used the term "interferring". I said they don't care, exactly like they didn't care when Hans Blix told them there were no WMD in Iraq.
    http://www.myspace.com/stoikaestinta
  • Posts: 4,984
    Eva7 wrote:
    never used the term "interferring". I said they don't care, exactly like they didn't care when Hans Blix told them there were no WMD in Iraq.


    Exactly. Ignoring the experts to pursue their own agenda....

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories