And as far as the Iranians hating us for shooting down a passenger plane, let me take a page from the Lixy book of arguement:
The US wasn’t the only country to shoot down a passenger plane.
So the Iranians hate the US to bolster their dictatorship. . .
but have no problem being in bed with Muslim-killin’, plane shootin’, nuke threatenin’, arms dealin’, terrorist trainin’, Iran invadin’, Shah proppin’, Saddam armin’ fuggin’ Ruskies.
Defies all logic, don’t it?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.
[/quote]
Maybe the Founding Fathers?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.
Maybe the Founding Fathers?
[/quote]
Nope. The Founding Fathers called George III out for not abiding by the rules. They then listed all the specific instances in which George had broken the rules, and told him that if he wasn’t going to play by the rules, then they weren’t going to play anymore. We call this the Declaration of Independence.
Then they wrote down the rules, so that nobody would be in the dark about them anymore. This is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
lixy wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Funny how they didn’t tell President Reagan to fuck off.
Why would they? He was selling them weapons.
You really are stupid aren’t you? the day Reagan was sworn in was the day the American hostages were released after 444 days. Jimmy Carter was so useless he couldn’t get them released.
All it took Reagan was assuming office. the arms sales occurred after that day, of course.
Point being, Carter and Obama were clueless. Reagan had some backbone. strength deters more problems than the silly ass idea of we’ll reason with these guys.
[/quote]
Oh really? ALL it took was for Reagan to assume office, as if it was something magical?
Iran wanted to embarrass Carter and, obviously, if Reagan is going to sell them weapons, they will try to bolster Reagan’s image by releasing hostages during his presidency.
Or is that really hard to figure out? Come on.
I’m Iranian, by the way.
My cousins sent me the Obama video message. People were excited that a US president did that, but now they’re sitting back thinking, “Ok, but what’s going to happen?”
Everyone in Iran hates Khamenei, the supreme leader. Everyone. But here, he has a point: nothing’s changed.
You can’t wish a country “Happy New Year!” and call them terrorists in the same message. Right?
And of course Iran - the government, not the people - hates the US. America sold Saddam chemical weapons - duh, how did we know he could have stockpiles of the stuff? we sold it to him during the Iran-Iraq war - who used it to destroy the Kurds up north and Iranians during the war.
Two of my cousins were in the Iran-Iraq and are now sterile and cannot have children because of long term health damage from the chemical weapons Saddam used. An entire generation of people were affected by the war. How could they forget so easily?
And the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Not a very popular photo, huh?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.
Maybe the Founding Fathers?
Nope. The Founding Fathers called George III out for not abiding by the rules. They then listed all the specific instances in which George had broken the rules, and told him that if he wasn’t going to play by the rules, then they weren’t going to play anymore. We call this the Declaration of Independence.
Then they wrote down the rules, so that nobody would be in the dark about them anymore. This is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
I think you need to study up on Benjamin Franklin and how he did his part to finance to revolution. When they ran out of money, Franklin just fired up the printing press and printed more. Franklin said the printing press was a wonderful invention because he could print as much money as he wanted to.
Franklin didn’t let niceties like honesty hold him back. He did what he had to do. He printed money knowing that the government did not have gold or silver reserves to back it with.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
tom63 wrote:
lixy wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Funny how they didn’t tell President Reagan to fuck off.
Why would they? He was selling them weapons.
You really are stupid aren’t you? the day Reagan was sworn in was the day the American hostages were released after 444 days. Jimmy Carter was so useless he couldn’t get them released.
All it took Reagan was assuming office. the arms sales occurred after that day, of course.
Point being, Carter and Obama were clueless. Reagan had some backbone. strength deters more problems than the silly ass idea of we’ll reason with these guys.
Oh really? ALL it took was for Reagan to assume office, as if it was something magical?
Iran wanted to embarrass Carter and, obviously, if Reagan is going to sell them weapons, they will try to bolster Reagan’s image by releasing hostages during his presidency. [/quote]
Reagan was inaugurated on January 20th 1981. The Iran contra affair didn’t even begin until June 1985 during Reagan’s second term you putz. Iran Contra had nothing to do with the embassy hostages getting released.
[quote]
Or is that really hard to figure out? Come on.
I’m Iranian, by the way.
My cousins sent me the Obama video message. People were excited that a US president did that, but now they’re sitting back thinking, “Ok, but what’s going to happen?”
Everyone in Iran hates Khamenei, the supreme leader. Everyone. But here, he has a point: nothing’s changed.
You can’t wish a country “Happy New Year!” and call them terrorists in the same message. Right?
And of course Iran - the government, not the people - hates the US. America sold Saddam chemical weapons - duh, how did we know he could have stockpiles of the stuff? we sold it to him during the Iran-Iraq war - who used it to destroy the Kurds up north and Iranians during the war.
Two of my cousins were in the Iran-Iraq and are now sterile and cannot have children because of long term health damage from the chemical weapons Saddam used. An entire generation of people were affected by the war. How could they forget so easily?
And the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Not a very popular photo, huh? [/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.
Maybe the Founding Fathers?
Nope. The Founding Fathers called George III out for not abiding by the rules. They then listed all the specific instances in which George had broken the rules, and told him that if he wasn’t going to play by the rules, then they weren’t going to play anymore. We call this the Declaration of Independence.
Then they wrote down the rules, so that nobody would be in the dark about them anymore. This is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I think you need to study up on Benjamin Franklin and how he did his part to finance to revolution. When they ran out of money, Franklin just fired up the printing press and printed more. Franklin said the printing press was a wonderful invention because he could print as much money as he wanted to.
Franklin didn’t let niceties like honesty hold him back. He did what he had to do. He printed money knowing that the government did not have gold or silver reserves to back it with. [/quote]
Thats because by 1775 most of the gold and silver coinage had been taken through British taxes, there was nothing to back and currency with. They had no choice.
the colonies had been working successfully off the colonial script, despite not charging any interest, it not causing any problems or inflation.
the British bankers did not like this becuase they only issued money for the sake of shareholder profits.
the currency act of 1765 made it illegal for the colonies to continue with script, and forced them to pay all their debts back in silver or gold but there was none.
this fucked the colonies hard, and people hated it becuase all the sudden we had starving people everywhere that we once didn’t.
hence why Franklin and most of the northern colony leaders believed the Currency act more than any taxes on tea or anything, was what drove the revolution flame. They would have payed higher taxes on tea if the British left script alone.
we might still be british had they done that.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
tom63 wrote:
lixy wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Funny how they didn’t tell President Reagan to fuck off.
Why would they? He was selling them weapons.
You really are stupid aren’t you? the day Reagan was sworn in was the day the American hostages were released after 444 days. Jimmy Carter was so useless he couldn’t get them released.
All it took Reagan was assuming office. the arms sales occurred after that day, of course.
Point being, Carter and Obama were clueless. Reagan had some backbone. strength deters more problems than the silly ass idea of we’ll reason with these guys.
Oh really? ALL it took was for Reagan to assume office, as if it was something magical?
Iran wanted to embarrass Carter and, obviously, if Reagan is going to sell them weapons, they will try to bolster Reagan’s image by releasing hostages during his presidency.
Reagan was inaugurated on January 20th 1981. The Iran contra affair didn’t even begin until June 1985 during Reagan’s second term you putz. Iran Contra had nothing to do with the embassy hostages getting released.
Or is that really hard to figure out? Come on.
I’m Iranian, by the way.
My cousins sent me the Obama video message. People were excited that a US president did that, but now they’re sitting back thinking, “Ok, but what’s going to happen?”
Everyone in Iran hates Khamenei, the supreme leader. Everyone. But here, he has a point: nothing’s changed.
You can’t wish a country “Happy New Year!” and call them terrorists in the same message. Right?
And of course Iran - the government, not the people - hates the US. America sold Saddam chemical weapons - duh, how did we know he could have stockpiles of the stuff? we sold it to him during the Iran-Iraq war - who used it to destroy the Kurds up north and Iranians during the war.
Two of my cousins were in the Iran-Iraq and are now sterile and cannot have children because of long term health damage from the chemical weapons Saddam used. An entire generation of people were affected by the war. How could they forget so easily?
And the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand? Not a very popular photo, huh?
[/quote]
more likely is that they knew next administration, republican or democrat would begin full military actions against them.
remember, liberal democrats have started more wars, even at that point.
they played their entire hand with Carter, and when they realized the US was getting a complete mulligan, they had no reason to try anymore and cut their losses.
i mean seriously, they knew a big fuck stick was coming regardless of whose balls were attached.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, Sifu, the issue was not the democratic-ness of Mossadeq’s election (certainly the Shah wasn’t democratically elected, but that didn’t stop the US from propping him up), but rather the issue of what constitutes justification for meddling in the affairs of another sovereign nation.
You sound like a person asking what are the rules to a street fight. The rules of street fighting is there are no rules.
With that statement you find common ground with every terrorist, guerrilla fighter, and tinpot dictator in the world.
Maybe the Founding Fathers?
Nope. The Founding Fathers called George III out for not abiding by the rules. They then listed all the specific instances in which George had broken the rules, and told him that if he wasn’t going to play by the rules, then they weren’t going to play anymore. We call this the Declaration of Independence.
Then they wrote down the rules, so that nobody would be in the dark about them anymore. This is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
Kind of like violating 18 U.N. resolutions?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Is that against the rules?
[/quote]
i think Sifu comments are apt, there are no rules in a street fight, sometimes you just gotta fight.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Is that against the rules?
i think Sifu comments are apt, there are no rules in a street fight, sometimes you just gotta fight. [/quote]
[i]Avon: Yo, let me ask you something. did you tell them discount-ass niggas that they could pop off at Omar grandma?
Stringer: Oh, man. sham come to me in the middle of the meeting and talk they got their sights on Omar. they say nothing about no grandma. no church hat, nothing like that. I hear the cocksucker’s name, I say “go.”
Avon: on a SUNDAY morning?
Stringer: Yo, i don’t give a fuck, man. I hear that cocksucker’s name, man, I ain’t thinking about a church day.
Avon: The Sunday Morning Truce been around long as the game itself, man. I mean, you know what I’m saying, you can do some shit and be like “what the fuck,” but, hey, just never on no Sunday, man. I mean, it’s just people was talking on us and all the stories are getting bigger & bigger. like I swear, fatface rick heard that our people went and shot Omar’s granny in the ass on purpose, and all that. And then pulled our dicks out, pissed on her crown and shit.
[/i]
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5986
Israel: Iran is only months away from building a nuke, has ballistic warhead capability
Israel’s AMAN military intelligence director, Maj. Amos Yadlin updated the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee on the state of Iran’s nuclear progress Wednesday, March 25. He reported that although Iran is only months away from a capacity to make a nuclear bomb and has attained a warhead capability, Tehran has decided not to cross the threshold so as to avoid provoking Western retaliation.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report this is not Tehran’s true rationale. The Iranians are held back by two more compelling motives:
-
They will not be satisfied with a single nuclear bomb, but would rather build up an arsenal of 10 to 12 bombs and warheads for which they are short of enough enriched uranium at the moment.
-
Tehran is no longer deterred by fear of an American or European attack, Yadlin explained in his briefing Wednesday. Its leaders are standing by to see what rewards are on offer from US president Barack Obama for improving Washington-Tehran and how they may profit in strategic, diplomatic and economic terms. If the American incentives fall short, Tehran can push ahead with its nuclear weapon.
In his briefing, Yadlin avoided pointing out that Obama’s projected rewards for Tehran would be at the expense of Israel’s strategic standing or even its military might. This awareness has prompted the sharply conflicting US and Israel intelligence evaluations of the point at which Iran’s nuclear bomb program stands at present.
While the AMAN chief says the capability is there but not yet fulfilled, the Americans speak of a timeline of 1-5 years or more.
Until now, both Western and Israeli experts maintained Iran has not yet acquired the technology for mounting nuclear warheads on missiles. Yadlin now reveals Tehran is already there, a conclusion reached after the Iranians sent their first earth satellite, Omid, into space on Jan. 3. The launch meant that Iran can deliver nuclear warheads by ballistic missile at at any point on earth.