PDA

View Full Version : *Iran About To Get Mud Hole Stomped In Its Side*



chesswarsnow
01-31-2010, 11:15 PM
Sorry bout that,

FEB 11TH 2010 HE SAYS, I SAYS, BRING IT!!!!!


1. Irans mini leader has said he is about to attack the west,...or somewhere in his region, a brother nation, or for Gods sake, Israel,......bad idea.
2. But common little midget leader of iran, you bring it on down to USA forces.
3. And watch your little nation catch a whoop ass beating.
4. Bring midget man!
5. Heres a link and a sample:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf


"Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration's approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic programme.

Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position.

The administration is deploying two Patriot batteries, capable of shooting down incoming missiles, in each of the four Gulf countries. Kuwait already has an older version of the missile, deployed after Iraq's invasion. Saudi Arabia has long had the missiles, as has Israel.

An unnamed senior administration official told the New York Times: "Our first goal is to deter the Iranians. A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."

The chief of the US central command, General David Petraeus, said in a speech 10 days ago that countries in the region are concerned about Tehran's military ambitions and the prospect of it becoming a dominant power in the Gulf: "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."

Petraeus said the US is keeping cruisers equipped with advanced anti-missile systems in the Gulf at all times to act as a buffer between Iran and the Gulf states.

Washington is also concerned at the threat of action by Israel, which is predicting that Iran will be able to build a nuclear missile within a year, a much faster timetable than assessed by the US, and is warning that it will not let Tehran come close to completion if diplomacy fails.

The director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and other senior officials in Jerusalem last week to discuss Iran.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have joined Republican party leaders in trying to build public pressure on the administration to take a tougher line with Iran. One group, the Israel Project, has been running a TV campaign warning that Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.

"Imagine Washington DC under missile attack from nearby Baltimore," it says. "A nuclear Iran is a threat to peace, emboldens extremists, and could give nuclear materials to terrorists with the ability to strike anywhere."

Washington is also concerned that if Iran is able to build nuclear weapons, other states in the region will feel the need to follow. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to already have atomic bombs, although it does not officially acknowledge it.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said in London last week that the US will press for additional sanctions against Iran if it fails to curb its nuclear programme.

Europe's foreign affairs minister, Catherine Ashton, today said the UN security council should now take up the issue. "We are worried about what's happening in Iran. I'm disappointed at the failure of Iran to accept the dialogue and we now need to look again at what needs to happen there," she told Sky News.

"The next step for us is to take our discussions into the security council. When I was meeting with Hillary Clinton last week we talked about Iran and we were very clear this is a problem we will have to deal with."

However, China and Russia are still pressing for a diplomatic solution.

Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, continually referred to what he described as the Iranian threat during his evidence at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday. Textual analysis now shows that he mentioned Iran 58 times.

Besides the new missile deployment, Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia to create a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and other infrastructure, as well as expanded joint exercises between the US and military forces in the region.

The move is a continuation of the military build-up begun under former president George W Bush. In the past two years, Abu Dhabi has bought $17bn (£11bn) worth of weapons from the US, including the Patriot anti-missile batteries and an advanced anti-missile system. UAE recently bought 80 US-made fighter jets. It is also buying fighters from France.

Petraeus said in a speech in Bahrain last year the UAE air force "could take out the entire Iranian air force, I believe"."


6. Make my day midget man,....


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Agnapostate
01-31-2010, 11:19 PM
Why should the Iranian government conform with U.S. governmental demands? It was a previous U.S. administration that launched terroristic nuclear attacks against a civilian population, a series of U.S. governmental administrations that support a government of another Middle East state that maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to IAEA inspections whatsoever, and the governments of two Far East states that have several times come to the brink of nuclear war with each other.

chesswarsnow
01-31-2010, 11:26 PM
Sorry bout that,





Why should the Iranian government conform with U.S. governmental demands? It was a previous U.S. administration that launched terroristic nuclear attacks against a civilian population, a series of U.S. governmental administrations that support a government of another Middle East state that maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to IAEA inspections whatsoever, and the governments of two Far East states that have several times come to the brink of nuclear war with each other.




1. Stay on topic Cheif.:slap:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

PostmodernProphet
02-01-2010, 12:34 AM
Why should the Iranian government conform with U.S. governmental demands?

actually, I think you mean the UN's demands, don't you?.....

Agnapostate
02-01-2010, 12:47 AM
actually, I think you mean the UN's demands, don't you?.....

Or the most powerful nation-state in the UN that exercises an imperialistic monopoly through the veto power of the Security Council and over the Board of Governors of the IAEA. That too. ;)

Sitarro
02-01-2010, 01:54 AM
Why should the Iranian government conform with U.S. governmental demands? It was a previous U.S. administration that launched terroristic nuclear attacks against a civilian population, a series of U.S. governmental administrations that support a government of another Middle East state that maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to IAEA inspections whatsoever, and the governments of two Far East states that have several times come to the brink of nuclear war with each other.

Why would you live in a country that you obviously hate? Isn't there another that would have beliefs more like yours that you could be happier living in? One that you could have some pride in?

Agnapostate
02-01-2010, 02:27 AM
Why would you live in a country that you obviously hate? Isn't there another that would have beliefs more like yours that you could be happier living in? One that you could have some pride in?

I've noticed that you've expressed opposition to the policies of the current administration. Very well. Why would you live in a country that you obviously hate? Isn't there another that would have beliefs more like yours that you could be happier living in? One that you could have some pride in? :salute:

Noir
02-01-2010, 02:42 AM
Christ, a war with Iran? Well I hope you guys are willing to go it alone, cus our PrimeMinisters hands are going to be tied. I don't know if you guys knows what's happeneing over here with the Iraq enquiry, but no PM could dare again follow the USA for the sake of following them, however right or wrong it may be.

Gaffer
02-01-2010, 08:52 AM
Christ, a war with Iran? Well I hope you guys are willing to go it alone, cus our PrimeMinisters hands are going to be tied. I don't know if you guys knows what's happeneing over here with the Iraq enquiry, but no PM could dare again follow the USA for the sake of following them, however right or wrong it may be.

War has been brewing with iran for 20 years. It's come a lot closer in the last five or so.

Not familiar with your iraq inquiry. It's probably the same silly shit we have over here conducted by the same people. Do things the easy way instead of the right way.

Noir
02-01-2010, 09:08 AM
War has been brewing with iran for 20 years. It's come a lot closer in the last five or so.

Not familiar with your iraq inquiry. It's probably the same silly shit we have over here conducted by the same people. Do things the easy way instead of the right way.

Well i don't know about the inquiry you guys have had, we have had 4 so far, all white-washes, this is the first one that is asking the hard questions and may well shed some light on why we went to war, and if it was thus legal or not.

and given what everyone thinks the answer is, i.e. to follow the americans, then it would make it much less likely that Britain would follow the US into Iran.

Gaffer
02-01-2010, 09:24 AM
Well i don't know about the inquiry you guys have had, we have had 4 so far, all white-washes, this is the first one that is asking the hard questions and may well shed some light on why we went to war, and if it was thus legal or not.

and given what everyone thinks the answer is, i.e. to follow the americans, then it would make it much less likely that Britain would follow the US into Iran.

When your doing something dangerous it's nice to have someone covering your back. The UK has been doing that for the US. The so called inquiries are just liberals trying to take down both countries. The enemy within the gates thing.

The US and UK and 40 other countries went into iraq because saddam spent 12 years thumbing his nose at the un and the rest of the world. He was financing terroist groups, in some cases openly. He was thought to be developing and stock piling WMD's. Even the russians said so. He had already started two wars previously and was continuing to make threats.

The liberals over here are using your socialists to undermine both government. This inquiry is just a wedge to be used in the future agains the US.

Gaffer
02-01-2010, 09:36 AM
I have a thrid world server here which is why I ended up with a double post. Can a mod remove one of them please.

revelarts
02-08-2010, 04:59 PM
Ron Paul on our entry into war in Iraq and on terror,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKuCxcz1lUQ
.
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKuCxcz1lUQ"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKuCxcz1lUQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


"Bullet proof evidence" WMDs
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

AFbombloader
02-08-2010, 05:24 PM
Why should the Iranian government conform with U.S. governmental demands? It was a previous U.S. administration that launched terroristic nuclear attacks against a civilian population, a series of U.S. governmental administrations that support a government of another Middle East state that maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to IAEA inspections whatsoever, and the governments of two Far East states that have several times come to the brink of nuclear war with each other.

Terroristic nuclear attack? Never thought I would see WWII referred to as a terrorist action.

Iran doesn't have to follow our demands, in fact they haven't been following ours or anybody's for years. But if they do attack us, we have every right right to reciprocate in force. As to the rest of your post....whatever.

Kathianne
02-08-2010, 05:40 PM
Well i don't know about the inquiry you guys have had, we have had 4 so far, all white-washes, this is the first one that is asking the hard questions and may well shed some light on why we went to war, and if it was thus legal or not.

and given what everyone thinks the answer is, i.e. to follow the americans, then it would make it much less likely that Britain would follow the US into Iran.

I think UK is safe. It's not on Obama's list of friendlies, have you all noticed?

Kathianne
02-08-2010, 05:42 PM
I have a thrid world server here which is why I ended up with a double post. Can a mod remove one of them please.

Anything for you!

revelarts
02-08-2010, 05:53 PM
from C-span Q and A

LT. COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.)
tells her story of how she observed, from her position in the Pentagon, the vice-president and a set of his advisor's "creating" intelligence to convince the D.O.D., the American people and the world to go to war with Iraq. In the face of real credible evidence that clearly showed Saddam was no real threat or problem at all.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

Agnapostate
02-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Terroristic nuclear attack? Never thought I would see WWII referred to as a terrorist action.

It seems an inconsistent double standard otherwise.


Iran doesn't have to follow our demands, in fact they haven't been following ours or anybody's for years. But if they do attack us, we have every right right to reciprocate in force.

Even if the current Iranian regime did attack, I wouldn't see it as much more than an attempt at reciprocation. It was a previous CIA administration that backed the 1953 coup against the democratically elected prime minister and consolidation of power by a monarchist tyrant and the previous and current U.S. administrations that are attempting to destabilize the current regime and have admitted as much.

AFbombloader
02-08-2010, 06:15 PM
It seems an inconsistent double standard otherwise.

Even if the current Iranian regime did attack, I wouldn't see it as much more than an attempt at reciprocation. It was a previous CIA administration that backed the 1953 coup against the democratically elected prime minister and consolidation of power by a monarchist tyrant and the previous and current U.S. administrations that are attempting to destabilize the current regime and have admitted as much.

The dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy do not meet the criteria for terrorist attack. They were not done to incite fear or to gain anything by fear. They were done to ultimately end a war and saves thousands, if not millions, of lives in Japan and in America.

Since when do the sins of the father apply to the son? What was done by previous US administrations, to the previous administrations in Iran is not why they are the way they are. At one time we were allies, in a loose sense of the word. And that was after 1953.

AF:salute:

PostmodernProphet
02-08-2010, 07:41 PM
Or the most powerful nation-state in the UN that exercises an imperialistic monopoly through the veto power of the Security Council and over the Board of Governors of the IAEA. That too. ;)

no, the Soviet Union is gone, son.....

chesswarsnow
02-08-2010, 08:27 PM
Sorry bout that,

1. In three days will see this *Iranian Surprise*!
2. Then Obama will have to decide which major Islamic City he will have to blow off the map.
3. I vote for Mecca.
4. Heres a little ol link:http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe 2.521&show_article=1


"Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers during this week's 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned," Khamenei, who is also Iran's commander-in-chief, told a gathering of air force personnel. "



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow
02-09-2010, 09:41 AM
Sorry bout that,


[QUOTE=revelarts;408343]from C-span Q and A

LT. COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.)
tells her story of how she observed, from her position in the Pentagon, the vice-president and a set of his advisor's "creating" intelligence to convince the D.O.D., the American people and the world to go to war with Iraq. In the face of real credible evidence that clearly showed Saddam was no real threat or problem at all.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069[/QUOTE



1. Errrrrr....... And what thread were you trying to post too?
2. This is the irainian thread.
3. Why do you have you're head buried in the sand?
4. Oh I know you like surprises.
5. Well you dig up old bs about how iraq was innocent of any wrong doing.
6. And I will publish the real news as I see it.
7. I'm for a first strike, just nuke Tehran.
8. Screw them.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sitarro
02-11-2010, 03:22 AM
I've noticed that you've expressed opposition to the policies of the current administration. Very well. Why would you live in a country that you obviously hate? Isn't there another that would have beliefs more like yours that you could be happier living in? One that you could have some pride in? :salute:

The current administration is not the United States......... your attempt at a point failed. I love the United States, I believe in this country's moral decency and am sorry we have wasted so much time, lives, money and resources on people that don't want or deserve our help. Fuck the assholes around the world, let them fight for themselves.