 |
Recently Israel said it would attack Iran, and American sat in the wings applauding. Now Iran makes it clear what its response would be.
Iran: Nobody would dare attack Islamic Republic - World news
Brinkmanship isn't pretty and we should all wonder why it is necessary? Unless, of course, it represents an excuse to keep american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's face it, america needs another war to pull its industries out of the doldrums but it doesn't need more middle eastern involvement
All I see here is more hot air from the Irainians. Remember Sudam Hussain's quotes about body bags? It was over in weeks. Who do they really think they are kidding?
Even the IAEA has admitted that the 12ers have been deceiving the world . Too bad the IAEA was complicit with the thugs from Tehran when Mohamed Al Baradei was in charge of the organization.
I also think it's urgent to investigate which members of the US intelligence community were complicit in putting out the fraud of a National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007 that all but said the Iranians had abandoned their pursuit of nukes .
That was a better time to deal with the Mahdi-hatter .
As you recall;that report was used by the Democrats running for the Presidency ;especially Obama and Biden ; to dismiss concerns about the growing nuke threat from Iran .
I don't get it frankly. When the world decided to act in unison it was able to peacefully force regime change in South Africa . This regime in Tehran is by far a greater threat to the world than the South Africans were ,and it is far more repressive to it's people . Yet a large part of the world shrugs it's shoulders as the lunatics running the country openly admit that their goal is to force an apocalyptic end game.
When homicidal messianic despots talk like that you best take them seriously .
Here we go again WMD! An excuse which never grows old, unless of course the US isn't concernedIAEA shows Iran nuke program intel to 35 nations - World news
What are you talking about ? The IAEA clearly demonstrates what we have known for almost a decade. It supports the case I made above. Had the world acted then perhaps there would be no need to contemplate a military response. But to Israel and many of it's neighbors ;the threat of an Iranian nuke in the hands of the regime of the 12ers is an existential threat. They have no choice but to act.
Further ;it is apparent that the US is retreating from the region so we cannot even offer a credible deterence umbrella . You want to see an arms race ? Wait until the Pakis start giving the Sunni bomb to nations like Turkey ,Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
If the US is retreating from the region then they don't need to be concerned about Iran, they just need to go back to the other side of the Pacific. The Paki's have probably done what they intended to do. Pakistan was an instrument of american foreign policy, or was it the other way around. You are concerned about the Paki's without realising Pakistan is a failed state, without american aid they will sink out of sight and China will help them outQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You want us to be concerned about China but if you offer nothing we might need to be concerned about you.
Anyway Tom one war at a time, you fight the wars you can win, or at least that's the way the planning goes, so why are you concerned about your allies. You need to realise that there is a big difference between rhetoric and action. In that part of the world they talk a lot but action rarely mirrors rhetoric
Go back to your illusions. You think that because you are an island continent in the middle of nowhere that the world will pass you by and it's not your concern.
The Paki nuclear technology has made it to your side of the world too and the fool in Pyongyang is a wild card.
You are foolish if you are not looking towards China and not see their expansionist ambitions . The same situation exists on China's perimeter . Proliferation will be the name of the game if the US goes home. At least your leaders realize that ,and will invite us to establish a forward operating base in Darwin. BTW.. feel free to keep Obama. He and Red Julia make a lovely couple.
Well Tom for some this might be the middle of nowhere, but then a couple of hunderd years ago america was the middle of nowhere, so don't write us off. We are very well aware of what is happening in our region because, unlike the american, we educate our children to be aware of the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Pakistan responded to India, not to anyoneelse, and like all the people of the subcontinent, they like to make a buck, there being so few of them about. I'm not concerned about NK, you can worry if you want to. There are enough people in SK to worry about that one and eventually they will solve it, probably without your help.Quote:
The Paki nuclear technology has made it to your side of the world too and the fool in Pyongyang is a wild card.
When I look out I see american expansionist ambitions although they are a little dinted at the moment. You would deny China the same opportunity that you profited from. It's not a base in Darwin,Quote:
You are foolish if you are not looking towards China and not see their expansionist ambitions . The same situation exists on China's perimeter . Proliferation will be the name of the game if the US goes home. At least your leaders realize that ,and will invite us to establish a forward operating base in Darwin. BTW.. feel free to keep Obama. He and Red Julia make a lovely couple.
Tom,
http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/a...3&cId=Politics
Unless you want to buy one, it is american rotation through an existing Australian base, look up Robertson base Tom, so more US feet on the ground to chase the local girls and annoy the abo's, but far enough away from the rest of us so we don't know you are there. Darwin doesn't have the inferstructure to cater for a major US base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Northern_Territory... it is a tiny backwoods place as you would say, but they do run a nice line in petrol
We don't want Obama, Tom, we have enough coconuts already, so don't dump your trash on us.
I did not say we would establish an American base although I can see where that's inferred in my comment.
Ummm... there are some who would say that comment crosses the political correctness divide.Quote:
we have enough coconuts already
Not at all, Tom, down here we say what we mean and mean what we say.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
When we speak of abo troublemakers, we are speaking of what the abo's call coconuts, people of mixed race and so the comment is correctly applied to BO. That boy doesn't know whether he is a Christian or a Muslim, I doubt he knows whether he is negro or white, he certainly has a history of being raised in a non negro community and yet he has exploited his racial connections.
Just so you are absolutely clear what is meant the comment speaks of a person's heart and mind. Coconut; black on the outside and white on the inside
Geez Clete, there you go with that "hidden racism" side of you again. There is but one race, no matter the outside, or the inside, dumb, smart, that's all relative.
What you think those "Abos" will stay down at the bottom forever? So don't worry about the Iranians, or there big brothers the Chinese, or cousins the Pakis. The coconut in Washington seems to handle foreigners quite well so far.
Ask Osama, or Momar! Oh that's right, you can't. No need to worry about what those depots are saying, or the things they are into. We won't let them blow YOU guys up. You should worry they blow themselves up while talking tough. Or there populations overturning them. The later may be more realistic than them intimidating the folks with the real NUKES.
Tal there is nothing hidden about me, what you see is what you get.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
We might all be one race but certain things have moulded us to think differently and that is where the difference lies. How do I know someone might be thinking differently to me, could be the actions tell me and if I equate these difference to be cultural often you cannot deny how they were brought up which includes which people they have been in contact with is a significant factor.
So as you say the abo's may not always be on the bottom and some have risen well but they acknowledge themselves that what holds them back is very much cultural and the ones we see on the very bottom are those who belong nowhere, not culturally, not according to country and even the abo's use the term "skin" to determine whether someone belongs. They are not politically correct about it in your terms but they know what a coconut is.
Now I'm not concerned if you or the paki's or the NK blow themselves up while talking tough, regretable though it may be, it is a consequence of playing with firecrackers. One thing I do know is that we are not going to blow ourselves up and I really don't care whether you are there to help out or not, because you do things for your own reasons whether it affects us or not
And that Clete is the bottom line, everyone serves their own self interests. That's why I doubt we blow ourselves up, at least not on purpose (though all our nuclear reactors have run through their warranty), but we sure as hell won't let someone else blow us up either.
And be careful, your cultural superiority, while reassuring, is by no means a guarantee of continuing domination. Its relative, and subject to changes. Differences don't mean superior, nor does it take away from the similarities.
The only thing that counts is thriving, and surviving, through adaptation to inevitable changes. That's just life, no matter what you call someone else.
Well Tal the surviving and thriving bit I think we have done quite well thus far, and it is because we do things a little differently
Whatever works best for you!
Exactly Tal we will not always conform to your agenda, after all we are friends only
Hmm, I don't recall us asking you too. Did I miss something?
No but BO is right now
Back on the theme of the thread, and speak of blowing people up, I notice that coincidentially a senior figure in the Iranian missile program was killed in that recent explosion. Fortutitous how these things happen, and with the US new emphasis of assassination of its enemies could it be a BO foreign policy success? Or perhaps an Israeli foreign policy success?
Who can know what secrets governments have behind closed doors. I mean what would you expect the US to do when you have nations like IRAN, with influences that are tied to terrorist in MANY countries.
I mean a nuclear IRAN could scare a lot of people into kicking the crap out of them by whatever means they have. Mr. Obama HAS been trying to talk to them to no avail for 3 years.
They are NOT our friends, CLETE.
Here's hoping.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Who suggested they were, but, once upon a time, long, long, ago, it was rumored that the rule of law was upper most in the mind of americans who would never assassinate their enemies, Obviously, your mind set is who cares. All it took for that rumor to disappear is for someone to shake your confidence in your own superiority. We have seen the enemy and it is USQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So I guess you don't want us to kill our enemies who are trying to kill us HUH?
Our rule of law, in war allows for that and its not assassination, and we are not YOUR enemy, unless you are with OUR enemy.
When Australia has that kind of power, AND has powerful enemies then you may understand that concept. When Australia has made US an enemy, you will be the first to know, and some ex american who takes up with terrorists against us was not a rumor, nor did it shake our confidence.
And get your eyes checked while you are at it.
Tal don't twist it, I have no objection to you or US killing their/our enemies on the battlefield, but taking the cowards way is just making yourself like your enemy. For the record, Tal, we don't want the power to assassinate our enemies because those actions are what makes enemies. Our nation has no enemies because we don't interfere in other nations. The last direct enemy we had, you helped us see off but then they were your enemy too and you would have done that whether or no.
Had my eyes checked only last week Tal
Then I am confused Clete, who did we Assassinate?
Well let me see, we will start with OBL, a resident in an allied country, and then there was one of your own citizens, in Yemen, was it? And of course, there are those many people in Pakistan, where you couldn't tell whether they were actual enemies or not. Now there was a little explosion in Iran the other day, that coincidently took out a weapons expert, that one is unconfirmed. You have a team in central Africa right now, it will be iinteresting to see who they account for.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
OBL was the leader of our sworn enemies Al-Quaida, you know, the ones that killed more than 3000 Americans, on 9/11, and the traitor in Yemen was his buddy, and WE knew they were the enemy, even if you didn't. That why they were TARGETED for something bad to happen to them.
So we wait for some confirmation.Quote:
Now there was a little explosion in Iran the other day, that coincidently took out a weapons expert, that one is unconfirmed.
Not make assumptions.
Making sure that UN food and supplies get to the ones they are intended for, not some rebels, and yes we are armed and will shoot if fired upon... DUH!Quote:
You have a team in central Africa right now, it will be iinteresting to see who they account for.
Hey whose side are YOU on, I wouldn't want you mistaken for a terrorist, or rebel that was going to steal food, or kill women and children in cold blood.
So don't get in the middle of a fight between two ENEMIES. It's a WAR for crissake, not a tea party, or debate.
It isn't a question of whether I know they are the enemy or not. In WWII you wouldn't assassinate Hitler the most evil man to ever walk the Earth but you would violate thesoveriegnty of a country you are not at war with to kill someone who only killed a mere 3000 people. I know the difference, he killed americans and they are worth more, right.
This statement bothers me. When you mention war you act like all the lines are so clear a definite. We have had a war on drugs for many many years. Should we just start to assassinate those producing the drugs? After all they are far more responsible for more lives being ruined as well as deaths directly or indirectly. There are rules to war. If you choose not to follow them then you slip into the enemies mindset and become no better then your opponent. Is that what we want?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They are terrorist, they blow up planes and buildings, with car bombs and such. They hide among people.
Better ideas??
Some facts are due here .Quote:
In WWII you wouldn't assassinate Hitler the most evil man to ever walk the Earth but you would violate thesoveriegnty of a country you are not at war with to kill someone who only killed a mere 3000 people. I know the difference, he killed americans and they are worth more, right.
We did in fact assassinate Yamamoto . He was a military commander and a legitimate target. Hilter directly commanded the military of Germany making him a legitimate target.
What is this ? The Brits used to complain when the colonials would shoot at officers . Why should the leaders be exempt ? If I had my way they would be the only ones to fight.
I have yet to hear of 1 instance when anyone besides a legit military leaders was targeted by US drones or special ops .
Then your media have been very selective in reporting the hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan in recent years. Not all of those killed were "military" leaders or fighters, some were children.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom you need to get your head out of you know where and realise that things are not as you see them. The operations of your country are at times very black and whose country are you doing this in? Not your own. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan did not attack the United States. Some extremists attacked the United States. They did it because you had a military presence in what they regarded as a sacred place. For ten years you have bombed the crap out of them, and maybe a few have been placed on trial or worse. The Taliban are not the communists, they have no interest in taking over the world, they just want you to leave.
They gave safe haven and support to Al Quaida, and they have there families with them. (how dumb is that) Sorry to sound cold, but that makes them all targets. We wouldn't be talking if they had left us alone, and NO we were not in afpak before 9/11.
Heck they would all be Russian satellites if we hadn't helped them way back when. You need a better cable news company.
There are no safe havens for those that attack us, NONE,so be careful who you invite for dinner. What part of that is confusing you?
No, Tal, you don't get it, we would not be talking if you had left them alone. I'm not saying OBL didn't need dealing with, but aggressive foreign policy is what caused all of this. It is not a recent development but a legacy
Don't know where you get your rhetoric from, but last I checked we haven't made any aggressive moves to people without good reason (OKay Iraq), so do you have some facts we can examine?
If you feel that way why not tell the prez to stay home?
I didn't say only those killed were military leaders. In WWII whole cities were wasted . Drone attacks by comparison are surgical.
I am frankly shocked that you defend the Taliban . They were told of the consequences when they refused to hand over OBL .
Where I agree with you is that we have to rethink this notion that Pakistan is an ally. Me ;I'd tell India it's OK the unleash the kraken.
Pakistan let us have access through their country for cash, so its business rather than allies united for a common goal.
Shocked, you should be mortified. You are unable to see you are ensnared in a web of your own making. The Taliban were a soveriegn nation, why should they bow to your threats. They said provide evidence and all you provided was rhetoric. Stop behaving like the bully on the block. You attacked a backward nation thinking them a pushover, you think instant they think generationally, this why ten years on you don't have victory. Now I admit the Taliban are extremist and it is better they don't govern but that is not your call.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why would you side with India? Or Pakistan for that matter? If you had met the people over there you would not say what you did, they are not responsible for what their government does. Those governments over there are even more corrupt than your own. At least you don't have criminals leading the country
aaQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We got what we came for, time to go home, we can always come back if we have to. And for the record, the taliban is not a sovereign nation, but a tribe within a sovereign nation. We didn't attack Afghanistan, but the tribes that harbored our enemies with the help, and cooperation of other tribes friendly to us.
Osama is dead, Al Qaida scattered and leaderless, mission accomplished, going home. There is no safe haven for anyone who attacks us, not even on your island paradise. Not taking crap from religious idealogs isn't bulling, and what part of don't mess with us is so hard to understand?
Tough talk but the reality is you did attack Afghanistan, not some misguided individuals. Yes, Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is a shadow of its former self, that much you accomplished, but in the process you awakened a slumbering people who have seen off invaders before and you managed to piss off an allied nation. It is apparent how little you think of your allies with your we rule you fool attitude. It seem s you have managed to piss the afghans off tooQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/16/wo...html?hpt=hp_t3
Let me say this, Tal, we would fight you just as fiercely if you attempted the same thing here
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:21 AM. |