The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

chinthee · 26-09-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

I thought the drop dead point was breached a long while back, but of course that could be my radical intolerance of Islamic terrorism.

The issue is nuclear arms development in Iran, not "Islamic terrorism".

Achmashitadod yesterday at the UN clearly stated Iran's intention to share any nuclear technology with other non-aligned countries and parties. Such a blanket intention would surely lead to "Islamic terrorists" acquiring potentially mass destructive technology.

Butterfly · 26-09-2007, 01:06 PM

^^ Your boys are legitimate targets, so stop whining like a 12yr old

sabang · 26-09-2007, 01:09 PM

^^HeHe, he's really got your panties in a twist hasn't he.
I'm starting to like the guy.

The fact is, he is not all powerful in Iran at all.
The Ayatollah, senior clerics and senior military are where the real power lies- and they are NOT onside with some of his much vaunted reforms, such as wealth distribution, and more decentralisation of power. I guess they benefit from the status quo.

Boon Mee · 26-09-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabang

^HeHe, he's really got your panties in a twist hasn't he.
I'm starting to like the guy.

The fact is, he is not all powerful in Iran at all.
The Ayatollah, senior clerics and senior military are where the real power lies- and they are NOT onside with some of his much vaunted reforms, such as wealth distribution, and more decentralisation of power. I guess they benefit from the status quo.

Agree he's not at all that powerful within his own country. In fact, what makes him the slightest bit 'powerful' is all the attention he's currently getting. By mocking him as most students at Columbia did is the best way to treat this POS.

chinthee · 26-09-2007, 01:19 PM

^^ He doesn't have my panties in a twist, but some people who support this little stinking bearded muppet do. These are the same people who would support anyone who opposed the US. I call them kneejerk radicals. They whine like pussies when the US acts as the enforcer, but they would cry like babies if the US didn't come to their aid.

I don't have any illusions about how badly the US screwed up in Iran in supporting Shah. And, no doubt, it will screw up this situation too. But one thing the US won't be accused of is appeasement and inaction, like most of Europe. France is finally showing some backbone, but even Sarkozy has backed off because his country will be majority Islamic in 20 years if current immigration and birth rates continue.

Whether assmadinablowjob is really the power in Iran or not doesn't matter. He's articulating the country's power, and he's the one putting the country in harm's way.

stroller · 26-09-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

He doesn't have my panties in a twist, but some people who support this little stinking bearded muppet do. These are the same people who would support anyone who opposed the US. I call them kneejerk radicals. They whine like pussies when the US acts as the enforcer, but they would cry like babies if the US didn't come to their aid.

Anyone like this posting in here, or are you talking to the images in your head, again?

chinthee · 26-09-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

He doesn't have my panties in a twist, but some people who support this little stinking bearded muppet do. These are the same people who would support anyone who opposed the US. I call them kneejerk radicals. They whine like pussies when the US acts as the enforcer, but they would cry like babies if the US didn't come to their aid.

Anyone like this posting in here, or are you talking to the images in your head, again?

Gee I don't know? Did the US ever come to your aid, or have they always oppressed you?

stroller · 26-09-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinthee

Did the US ever come to your aid, or have they always oppressed you?

Neither of the two.
Cut the hype, dude.

attaboy · 26-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Talking about how we are at war with Iran - albeit a proxy war - how about the SAMS they are shifting into Iraq to kill our boys? This has got to stop.

Iran Smuggling Missiles and Other Advanced Weapons Into Iraq

I don't think they will get too sophisticated with the weaponry. If they do we'll sink their navy in the harbor. That is unless they have women and children on board their ships.

Milkman · 01-10-2007, 09:24 PM

I was thinking of starting a new thread, but I'll put this article excerpt here. It does seem that the U.S. is using the media get public support for attacking Iran. From journalist reports, the Bolton's comments, to the strong adjective used to describe Iran. Perhaps the media reports, false quotes, and rhetoric are just a part of a contingency plan that may or may not be executed. We'll see in the next 15 months, which is how much time GWB has in office.

Quote:

Shifting Targets

The Administration’s plan for Iran.

by Seymour M. Hersh

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The
Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

Link & Entire: Annals of National Security: Shifting Targets: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Quote:

JPost.com » Iran » Article

Sep 30, 2007 19:28 | Updated Sep 30, 2007 23:11
Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that [b]he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike[b] on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.

"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.
"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.
"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.

Link: Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader | Jerusalem Post

stroller · 01-10-2007, 09:48 PM

The propaganda reads: "consider the use of military force", but it's gone well beyond this already. The public is primed for an unprovoked attack on Iran.

Hitler-Poland anyone?

machangezi · 01-10-2007, 10:13 PM

Even if that asshat orders Iranian invasion, would he be able to control the situation?

sabang · 01-10-2007, 10:20 PM

Seeing as it is well recognised that iran is at least five years away from getting a bomb, the sales pitch from President Cheney has now changed to one of a surgical strike as a counterterrorist measure- thats why we are now reading more about alleged Iranian complicity in Iraqi resistance strikes.

Seymour Hersh did an article recently in the New Yorker, but these quotes are from the Sydney Morning Herald:-

'US plan to bomb Iran'

Australia, Britain and Israel have "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch "surgical" bombing raids on Iran targeting the Revolutionary Guard facilities, one of the US's leading investigative reporters, Seymour Hersh, reports.

Hersh says the Administration has stopped trying to justify the campaign on the basis of curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions, to redefining the war in Iraq as a strategic battle.
This is because there is a consensus within the intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb, Hersh said in an interview on CNN on Sunday.

Hersh said the bombing plan has had its most positive reception from Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

"The Israelis, of course, have gone bananas. They're very upset about the idea of not going. If you're going into Iran, the Israeli position is very firm. They want us to go. And they want us to hit hard. As an Israeli told me, if you run into a lion, you either shoot it or ignore it. You don't pluck out its eyebrows."

Hersh said the revised bombing plan with its tightened focus on counter-terrorism was gathering support among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon, who had been apprehensive about the earlier broader bombing plan.

Link- 'US plan to bomb Iran' - World - smh.com.au

Sounds like more snake oil and fearmongering to me.

On a seperate note, there are rumours floating around the US Marines in Iraq that some of those IED 'roadside' bombings have been so sophisticated and accurately targeted, that they are said to be Israeli devices, using depleted uranium as the armour piercing agent. Yet another conspiracy theory?

machangezi · 01-10-2007, 10:24 PM

Every statement or factual info that goes against Israel becomes conspiracy theory.

Israelies can't kill after all the USS liberty was an accident.

Milkman · 02-10-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machangezi

Even if that asshat orders Iranian invasion, would he be able to control the situation?

The second part is what may be most disturbing.

The Iranians have deep sites and bunkers. They have the Shihab-3 missle, and their armaments are spread throughout this large country. American bases in Iraq and the embassy would be targeted as well as Israel. How many missle sites a) could be taken out before responding and b) how many would be intercepted (shot down) after being launched.

The retaliation could be very severe. The Iranians are smart. Western Intell, I am suspect of.

chinthee · 02-10-2007, 12:58 AM

^ You know, all these conflicts have shown that you just can't defeat insurgents in the end. The Soviets learned that in Afghanistan, and we never believed it. I don't think there are many win-able wars in the world today. Yes, the US can overcome Iran militarily with some effort more than Iraq. But, the after affects seem interminable.

Boon Mee · 08-10-2007, 04:22 AM

. “The question isn’t really whether or not we can live with an Iranian bomb, but rather, who may die because of an Iranian bomb.”

It doesn't make any more sense than that...

raycarey · 08-10-2007, 11:11 AM

that yoiu can post the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It doesn't make any more sense than that

under a link to some blog called 'pajamasmedia'. says it all.

26-09-2007, 01:09 PM	#303 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:19 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,043	^^HeHe, he's really got your panties in a twist hasn't he. I'm starting to like the guy. The fact is, he is not all powerful in Iran at all. The Ayatollah, senior clerics and senior military are where the real power lies- and they are NOT onside with some of his much vaunted reforms, such as wealth distribution, and more decentralisation of power. I guess they benefit from the status quo. __________________ To err is human. To blame someone else is politics. Last edited by sabang : 26-09-2007 at 01:23 PM.

01-10-2007, 09:48 PM	#311 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	The propaganda reads: "consider the use of military force", but it's gone well beyond this already. The public is primed for an unprovoked attack on Iran. Hitler-Poland anyone? Last edited by stroller : 01-10-2007 at 09:59 PM.

26-09-2007, 01:06 PM	#302 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,514	^^ Your boys are legitimate targets, so stop whining like a 12yr old

26-09-2007, 01:19 PM	#305 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^^ He doesn't have my panties in a twist, but some people who support this little stinking bearded muppet do. These are the same people who would support anyone who opposed the US. I call them kneejerk radicals. They whine like pussies when the US acts as the enforcer, but they would cry like babies if the US didn't come to their aid. I don't have any illusions about how badly the US screwed up in Iran in supporting Shah. And, no doubt, it will screw up this situation too. But one thing the US won't be accused of is appeasement and inaction, like most of Europe. France is finally showing some backbone, but even Sarkozy has backed off because his country will be majority Islamic in 20 years if current immigration and birth rates continue. Whether assmadinablowjob is really the power in Iran or not doesn't matter. He's articulating the country's power, and he's the one putting the country in harm's way.

01-10-2007, 10:13 PM	#312 (permalink)
machangezi Not again! Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Out there! Posts: 8,121	Even if that asshat orders Iranian invasion, would he be able to control the situation?

01-10-2007, 10:20 PM	#313 (permalink)
sabang Watching the Wheels Last Online: Today 01:19 PM Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: east of Pattaya Posts: 9,043	Seeing as it is well recognised that iran is at least five years away from getting a bomb, the sales pitch from President Cheney has now changed to one of a surgical strike as a counterterrorist measure- thats why we are now reading more about alleged Iranian complicity in Iraqi resistance strikes. Seymour Hersh did an article recently in the New Yorker, but these quotes are from the Sydney Morning Herald:- 'US plan to bomb Iran' Australia, Britain and Israel have "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch "surgical" bombing raids on Iran targeting the Revolutionary Guard facilities, one of the US's leading investigative reporters, Seymour Hersh, reports. Hersh says the Administration has stopped trying to justify the campaign on the basis of curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions, to redefining the war in Iraq as a strategic battle. This is because there is a consensus within the intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb, Hersh said in an interview on CNN on Sunday. Hersh said the bombing plan has had its most positive reception from Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. "The Israelis, of course, have gone bananas. They're very upset about the idea of not going. If you're going into Iran, the Israeli position is very firm. They want us to go. And they want us to hit hard. As an Israeli told me, if you run into a lion, you either shoot it or ignore it. You don't pluck out its eyebrows." Hersh said the revised bombing plan with its tightened focus on counter-terrorism was gathering support among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon, who had been apprehensive about the earlier broader bombing plan. Link- 'US plan to bomb Iran' - World - smh.com.au Sounds like more snake oil and fearmongering to me. On a seperate note, there are rumours floating around the US Marines in Iraq that some of those IED 'roadside' bombings have been so sophisticated and accurately targeted, that they are said to be Israeli devices, using depleted uranium as the armour piercing agent. Yet another conspiracy theory?

01-10-2007, 10:24 PM	#314 (permalink)
machangezi Not again! Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Out there! Posts: 8,121	Every statement or factual info that goes against Israel becomes conspiracy theory. Israelies can't kill after all the USS liberty was an accident.

02-10-2007, 12:58 AM	#316 (permalink)
chinthee Sundance is my bff Last Online: 23-09-2008 07:21 AM Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,033	^ You know, all these conflicts have shown that you just can't defeat insurgents in the end. The Soviets learned that in Afghanistan, and we never believed it. I don't think there are many win-able wars in the world today. Yes, the US can overcome Iran militarily with some effort more than Iraq. But, the after affects seem interminable.

08-10-2007, 04:22 AM	#317 (permalink)
Boon Mee Senior Member Last Online: 05-01-2009 05:56 PM Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,108	. “The question isn’t really whether or not we can live with an Iranian bomb, but rather, who may die because of an Iranian bomb.” It doesn't make any more sense than that...