Calling John Kerry! Iran just spit in your face

[irosie91]

talk to a YEMENI-----we got lots in the USA------usually working in little shops ----
that sell newspapers and cigs-------and owned by their own relatives----in innercities.
Iran is CONQUERING port cities-----Aden, Taiz , Hodeidah etc-------and Iran is
gathering its forces UP NORTH on the border of Saudi Arabia. It's a very bit deal
now being overlooked

Maybe so, that does not make it WWIII. At best it makes it a regional dispute, with the possiblity of becoming global. At best. Time will tell if this is the begining, or just an isolated event. I truely hope it is the later.

It is already "GLOBAL"----in that sunnis are checking in at SUNNI defense and aggression sites and Shiites are checking in with --Shiite defense and aggression
sites. Where there are muslims----there are, generally, both sunnis and Shiites---
with Shiites often a minority-----but sometimes the majority. -----even in places
like Pakistan

Using that logic, the world has been in a state of global war for decades, even pre-dating WWI. Like minded people seeking to form a way of mutual defence/aggression does not a global war make. When nations, from throughout the world, declare war, that is a global war. What you are descriping has, in effect, been happening sense before recorded history.

wrong again------even WORLD WAR II and I-----did not include EVERY VILLAGE
AND TOWN IN THE WORLD------they were both ---SIMPLY---very wide-spread as
is the current WORLD WAR------sit tight-----it is not a JOUST between Richard the lion hearted and Sa'aladin

I find it dogmatic of you to refuse to supply even one link to subsatiate any of your claims. I, therefore, cannot put any faith in your claims, and will discuss them no further. Thank you for your input, it was...intersting if nothing else.

You need a "link" for what? My statement "World war II and I,, did not
include every village and town in the world" (???) how long have you been
living under a rock?

 

[oldsoul]

Maybe so, that does not make it WWIII. At best it makes it a regional dispute, with the possiblity of becoming global. At best. Time will tell if this is the begining, or just an isolated event. I truely hope it is the later.

It is already "GLOBAL"----in that sunnis are checking in at SUNNI defense and aggression sites and Shiites are checking in with --Shiite defense and aggression
sites. Where there are muslims----there are, generally, both sunnis and Shiites---
with Shiites often a minority-----but sometimes the majority. -----even in places
like Pakistan

Using that logic, the world has been in a state of global war for decades, even pre-dating WWI. Like minded people seeking to form a way of mutual defence/aggression does not a global war make. When nations, from throughout the world, declare war, that is a global war. What you are descriping has, in effect, been happening sense before recorded history.

wrong again------even WORLD WAR II and I-----did not include EVERY VILLAGE
AND TOWN IN THE WORLD------they were both ---SIMPLY---very wide-spread as
is the current WORLD WAR------sit tight-----it is not a JOUST between Richard the lion hearted and Sa'aladin

I find it dogmatic of you to refuse to supply even one link to subsatiate any of your claims. I, therefore, cannot put any faith in your claims, and will discuss them no further. Thank you for your input, it was...intersting if nothing else.

You need a "link" for what? My statement "World war II and I,, did not
include every village and town in the world" (???) how long have you been
living under a rock?

You claim WWIII has started. Are you dense enough to think I would not want to substanciate such a bold claim? Or are you so focused on your dogma that you cannot see the forest for the trees?

 

[irosie91]

It is already "GLOBAL"----in that sunnis are checking in at SUNNI defense and aggression sites and Shiites are checking in with --Shiite defense and aggression
sites. Where there are muslims----there are, generally, both sunnis and Shiites---
with Shiites often a minority-----but sometimes the majority. -----even in places
like Pakistan

Using that logic, the world has been in a state of global war for decades, even pre-dating WWI. Like minded people seeking to form a way of mutual defence/aggression does not a global war make. When nations, from throughout the world, declare war, that is a global war. What you are descriping has, in effect, been happening sense before recorded history.

wrong again------even WORLD WAR II and I-----did not include EVERY VILLAGE
AND TOWN IN THE WORLD------they were both ---SIMPLY---very wide-spread as
is the current WORLD WAR------sit tight-----it is not a JOUST between Richard the lion hearted and Sa'aladin

I find it dogmatic of you to refuse to supply even one link to subsatiate any of your claims. I, therefore, cannot put any faith in your claims, and will discuss them no further. Thank you for your input, it was...intersting if nothing else.

You need a "link" for what? My statement "World war II and I,, did not
include every village and town in the world" (???) how long have you been
living under a rock?

You claim WWIII has started. Are you dense enough to think I would not want to substanciate such a bold claim? Or are you so focused on your dogma that you cannot see the forest for the trees?

wrong again-----it is you who "CANNOT SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES"
I have expressed a logical analysis of the current situation in the world. I have
been doing just that for many years ON THE NET------and so far have been right.
An example dates back to 2011 -----when the "ARAB SPRING" took off in
TUNISIA. People like you were APPLAUDING-------"THE ARABS ARE GOING
DEMOCRATIC_-- (sigh) FINALLLY !!!!" "HOW WONDERFUL"-------my comment which was met with HATRED was------"sit tight" "this is going to get
very BLOODY" ----for my correct analysis, I was vilified as "ZIONIST BITCH
ISLAMO PHOBIC" for you------Sit tight-----world war III has already started
in YEMEN. Iran is taking the ALL IMPORTANT sea ports of that land in order
to get a FIRM HANDLE on world trade AND is planning an INVASION OF SAUDI
ARABIA. --------do I care? am I worried about the FAT SAUDI KINGS?
Such a question is about as clever as people like you asked in the 1930s-----
"IS THE SUDENTENLAND (whatever that is---important to potato farmers in Idaho?) " I am not excited about the Fat Saudi Kings-----but I know that an
invasion into SAUDI arabia-----over the sea of blood created by Iran in the backwater of Yemen------will kick off world wide conflict. <<<both the forest and
the trees

 

[oldsoul]

invasion into SAUDI arabia-----over the sea of blood created by Iran in the backwater of Yemen------will kick off world wide conflict.

So, it hasn't started YET. That would be why you are the only one I have seen accually try to convince anyone that it has, and why you cannot provide a link to anything that supports your claim. I am done.

 

[irosie91]

invasion into SAUDI arabia-----over the sea of blood created by Iran in the backwater of Yemen------will kick off world wide conflict.

So, it hasn't started YET. That would be why you are the only one I have seen accually try to convince anyone that it has, and why you cannot provide a link to anything that supports your claim. I am done.

yes----you are done. That you NEED a link to interpret the situation right
before your eyes------is evidence of your unfortunate intellectual deterioration

 

[idb]

Thanks for that.
I searched and searched your link and can't find anything about a limitation on missiles.

It is supposedly in the "agreement" which has the stipulation, by Iran, that certain parts are not made public. I doubt that is where one would find the provision as we know about it, but it may be that it is in the "non-public" section. As far as I know noone is saying the provision does not exist, therefore I would tend to believe that it does in fact exist.

I see.
So you don't know.

Before I put you on permanent ignore the UN Security Council, no friend of the US, imposed the new sanctions. Let me guess. I think the UNSC and the IAEA officials know just a little more than you do about what is contained in the agreement.
Now bugger off.

That would be the sanction on nuclear-capable missiles?
Carry on with your little hissy-fit though...don't let me stop you.

The UN and the IAEA and the Mullahs are the ones having the hissy fit asshole. Had the agreement been as 'wonderful' and effective and airtight as the fucking traitors Obama and Kerry claimed it is why is there now new sanctions being imposed? Or do you believe in fact the UN Security Council and the IAEA, neither friends of the US, are just being 'mean' to poor innocent Iran?
Ya. That's it. The world is 'out to get' Iran right?
Or maybe they know more about the reality of the situation than you do.
So. Which is it?
The fact is the Mullahs were using Kerry's 'agreement' as asswipe before he left Tehran.

You're making no sense.
If the P5 + 1 deal didn't address missiles how can you say it failed?

Have you always been a fan of the UN and the IAEA?
I'm guessing not...but it suits your agenda of hating on Obama and Kerry now of course.

 

[idb]

invasion into SAUDI arabia-----over the sea of blood created by Iran in the backwater of Yemen------will kick off world wide conflict.

So, it hasn't started YET. That would be why you are the only one I have seen accually try to convince anyone that it has, and why you cannot provide a link to anything that supports your claim. I am done.

yes----you are done. That you NEED a link to interpret the situation right
before your eyes------is evidence of your unfortunate intellectual deterioration

You stated that Iran had declared war.
A declaration shouldn't be hard to link to.