Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Statistikhengst]

Iran toys with your pathetic president.

How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal. Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?

Pssst. You are ruining their Wingnuttia Unincornland purple cotton-candy fantasies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Murder He Wrote:

Slyh 11143961

Moab their capital buildings and their private homes. #3560

“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used ... www.globalresearch.ca/the-mother-of-all-bombs-moab.../5333811 May 3, 2013 - The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Erni 11140511

"Peace for our time" From Thomas Sowell:

There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

#3543

Do you have any data that President Obama is 'tearing America's military forces down'? Or do you just swallow whatever a lunatic fringe right wing pundit puts in writing even if it makes no sense?

Military Aircraft Iran has 471
13900 US
936 UK
1264 France
663 Germany

What did Germany have in 1939?

It was the qualitative superiority of the German infantry divisions and the number of their armoured divisions that made the difference in 1939. The firepower of a German infantry division far exceeded that of a French, British, or Polish division; the standard German division included 442 machine guns, 135 mortars, 72 antitank guns, and 24 howitzers. Allied divisions had a firepower only slightly greater than that of World War I. Germany had six armoured divisions in September 1939; the Allies, though they had a large number of tanks, had no armoured divisions at that time.

The six armoured, or panzer, divisions of the Wehrmacht comprised some 2,400 tanks. And though Germany would subsequently expand its tank forces during the first years of the war, it was not the number of tanks that Germany had (the Allies had almost as many in September 1939) but the fact of their being organized into divisions and operated as such that was to prove decisive. In accordance with the doctrines of General Heinz Guderian, the German tanks were used in massed formations in conjunction with motorized artillery to punch holes in the enemy line and to isolate segments of the enemy, which were then surrounded and captured by motorized German infantry divisions while the tanks ranged forward to repeat the process: deep drives into enemy territory by panzer divisions were thus followed by mechanized infantry and foot soldiers. These tactics were supported by dive bombers that attacked and disrupted the enemy’s supply and communications lines and spread panic and confusion in its rear, thus further paralyzing its defensive capabilities. Mechanization was the key to the German blitzkrieg, or “lightning war,” so named because of the unprecedented speed and mobility that were its salient characteristics. Tested and well-trained in maneuvers, the German panzer divisions constituted a force with no equal in Europe.

The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, was also the best force of its kind in 1939. It was a ground-cooperation force designed to support the Army, but its planes were superior to nearly all Allied types. In the rearmament period from 1935 to 1939 the production of German combat aircraft steadily mounted.

World War II 1939-1945 Forces and resources of the European combatants 1939 Encyclopedia Britannica


Sowell has made quite the ass-backwards comparison don't you think?

 

[Ernie S.]

Iran toys with your pathetic president.

How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal. Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?

You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.

How do you perceive that I am being toyed with since you apparently cannot deny that Obama is being toyed with. Did you see my post Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 363 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum which explains the huge advantage in military aircraft the US and our allies have over Iran. Yet you think the mouse is toying with the cat before killing and eatting it. Would you dare to try and explain your inanity?

 

[Ernie S.]

I've explained my position ad infinitum and you are incapable of understanding simple English. I have no further desire to present cogent argument to insentient beings.

 

[Jroc]

You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.

How do you perceive that I am being toyed with since you apparently cannot deny that Obama is being toyed with. Did you see my post Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 363 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum which explains the huge advantage in military aircraft the US and our allies have over Iran. Yet you think the mouse is toying with the cat before killing and eatting it. Would you dare to try and explain your inanity?

You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ernie 11166347

I've explained my position ad infinitum and you are incapable of understanding simple English.

You have not explained why you think I'm being toyed with. Many can see that you cannot explain what you mean by 'being toyed with'. So why would you make up a story that you explained it ad infinitum?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jroc 11166494

You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me

I don't know about you but I don't "seem" to think your ridiculous suggestion that "the Islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me" at all. It is not even close. In fact in 2003 and ever since then I consider the Theocracy in Iran to be much worse in terms of a threat than the much more secular regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq that both Colin Powell and Condi Rice considered prior to the 2001 September attacks to be "militarily" contained. It was "dumb" strategically to take out a secular regime in Iraq since the UN inspectors were all but 100% confirming that Iraq did not have the WMD stockpiles and were cooperating with inspectors to prove they were not there. Invading Iraq was dumb in 2003 because Iraq's majority of course is Shiite and fundamentally religious on the same Islamic side as the Islamonazis in Tehran.

So don't argue as your only desperate dwindling argument that I "seem" to think anything that would be according to the nonsense rattling around in your right winger head.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking - there was no "war for oil"

ChrisL11070078

Only, there was no "war for oil." That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil. CHINA did. We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all. If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it. #3420

Just because a 2002 / 2003 war plan did not work out does not mean the intent was never there to start with. The US did attempt to privatize Iraq's nationalized oil infrastructure. But the US military industrial complex did benefit from a war for Iraq's "oil revenues" Just ask the workers in Lima Ohio who build Abrams Tanks for General Dynamics. How much profit did General Dynamics make on those tanks sold to Iraq? How did the Iraqis pay for the tanks that they purchased? The money did not come from selling dates and camel bridles, did it? It of course came from $140 a barrel oil sales. That is how we did a war for oil. Not the physical oil, but for the US profits and workers pay that Iraq's oil revenues provided after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

U.S. Selling 170 More M-1 Abrams Tanks to Iraq After the Iraqi Army Lost 40 Last Summer to ISIS January 6, 2014 Iraq Asks For More M-1s, Please Iraq is buying another 170 American M-1A1 tanks. In 2008 Iraq had ordered and received (by 2010) 140 M-1A1 tanks, 21 M88A1 armored recovery vehicles and 60 M1070 tank transporters (which can also carry supplies or other vehicles.) Iraq was not be the first Arab country to operate the M1 tank. Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already operate over 1,600 of them, and Egypt has built hundreds of them (mainly using components imported from the U.S., but with some locally made parts). Iraq receives the M-1A1 version. All the other Arab users have at least some of the latest model (M1A2 SEP).

Do you recall what Rupert Murdoch said prior to the US invasion of Iraq?

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn’t so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

Who Is Rupert Murdoch Center for American Progress


Oil was about $40 a barrel at the time of the invasion... What did it go up to after the invasion $150 a barrel. Again Murdoch's predictions:

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country." and ""Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."

If that was not promoting US and UK troops die for oil by invading Iraq - I don't know any sane human being able to argue that invading Iraq was not a war for oil without being laughed at for being so ignorant.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This thread lives!!!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This thread lives!!!

Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure.

 

[Jroc]

This thread lives!!!

Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure.

That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jroc 11171509

That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread.

Debunking - islamonazis are just like you and me

That's nonsense. Your recent post is one of the most easily debunked posts. Here's what's happened so far:

Jroc 11166494

You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me #3627

My response to that was this:

NF 11167249

I don't know about you but I don't "seem" to think your ridiculous suggestion that "the Islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me" at all. It is not even close. In fact in 2003 and ever since then I consider the Theocracy in Iran to be much worse in terms of a threat than the much more secular regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq that both Colin Powell and Condi Rice considered prior to the 2001 September attacks to be "militarily" contained. It was "dumb" strategically to take out a secular regime in Iraq since the UN inspectors were all but 100% confirming that Iraq did not have the WMD stockpiles and were cooperating with inspectors to prove they were not there. Invading Iraq was dumb in 2003 because Iraq's majority of course is Shiite and fundamentally religious on the same Islamic side as the Islamonazis in Tehran. <> So don't argue as your only desperate dwindling argument that I "seem" to think anything that would be according to the nonsense rattling around in your right winger head. #3629

Statis 11169030

This thread lives!!! #3631

NF 11170528

Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure. #3632

Jrac 11171509

That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread #3633

Of course its been done and you have not responded to anything. Now you want to run to a new thread. Why not respond to my debunking of your make-believe story?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I see the nutters are going out in a blaze of glory!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Chri 11080231

Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.

How do you propose getting tougher sanctions when two permanent members on the UNS want to trade with Iran and don't think tougher sanctions will work?

 

[Slyhunter]

Chri 11080231

Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.

How do you propose getting tougher sanctions when two permanent members on the UNS want to trade with Iran and don't think tougher sanctions will work?

tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Slyh 11173158

tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.

So it is quite obvious to you that calling for tougher sanctions in lieu the framework agreement is made only by those who are living in some kind of dreamworld or truly want to settle the matter by war? Is that correct?

 

[Slyhunter]

Slyh 11173158

tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.

So it is quite obvious to you that calling for tougher sanctions in lieu the framework agreement is made only by those who are living in some kind of dreamworld or truly want to settle the matter by war? Is that correct?

I think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Slyh 11176470

think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.

So you want war because you know there is no deal to be had wherein Iran agrees to eliminate all nuclear capability. Right? So you want war not based on what has been done but based on what might happen? Right?

Those who thing tougher sanctions will bring about the deal you want are living in a dreamworld. Right?