Time to attack iran

[elvis]

not at all. How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so. I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis. But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.

You asked who I was criticizing, like I shouldnt have been criticizing Sunni.

Given the silliness of your King David Hotel excuse, no you should not be criticizing anyone.


You DO know what the pentagon DOES, right?

Again, I NEVER said the pentagon wasn't a military target. I said the WTC wasn't.

 

[editec]

They didn't take money out of the economy to fight WWII.

They invented money to fight that war.


It astounds me that you people think money is real sometimes, it really does.

It amounts to the same thing.

Yes and no. If you're just a schmuck like you and me, it is the same thing.

If you're one of the masterswho gets to issue the currency, that's a whole nothing smoke. Then money (debt) is merely an extention of your power to mobilize a nation onto war footing by giving them meaningless pieces of paper in exchange for their labors


Inflation devalues the currency (that is an abstract social contract to begin with, which only has value if the society says it does) and though you're not actually taking any physical money from them you're still stealing their wealth.(More like the masters are expending their power to tell people to work for their green pieces of paper, but it's hard to explain to people who think national debts have meaning) However, money was taken out of the economy through higher taxes as well.

No think of it more like resources are taken out of the economy, and that money is merely an accounting of it.

The capacity to do work (which are where the real value lays) where always there...in the natural resources and labor it takes to use them.

So when the nation was threatened, the masters released some of those resources by creating this false god called money that put labor to work turning natural resources into war production.

But think about it...who the hell had enough money to fund the second world war?

The banks!? The same banks that were broke in 1929?

Where'd the masters get it?

So...when you use a word like DEBT to describe what happened to get America working again...it actually makes no sense.

Debt implies the money existed and is actually LENT by someone TO someone.

Issuing debt/money is merely an expression of the power of the society issuing it.

It is only had value because of the willingness of the people who accept it.

GOLD can not give money value, either contrary to the Gold Bugs...POWER certainly does, however have the ability to give those worthless pieces of paper (and accounting ledgers) power to move the earth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure I understand what your point is for most of that post. The fact is that inflating the money supply devalues the currency which is essentially an indirect tax. You're not losing an actual amount of dollars, but you're still losing an actual amount of wealth.

As far as gold goes, it has a value because people value it. If we were on a true gold standard then the only inflation we would have is when the money supply is increased due to an increase in gold reserves which would mean that the currency is not being devalued.

 

[Gunny]

Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?

I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect:

BBC NEWS | Business | Rush for oil reaches Britain's fields

"Onshore drilling in the East Midlands proved vital to the war effort during World War I and the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea in the late 1960s allowed the UK to become largely self-sufficient in the two resources. But this is changing. The UK became a net importer of gas in 2004 and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010 as production in the North Sea declines from its 1999 peak of about 2.9 million barrels a day."

-----------

Even if it is now a net importer, then the claim of "80% of UK oil is imported is absurd...



See these links for a rather different opinion:

Loading...
World Tribune — Iraqi parliament overwhelms pro-Iran bloc to forge 'strong' partnership with U.S.
Hill: Iran is "real problem" for Iraq_English_Xinhua

Things are a bit more complex than you are implying; they are friendly on the surface, but underneath the iraqis do not trust iran...

And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.

There is a lot that can be done, trust me. I cannot get into details of our military preparations, but you can be sure there is little the iranian fascists can implement that we have not prepared for.

RhodesStupid,

We are so honored that you took time out of your busy schedule of briefing the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, and other agencies about Iran.

And decided to help us here a USMB understand the geopolitical situation concerning Iran and the ME.

You are definatly a world class

And you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. Address the topic, please. This isn't the flame zone.

 

[rhodescholar]

Thanks for the compliments sweetie, but you're deflecting./Never said anything about trading partners. Said Britain gets the great majority of its foreign oil from Iran. AIOC. AIOC. AIOC.

I will deal with this lie first...here are your first 2 posts that raised the issue in this thread, and let me know where in those first two that you mention the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375575-post99.html

FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), ....Have a nice day.

-----------------

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375607-post101.html

Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right...MANPADS.

-----------------

As all can see, you lied, and were caught. In NEITHER post did you claim that it got its FOREIGN oil from iran, only "its oil," so you are either of poor memory, or are now lying to cover your mistake. It wasn't until your THIRD post here that you mentioned the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1376141-post104.html

1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.

---------------

Had you not questioned my military experience, I would have been a bit more gentle in correcting you, but since you asked it wasn't the SEALS or MF Recon either, honey.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

Thanks for the compliments sweetie, but you're deflecting./Never said anything about trading partners. Said Britain gets the great majority of its foreign oil from Iran. AIOC. AIOC. AIOC.

I will deal with this lie first...here are your first 2 posts that raised the issue in this thread, and let me know where in those first two that you mention the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375575-post99.html

FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), ....Have a nice day.

-----------------

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375607-post101.html

Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right...MANPADS.

-----------------

As all can see, you lied, and were caught. In NEITHER post did you claim that it got its FOREIGN oil from iran, only "its oil," so you are either of poor memory, or are now lying to cover your mistake. It wasn't until your THIRD post here that you mentioned the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1376141-post104.html

1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.

---------------

Had you not questioned my military experience, I would have been a bit more gentle in correcting you, but since you asked it wasn't the SEALS or MF Recon either, honey.

I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I meant foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I meant foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.

I deeply apologize for calling you out in this manner, it is conduct unbecoming of me and it does not represent me well to be such an arrogant accuser - regardless of whether I am "right or "wrong."

Class is being a good winner, as much as a good loser, and I was not the former... ;(

As the good book says "he may cast the first stone..." - there is no person who has not made an honest mistake - which is all that you did, nothing more - and I am guilty of far, far worse.

You and I might disagree on certain ideas, but you are one of the more decent posters here, and in no way, shape or form can you be lumped in together with the garbage of humanity like shogun.

 

[Dr Grump]

Keep your nose out of Iran...

 

[elvis]

Keep your nose out of Iran...

Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Keep your nose out of Iran...

Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.

Why should Iran answer to the United States?

 

[elvis]

Keep your nose out of Iran...

Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.

Why should Iran answer to the United States?

my point is....

whether or not we attack Iran is not for New Zealand to decide.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.

Why should Iran answer to the United States?

my point is....

whether or not we attack Iran is not for New Zealand to decide.

Agreed. That responsibility belongs with the Congress, but hopefully they choose not to do so.

 

[editec]

I'm not sure I understand what your point is for most of that post.

My point was to show you the relationship between power and money.

Money that is not backed by power has no value.

Money isn't a thing with real value unless a social contract gives it value.

And my other point was to show you that the so called DEBT that so many of you care about, is largely bullshit.

How can we be in debt when the people who supposedly LENT us the money, didn't have that money to begin with?

They had the power (by social contract) to INVENT the money based on our promise to pay it back.

This system is unsustainable and our so called debts are basically delusional.

The fact is that inflating the money supply devalues the currency which is essentially an indirect tax. You're not losing an actual amount of dollars, but you're still losing an actual amount of wealth.

Yeah yeah, I understand all that.

You're missing mypoint...the money itself is a tool, one that only has value because of the POWER to give it value.

As far as gold goes, it has a value because people value it.

EXACTLY like money.

If we were on a true gold standard then the only inflation we would have is when the money supply is increased due to an increase in gold reserves which would mean that the currency is not being devalued.

True.

Of course, then we'd have continuous deflation, assuming that the amount of good and services continued to increase compared to the amount of gold.

The gold standard will not solve the problems we're facing, Chum.

I wish it were that simple, but honestly, it's not.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I meant foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.

I deeply apologize for calling you out in this manner, it is conduct unbecoming of me and it does not represent me well to be such an arrogant accuser - regardless of whether I am "right or "wrong."

Class is being a good winner, as much as a good loser, and I was not the former... ;(

As the good book says "he may cast the first stone..." - there is no person who has not made an honest mistake - which is all that you did, nothing more - and I am guilty of far, far worse.

You and I might disagree on certain ideas, but you are one of the more decent posters here, and in no way, shape or form can you be lumped in together with the garbage of humanity like shogun.

No apology necessary. I don't take anything personally, and talking about politics guarantees drama.

 

[Old Rocks]

You only get to be wrong on that one once. Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave. He was a thug and way to obvious.

The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.

FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.

"Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.

He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.

The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.

"In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.

Whatever dude. Look at the asshole's history, He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader. Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them. He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.

Look at the religious thugs in Iran. What are THEY doing? The same thing. Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.

Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes. They actually work.

And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.

 

[rhodescholar]

And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?

The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.

So AN would be replaced with another stooge. What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.

To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed. Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup. He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.

The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them. They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.

Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.

 

[Tommy Lucchese]

And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?

The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.

So AN would be replaced with another stooge. What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.

To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed. Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup. He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.

The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them. They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.

Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.

I would point out that when Saddam seized power from Kemal (?), the CIA was happy to provide him with a list of Communists and suspected Communists, who Saddam promptly liquidated.

Plus in the Eighties, the agricultural subsidies, the helos, the precursors for chemical weapons, ELINT on Iranian positions. . . .we do not have clean hands in this situation.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.

FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News

Whatever dude. Look at the asshole's history, He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader. Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them. He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.

Look at the religious thugs in Iran. What are THEY doing? The same thing. Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.

Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes. They actually work.

And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.

Who set Saddam up in power? That sounds like you are implying the Americans did it. Given the timing, you mean that Jimmy Carter and Admiral Stansfield Turner (DCI) created Saddam Hussein. As much as I would love to blame the hapless Carter for anything at all, I can't blame him for this. He had nothing to do with it. You are just another one of those "blame America first" kind of people who constantly talk out of their asses. Here, so you don't make the same mistake again.

In 1966, he escaped from prison and continued his work with the party, culminating in a critical role in the July 1968 coup that brought the Ba'ath party to power for good. Following the coup, Saddam became vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council in 1969. Over the next few years, he rose through the party ranks, becoming vice president and deputy secretary-general of the Ba'ath Party's Regional Command.

As vice chairman, he oversaw the nationalization of the oil industry and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, schools and hospitals. The once illiterate Saddam, ordered a mandatory literacy program. Those who did not participate risked three years in jail, but hundreds of thousands learned to read. Iraq, at this time, created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East -- a feat that earned Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

But it was also during this time that Saddam reportedly helped form secret police units that cracked down on dissidents and those opposed to Ba'ath rule. He also served in the Iraqi armed forces as a lieutenant general from 1973 until 1976, when he was promoted to general.

On July 16, 1979, President al-Bakr resigned and Saddam rose to the presidency. Five of his fellow members of the Revolutionary Command Council were quickly accused of involvement in a coup attempt and executed, along with 17 other rivals.

Online Newshour report on Saddam's rise

And where did he get his chemical weapons? I assume, since you always "hate America first" you mean to imply that the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq and they subsequently used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

I can find nothing that supports this contention. Even the wacko left-wing commie propaganda doesn't say that (although it does sport headlines like "How Reagan Supplied Saddam with WMD" and other bombastic and misleading titles).

The US played a rough game of Real Politick with Iraq and Iran. If the fucking commie Dems hadn't intervened we might have succeeded in destroying both countries instead of having to fight in Iraq twice. But, Dem hand-wringing fucked everything up as usually. Fucking morons! And now comes Iran. We're in a double fucked situation now because of Dem whining. We have Hillary running around pronouncing, "We will not allow Iran to have atomic weapons," and we have no choice in the matter. Either Obama and Hillary are going to take us to war in Iran or Iran is going to get nukes. Having said that we will not allow it, Hillary is building a bonfire with American credibility that will burn for at least a decade.

Face it, Dems don't understand foreign policy. They are too stupid and have no stomach for it even on the off chance they understood what was happening.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?

The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.

So AN would be replaced with another stooge. What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.

To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed. Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup. He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.

The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them. They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.

Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.

I would point out that when Saddam seized power from Kemal (?), the CIA was happy to provide him with a list of Communists and suspected Communists, who Saddam promptly liquidated.

Plus in the Eighties, the agricultural subsidies, the helos, the precursors for chemical weapons, ELINT on Iranian positions. . . .we do not have clean hands in this situation.

So the outcome you favored was a victory by the Islamic Revolution and a realization of their goal of ousting Saddam? Why did you want that?

We don't have clean hands? Don't be an idiot, this isn't a court of fucking equity. This is foreign policy between two asshole brutal regimes. Because the Dems decided to put an end to the US "assistance" to both sides in that war, we have had to fight Iraq twice and it sounds like the Bama and Hillster are going to make us fight Iran too. Thanks A LOT!! Fuckers.

 

[Shogun]

Why don't you put all that in your phantom WMD pipe and smoke it, dude. For all your talk you forget who brought the term "mobile chem labs" to our national lexicon.