It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Laughs at US

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
MWM1331,
Why do u have to insult every country that has helped the US, even in Iraq we (the UK) have been very good allies to u and so have many other EU countries which u say the US will eventually control. I have a lot of respect for Americans as we would be speaking German if it they didnt help us defeat hitler ,
despite what people still think the German military was very powerful and we would have gotten invaded and the chance of nazi success would have been very high. U don't speak for the US at all, all these ideas are of your own making
and they (like u) are disturbingly hitlerite.




posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Fortunately, not even the Bush administration would allow the DrHoracids of this world behind the red button, too much money would be lost by the GOP shareholders.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
"Iran boasts 'great victory' over US, warns nuclear freeze is temporary

TEHRAN (AFP) Nov 30, 2004
Iran boasted Tuesday it had humiliated the United States at a board meeting of the UN atomic watchdog by agreeing to what it reiterated was only a temporary freeze of its suspect nuclear programme.
"The Islamic republic has not renounced the nuclear fuel cycle, will never renounce it and will use it," top national security official and nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani told a news conference.

"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the United States. And that is a great victory," he added.

On Monday the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spared Iran the fate of being referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after Tehran agreed in a deal with Britain, France and Germany to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Tehran. It had been pressuring the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors to send the case straight to New York.

Rowhani, who smiled and joked with reporters during a nearly two-hour-long press conference, claimed that the US envoy to the IAEA "was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans had failed and we had won"."

www.spacewar.com...

Iran is laughing all the way to WWIII. They intend on getting and using nuclear weapons and the world "debates". This is an age old Muslim trick, talk-stall-talk-stall.......get stronger and attack.




Wow Iran, you sure are silly... you funny bastards, oh wait sorry I forgot.. none of that was funny. But what is funny is that it seemed as tho Iran had smartened up alittle and decided to comply with the world for once... o wait... they didn't smarten up at all, just playin games like that other idiot So damn insane did. Look where that silly billy is now. So whats funny is Iran's leaders future lies... oh and by the way, how many of think you Iran actually fooled the U.S.? The white House had a hard time believing it when the news first broke. Little advice to Iran... don't get your turbans and bathrobs all in a bunch... thanks for the laugh tho


[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   


I think mwm and esdad are both saying that it's okay to have a brutal, oppressive monarch like the Shah in power AS LONG AS he supports America fully and is very pro-west.


I am sorry, I was trying to offer views of both sides and asking for help in understanding. Please do not place me into the mindless Bush war monger wanna-be group.

From what I have read about Iranian history current, the Shah came to power promising to be different than the current rule which was described as oppressive and controlling. The people rebelled, and a new power came to Iran. However, it soon became known that the Shah wanted full control, not just to be a spiritual leader.

I am not for war with Iran, and I do not promote a American dynasty to stretch from sea to sea. As far as the arguement that there should be no nuclear weapons, I agree. I wish the entire world could have a coke and a smile and enjoy the sunset.

Our nuclear arms are from a different time and a different war altogether. We built them as a show of power, and that is all it is. We have them now to protect us. I feel that there should be no more built, and more lobbbying to destroy those that exist. This should not be looked at as Executives saying "he 's got a prosche, i need a porsche."

The death of Arafat and the possible ushering in of new thinking in the palestinian/israeli conflict is also a troublesome. I have read of connections to HEzzbollah(sp) and Iran. Personally, I think that the Israelis should get the hell out and leave them alone, but that is another thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
esdad71,

All noted.

Regarding the Hostage Crisis, if you study, the Iranians did just that, take hostages. Boo-hoo. There was no torture and besides marching them in the streets, it's not like they made the hostages suffer. All they did was keep them there. They'll even tell you they were not mistreated in any way. In fact, the women and Marine guards were released early on and the Ayatollah even allowed a hostage to leave when he grew ill. They're really violent!


I also think people need to start understanding where this hatred for the America government comes from. And yes, the government, not the people. Ask the average Iranian and they say they hold no ill towards the American people. After Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down, journalists who went to rallies in Tehran said there was no violence exhibited towards anybody who was American.

[edit on 30-11-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalfan87
Wow Iran, you sure are silly... you funny bastards, oh wait sorry I forgot.. none of that was funny. But what is funny is that it seemed as tho Iran had smartened up alittle and decided to comply with the world for once... o wait... they didn't smarten up at all, just playin games like that other idiot So damn insane did. Look where that silly billy is now. So whats funny is Iran's leaders future lies... oh and by the way, how many of think you Iran actually fooled the U.S.? The white House had a hard time believing it when the news first broke. Little advice to Iran... don't get your turbans and bathrobs all in a bunch... thanks for the laugh tho

[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]


Dude, what's with you? Don't make commentary on something you obviously know nothing about.

Why is stupidity and ignorance the order of the day in this age?


I'll also lobby for your enlistment/draft into the military.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by metalfan87
Wow Iran, you sure are silly... you funny bastards, oh wait sorry I forgot.. none of that was funny. But what is funny is that it seemed as tho Iran had smartened up alittle and decided to comply with the world for once... o wait... they didn't smarten up at all, just playin games like that other idiot So damn insane did. Look where that silly billy is now. So whats funny is Iran's leaders future lies... oh and by the way, how many of think you Iran actually fooled the U.S.? The white House had a hard time believing it when the news first broke. Little advice to Iran... don't get your turbans and bathrobs all in a bunch... thanks for the laugh tho

[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]


Dude, what's with you? Don't make commentary on something you obviously know nothing about.

Why is stupidity and ignorance the order of the day in this age?


I'll also lobby for your enlistment/draft into the military.


Dude whats with me? Thanks for callin my comment stupid and not explaining why. How intelligent is that?Anybody can just say "your stupid" when they don't agree with what someone else says. I was simply responding to the thread. What part am I not understanding? Why don't you educate me alittle more on what "I obviously don't know about" I would love to learn more, after all thats why I joined ATS in the first place. Oh and by the way, I am planning on joining the military...thanks


[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalfan87
Dude whats with me? Thanks for callin my comment stupid and not explaining why. How intelligent is that?Anybody can just say "your stupid" when they don't agree with what someone else says. I was simply responding to the thread. What part am I not understanding? Why don't you educate me alittle more on what "I obviously don't know about" I would love to learn more, after all thats why I joined ATS in the first place. Oh and by the way, I am planning on joining the military...thanks


[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]


Re-read your entire post before mine. Just so you can see how ridiculous it sounds.

Best of all in the military. Excited about killing Iranians?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Call me crazy, but I think mwm1331 is just trying to rile everyone up. If he truly believes the stuff he's saying, then he may very well be clinically insane. If the US really wanted to take over the world, we'd do it more than 1 country at a time...or more specifically, more than 1 city at a time. I keep seeing people saying "the world wouldn't stand for it!" That may be true, but I think first and foremost, the American people wouldn't stand for it. As a whole, we're not a war-mongering country. We want to live in peace just like everyone else (for the most part). So in order for the USA to take over the world, our first and biggest opponent would be the USA.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I think it was a little more tense of a time than you are stating during the hostage crisis. The US had to abort an attempted rescue, so I would think if it was serious enough to contemplate entering a foriegn nation, there was worry that someone could be hurt.




On November 1, 1979 Iran's new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged his people to demonstrate against United States and Israeli interests. On November 4 the U.S. embassy was seized by a mob of around 500 Iranian students (although reported numbers vary from 300 to 2000) calling themselves the Imam's Disciples. Part of a crowd of thousands gathered around the embassy in protest. The 90 occupants of the embassy were held and the 66 Americans were made prisoners. The hostages were often shown blindfolded to local crowds and television cameras.



Have you ever seen footage of those months in Iran. DIdin't look to civilized to me. You make it sound like those hostages had nothing ot worry about.




Two helicopters broke down in a sandstorm and a third one was damaged on landing. The mission was aborted, but as the aircraft took off again one helicopter clipped a C-130 and crashed, killing eight U.S. servicemen and injuring more than four. The dead bodies of some of these soldiers were paraded through the streets of Tehran during massive street protests, all in front of television cameras broadcasting worldwide. Mission material was left behind for the Iranians to discover and later display to the world's media. Carter's Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, resigned because of his opposition to the action.


not violent huh...and then when the going got tough, they call on the US for help after parading hte bodies of their dead soldiers in the streets....




In 1980, the death of the Shah (on July 27) and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis.


This was because we had sanctioned them and held over 8 billion in assests...Even after what they had done, we released the funds and got our hostages back. Doesn't make a difference that they let black s and women go, it was wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Would you call the DELIBERATE targetting of civilians to the EXCLUSION of armed combatants terrorism? I certainly would.

Do you deny that Hizbollah has committed such acts?

Do you further deny that Iran supports Hizbollah?

Sorry, but I don't care how desparate you believe your situation to be, there is NO justification for terrorism.


How is Iranian support for Hezbollah any different than US support for the Mujahadeen?

The US supported the Mujahadeen to expel an occupying army from Afghanistan.
Iran supported Hezbollah to expel an occupying army from Lebanon.

I'm not sure where the exclusion of armed combatants came from.
Didn't they regularly target troops? Weren't they the ones that attacked the marine barracks?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I think it was a little more tense of a time than you are stating during the hostage crisis. The US had to abort an attempted rescue, so I would think if it was serious enough to contemplate entering a foriegn nation, there was worry that someone could be hurt.

Have you ever seen footage of those months in Iran. DIdin't look to civilized to me. You make it sound like those hostages had nothing ot worry about.

not violent huh...and then when the going got tough, they call on the US for help after parading hte bodies of their dead soldiers in the streets....


If your own child was kidnapped, would you wait until he/she was in or possibly in danger before trying to rescue him/her? You'd be a crappy parent then. When your people are taken hostage or kidnapped, rescue is always what comes to mind first. No matter how well your child is being treated, you would still work night and day to bring your child back.

And yes, I've seen footage. Aside from parading them through the street and screaming at them, I haven't seen nor read anything from any of the hostages that shows that they were mistreated in any way. Why? Because the truth stands, they were not mistreated. I'm not saying they had to sit back and enjoy, but it's not like they were forced to suffer painfully.

As for parading dead U.S. soldiers, I didn't like that. But let's say some invading terrorist screwed up and ended up on your front yard. Many Americans would probably play doctor on him using knives and a welding torch. When someone invades your country, nobody likes it.



This was because we had sanctioned them and held over 8 billion in assests...Even after what they had done, we released the funds and got our hostages back. Doesn't make a difference that they let black s and women go, it was wrong.


First off, the women and Marines were released like 15 days after being taken hostage. Imagine what someone like Saddam would've done.

And you're talking about right and wrong? How about the U.S. government, preaching human rights, etc., but when the Iranian people were suffering and brutally oppressed, the U.S. government didn't give a s**t about it. Now that's wrong! I don't really like the fact they took hostages, but what the U.S. government did was even more wrong. Support a dictator because he loves the west.


In the end, all the Iranians did was send a message, a message that America sends every minute of the day: Don't f**k with us. They showed they could and would defy the U.S. And obviously many, including the government, are not happy about it.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
In the end, all the Iranians did was send a message, a message that America sends every minute of the day: Don't f**k with us. They showed they could and would defy the U.S. And obviously many, including the government, are not happy about it.


Yes they did. But lets get real hear - if they keep saying F off, the US isn't going to allow that (rightly or wrongly). They are going to learn it is not wise to openly defy the US. They would do themselves well (as far as their nuclear ambitions go) to just grin and nod while keeping a covert nuclear program running. Openly giving the proverbial finger to the US gives America all the reason it needs to use Iran as her rag doll.


Sep

posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This was because we had sanctioned them and held over 8 billion in assests...Even after what they had done, we released the funds and got our hostages back. Doesn't make a difference that they let black s and women go, it was wrong.


Can you give me a link where it says you unfroze the assets? Please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong, but the assets are still frozen to my knowledge.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by metalfan87
Dude whats with me? Thanks for callin my comment stupid and not explaining why. How intelligent is that?Anybody can just say "your stupid" when they don't agree with what someone else says. I was simply responding to the thread. What part am I not understanding? Why don't you educate me alittle more on what "I obviously don't know about" I would love to learn more, after all thats why I joined ATS in the first place. Oh and by the way, I am planning on joining the military...thanks


[edit on 30-11-2004 by metalfan87]


Re-read your entire post before mine. Just so you can see how ridiculous it sounds.

Best of all in the military. Excited about killing Iranians?


Umm... I know what I wrote, now why don't you tell what "I obviously don't know", and I'm still waiting for you to educate me. "Best of all in the military" why thank you.. how considerate of you, and no I'm not excited about killing Iranians, but if i'm needed I will go and I will kill one if I really have to.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes they did. But lets get real hear - if they keep saying F off, the US isn't going to allow that (rightly or wrongly). They are going to learn it is not wise to openly defy the US. They would do themselves well (as far as their nuclear ambitions go) to just grin and nod while keeping a covert nuclear program running. Openly giving the proverbial finger to the US gives America all the reason it needs to use Iran as her rag doll.


Well, what goes around comes around. Same for the U.S. The U.S. threatens other people, then we're gonna get what our leaders (and people like yourself) ask for. A fight.

They are going to learn it is not wise to openly defy the US? Because America is really not the good country it tries to make itself out to be? Really, what is America? Serious flip-flopping from you and your tribe.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalfan87
Umm... I know what I wrote, now why don't you tell what "I obviously don't know", and I'm still waiting for you to educate me. "Best of all in the military" why thank you.. how considerate of you, and no I'm not excited about killing Iranians, but if i'm needed I will go and I will kill one if I really have to.


Can you not read? Can you not educate yourself? Why must we do everything for you? Wait, you're inept.

Anybody who says "if I need to go and kill one" is definitely excited about killing. Nobody in their right mind ever looks forward to killing before it happens, needed or not.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes they did. But lets get real hear - if they keep saying F off, the US isn't going to allow that (rightly or wrongly). They are going to learn it is not wise to openly defy the US. They would do themselves well (as far as their nuclear ambitions go) to just grin and nod while keeping a covert nuclear program running. Openly giving the proverbial finger to the US gives America all the reason it needs to use Iran as her rag doll.


Well, what goes around comes around. Same for the U.S. The U.S. threatens other people, then we're gonna get what our leaders (and people like yourself) ask for. A fight.

They are going to learn it is not wise to openly defy the US? Because America is really not the good country it tries to make itself out to be? Really, what is America? Serious flip-flopping from you and your tribe.



Here we go with your anti US crap.

Our leaders, and my self, dont WANT a fight. We want a TERRORIST nation NOT to have nukes. Most people agree with that. The difference is that some people are willing to do what it takes to make sure that happens (like myself) and some arent (like you).

They are going to learn not to openly defy the US because we will not allow them to become a nuclear power. We do that because, to use your good and bad jargin, WE are the GOOD guys and THEY are the BAD guys.

What is America you ask? The greatest nation on earth - the one which will protect it's citizens (and thus also the rest of the free world) from terrorist supporting nations from obtaining nuclea weapons. No flip-flopping from my side - that is for liberal America haters like you.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
www.bartleby.com...

Here's a link about how we released funds and sanctions after 444 says of captivity. Google, it's a wonderful thing.

And, I have had enough of tyring to listen . Some are still saying that Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons. As this thread has progressed, i realized that there is no middle ground, and if in fact Iran continues the rhetoric they are preaching, stating that they are treating the US like a bitch, that we should strike swiftly and quickly, and "shock and awe" I think was nothing compared to what would happen if Iran continues to provoke the US. We know we would have to cripple that nation in hours, and I beleive we have the technology to do it. I think Iraq was a test bed for what we will need to use in Iran to stop their nuclear proliferation. peace....


Sep

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
www.bartleby.com...

Here's a link about how we released funds and sanctions after 444 says of captivity. Google, it's a wonderful thing.


"The issue of frozen Iranian assets is especially sensitive for the Iranian government. After the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, the United States froze about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. According to U.S. officials, most of those were released in 1981 as part of the deal for the return of U.S. hostages taken in the embassy seizure. But some assets--Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less--remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution."

www.flyingfish.org.uk...



[edit on 1-12-2004 by Sep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join