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 Warns Europe of 'Revenge' for Supporting Israel

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
"Some here" is a generalization, if you feel that statement is a threat to your ego, then it's up to you to figure out why that is.

Whoa.... why do you need to be so antagonistic? We're trying to have a discussion here.




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
we better warn iran not to mess with Europe because we could wipe them from the earth in something like 30 seconds with the weapons the EU has ready for them!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by Waiting2awake
There are many ethnic people that simply do not even attempt to fit in, and I agree with what you are saying about "those" ones. However, this clearly ignores the largest percentage that do try to fit in, and do fit in, and still get treated like a second class citizens. You are right though, off topic, but IMO a bigger worry.

Some people treat others as second-class citizens. The problem is, there is a theme here that says that they belong to a particular political party, which is grossly untrue.


What he did was warn a group of nations not to support a zionist regime that is historically every bit as ruthless and terroristic than anything mentioned in the axis of evil speach.

He has the "right" to warn other nations because of the notion of free speech, but it is pure arrogance to suggest that he will determine who they can and will support. When the USA says something similar, we are quickly accused of being imperious.

I don't see any difference between Iran's statement and Bush's statement that "You're either with us or against us."


BTW, judging by recent American battles - I'd say taking away air power(Which the US clearly has on anyone probably) it's a far fight. Judging by the way some rag tag militia and a few trained officers are holding their own against the Americans in Iraq, I'd say it is a good thing that air power is there.

You forget to mention that the Americans are subjected to a higher standard than the terrorists. Untie the hand that is tied behind their back and see what happens. Better yet, have the terrorists play by the same rules as we do, including wearing identifiable uniforms and not hiding among civilians.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Despite arm chair warriors like freedom who has a war-on and is all excited and foaming at the mouth...to attack Iran would be the height of stupidity, would drag in at least the Chinese and confirm in every Muslim's mind that we are out to destroy their culture and religion, true or not.


So grover; If Iran follows through with things they've said (Wipe Israel of the map; Attack a country in Europe) we are to just sit back and DO NOTHING???? No MILITARY RESPONSE???? Just let Iran do what she wants Militarily; EH?
I'm very thankful, as a member in the military, that we have a government with more intestinal fortitude and sense of "support your friends" than that!! With positions such as yours grover we'd all likely be speaking German and shouting Hiel Hitler toady



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
we'd all likely be speaking German and shouting Hiel Hitler toady


Looks like your goal here is to degrade the thread into the highest level of stupidity possible...congrats.


Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.


Maybe you better read it again and show us were anyone said we should not defend allies?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Hmmm same story different day. Iran making threats and the usa and europe pondering what they could do. Its a shame we don't have the balls we used to. We need to resolve this one way or the other. sanctionswont do it. Time to put 8 marines and a few b2 bombers in the country



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Stop being such a fool sum...if Iran actually attacks somebody, that is one thing...to want them to do something just so we can attack them is response is ignorant and stupid.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Maybe you better read it again and show us were anyone said we should not defend allies?


The initial post, and this thread, is about Iran’s warning to Europe that it “could get hurt unless it halted its support for Israel”.

My response:

Originally by Freedom_for_sum
It is my sincere hope that the nutjob in Iran makes an aggressive move on anyone in Europe. We, along with most of Europe, would then be abliged to anihilate that country. Freedom_for_sum



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Stop being such a fool sum...if Iran actually attacks somebody, that is one thing...to want them to do something just so we can attack them is response is ignorant and stupid.


So I'm actively anticipating an attack by Iran by getting in the right frame of mind for it. The liberal left has consistently criticized the Bush administation for not heeding warnings and having the necessary protocols and mindset in place for a 911 style of attack (which it's stupid to expect there should have been). Now I'm being criticized for doing just that. I guarantee you that there are plans in place to defend any ally, and ourselves, from an attack by Iran. Are you going to criticize Bush for having those plans? Are you going to call him a murderer for causing unintentional injuries and deaths to civilians when we retaliate?

There's little doubt in my mind that the Iranian nutjob will eventually act on what he has said. There's an expression I read years ago about human nature that I believe is true: Before one acts he first thinks about it; then talks about it. From there it's not much of a leap to actually do it.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
You weren't anticipating jack...you were gleefully looking forward to it. Talk about unseemly. To hope, which is what you did, for war is vulgar at best and at its heart, ignorant.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You weren't anticipating jack...you were gleefully looking forward to it. Talk about unseemly. To hope, which is what you did, for war is vulgar at best and at its heart, ignorant.


From dictionary.com:

Anticipate:

1. to realize beforehand; foretaste or foresee: to anticipate pleasure.
2. to expect; look forward to; be sure of: to anticipate a favorable decision.

You seem to have some problems with written communication.

Gleefully? Maybe in the same way a police officer enjoys his job of removing criminals off the street; I, as a member of the military, enjoy my job and look forward to doing my part to remove insects like Kim jung Ill and Ahmadinejad to make the world a better place and ensure that your freedom to spout your vitriolic lib-speak remains intact. You wouldn't have that freedom in an Islamic society.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Europe needs to put its own interests ahead of Israel's. The conflict has gotten out of hand because each side has to draw in the rest of the world for some strange reason.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Some people treat others as second-class citizens. The problem is, there is a theme here that says that they belong to a particular political party, which is grossly untrue.

-I don't understand. What Theme? Which political party?


Originally posted by jsobecky
He has the "right" to warn other nations because of the notion of free speech, but it is pure arrogance to suggest that he will determine who they can and will support. When the USA says something similar, we are quickly accused of being imperious.

- Who is suggesting that? What he said is for Europe to stop supporting a zionist regime. Much like we said for people to stop supporting Saddam, or SOuth Africa during the 80's for apartid. That being labeled an imperious nation is too bad. It's a shame you invade a country over lies and people suddenly call you imperious. Really, what is this world coming to?



Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't see any difference between Iran's statement and Bush's statement that "You're either with us or against us."

- It is difficult, But I'll try.What Iran is saying is "stop supporting a nation that has been breaking UN code after UN code, while claiming to stand for the UN and the world." What the your with us or against us said "We are going to fight the terrorists, where ever they may be, and you will either stand beside us going after the terrorists, or you will be defined as a terrorist". As evidense I will point out that the PM of pakistan, that great ally of ours, has recently publically stated that the only reason he went along even with the superfical support for this WOT is that the US threatened to bomb them back to the stone age. Not that I disagree with making the threat, merely that the threat shows to prove my assessment of the differences.



Originally posted by jsobecky

BTW, judging by recent American battles - I'd say taking away air power(Which the US clearly has on anyone probably) it's a far fight. Judging by the way some rag tag militia and a few trained officers are holding their own against the Americans in Iraq, I'd say it is a good thing that air power is there.

You forget to mention that the Americans are subjected to a higher standard than the terrorists. Untie the hand that is tied behind their back and see what happens. Better yet, have the terrorists play by the same rules as we do, including wearing identifiable uniforms and not hiding among civilians.

- I see, so it is unfair that we require the civilized portion of our planet to be held to a higher standard to the Terrorists?? Poor kids. LOL!

Actually, I agree with your statement. It isn't a fair comparison at all. However I would point out that everyone and their grandma knew that this was going to be a gorrillia war. I beleive the comparison was to Vietnam, and do you remember how those of us who said that were accused of being anti american, peaceniks, and other such horrible things? The American military for all it's strength will never win a gorillia war. It can't it isn't designed to be. No large amry can, as evidensed by the recent Isreali - Hezbolla clash.

What you are expecting it seems is that an outarmed, outmaned with fewer resources enemy would make themselfs targets. That is rather naive wouldn't you think. The flip side, is to allow the army to shed their fatigues and such, but something tells me it wouldn't help. They'd still know who is who, and the army wouldn't. Just put yourself in their position. Hypothetically, if some nation took control of the US - what would you do? Would you welcome them as liberators? Would you fight them? If you fought them, would you were a gaint flag across your chest trying to go shot for shot, or would you try the "hit and run" aproach to do harm?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So what's your problem Regenmacher?


The problem is shallow rhetorical crap talk with baseless questions and ludicrous comparisons that degrade and derail the thread, because people decide to play dumb, not follow the flow of the conversation, take things out of context, and opt to throw a "look at me" temper tantrum instead.

Let's point out this was about pre-emptive offensive measures as being a legitimate solution to Ahmadinejad's banter and we can frame it in that context without pulling Hitler cards out of our butts, using mindless stereotyping, or putting words in others' mouths.


Originally posted by grover
If we either attack Iran unprovoked or diliberately provoke them into attacking us so we can reltilate...we prove once and for all that we are not the world's number one superpower, but its number one stupid power.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Some will have us believe if we bomb and kill the Iranians like dumb animals, the remaining Persians will magically bow down, start kissing Ronald McDonald's feet, and welcome an Iraq style corporate plundering. Meanwhile, Russia and China will sit on the sidelines and sing Kumbaya as their lucrative contracts go poof.


The myth of being wiped off the map:


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel -Wiki
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."


Results of US politics, polarization, hate mongering and escalating violence aka insanity:

2,803 US soldiers dead, 21,077 US soldiers wounded, 20,000+ soldiers requested psychological treatment, national debt has doubled in the last five years from $20 trillion to $43 trillion, dollar is worth 30% less since 2002, oil/bbl has more than tripled since 2002, other commodities have more than doubled, 3 million US kids go hungry daily, the average American has a negative 2% savings rate, 85% of the GDP is from home mortgages, 50% of US Treasuries bills are owned by Asia, we have become the biggest debtor nation in the history of mankind, Iraq is on the verge of a full blown civil war, Russia and China are turning against the US, Jong tests a nuke, and 30-40 more countries may have nukes in 10 years.

Not to mention the fact, that we have outsourced or removed 80% of our production base since its peak and increasing hatred amongst nations we depend on for products will leave us with no means to manufacture consumer goods.

UN says 30 states could soon make nuclear bomb
Johns Hopkins Estimates 650,000+ Dead In Iraq
Cost of War: $550 Billion and Counting
Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States
How Government Destroys Moral Character
The End Game May Be Near

Solution: Back off and de-escalate for stability


A Selective Partnership: Getting U.S.-Iranian Relations Right
Council on Foreign Relations -CFR

SEEING STRAIGHT

"From its inception," Takeyh argues, "the Islamic Republic was a state divided between competing centers of power and profoundly differing conceptions of political authority." Yet even if U.S. officials and pundits can agree that Iran today is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong Il's North Korea, they seem incapable of resisting the temptation to treat Iran as a unitary, totalitarian, and implacably evil entity. Takeyh views this persistent misjudgment not as the failing of any particular administration but rather as a congenital condition that has plagued U.S. policymaking ever since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Still, even if demonizing one's adversary is a common tactic of international politics, such careless rhetoric can be costly when it produces policies that do not work.

Takeyh aptly shows how President George W. Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" (alongside Iraq and North Korea) and his calls for regime change in Tehran have produced precisely the opposite of what Bush hoped for. The label may have had a nice ring to American ears, particularly at a time when the United States was beginning to prepare its case against Saddam. But it dealt a severe blow to those in Iran who were fighting for political liberalization. Bush proclaimed the "axis of evil" in January 2002, soon after Tehran and Washington had cooperated in setting up the government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan -- their only successful joint venture since the Iranian Revolution. At the time, the reformist administration of Muhammad Khatami was struggling to sustain itself against its radical opponents. Although President Khatami's failure in Iran was due to many factors, not least his own timid leadership style, Washington's contemptuous dismissal of his democratization program appears to have been phenomenally self-defeating, especially considering the slash-and-burn rhetoric Ahmadinejad favors today.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Europe Wants to Get the US Talking to Iran - Time

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by grover
You weren't anticipating jack...you were gleefully looking forward to it. Talk about unseemly. To hope, which is what you did, for war is vulgar at best and at its heart, ignorant.


From dictionary.com:

Anticipate:

1. to realize beforehand; foretaste or foresee: to anticipate pleasure.
2. to expect; look forward to; be sure of: to anticipate a favorable decision.

You seem to have some problems with written communication.

Gleefully? Maybe in the same way a police officer enjoys his job of removing criminals off the street; I, as a member of the military, enjoy my job and look forward to doing my part to remove insects like Kim jung Ill and Ahmadinejad to make the world a better place and ensure that your freedom to spout your vitriolic lib-speak remains intact. You wouldn't have that freedom in an Islamic society.


I have absolutely no problem communicating in writing I knew exactly how I wanted to use anticipate and I did so...as a counterpoint to "gleefully looking forward to" ...it is one thing to expect something, or even to look forward to it....but you want a war to happen to the point you are gleeful and savor the possiblity...That I call unseemly. Tacky even and ignorant. You my friend are the one who spouts a vitriolic hatred...I am a humanist....what I say, my opinion is deeply rooted in not only the humanist tradition but in my spirituality as well and you have no right to try and gainsay that. I may be wrong on an issue...wouldn't be the first time and it will not be the last.....but I do know my mind and my ideals and they say to me that war, should always be a matter of last resort and not something to gleefully embrace, but to grieve that it is happening. War, even a good or just war is a profound evil...perhaps neccessary at times but an evil nonetheless and never something to rush into, muchless gleefully.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by grover]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join