Iran Urges Citizens to Conserve Energy (and jet fuel!)

reply to post by Amagnon


What Media? I don't watch TV. I'v looked at them. That's how I came to believe it.

And how did most of those bloggers speak of their government?

And what is the blogging rate above Iran?

If the president is so good, why are all those blogs pretty much against him? Why did Iran ban youtube?

mashable.com...

Hugo? What ever happened to RCTV ?

N Korea? They made their choice to cut themselves off, not the world. The world just went along for the ride. Now N Korea is getting more defiant. Perfect example of an opposite is Vietnam. Chose not to cut itself off. Now it's doing fine and dandy compared to N Korea.

It's like a child who has a fight with another, gets put in the corner, and never talks to the class again. What happens to him is the result of his own actions.


Take note. Some of your good guys were on the destinations for the sex trade.

Also take note. In your "bad guy" list, those people are arrested. In the "good guys" list, the nations don't do squat.

Both the buyer and the seller are responsible in slavery. But in America, the buyer and seller get arrested. That's the difference.

Also take note that my point is that everyone sucks. There is no good guy and no bad guy. There is only the guy who wants to enslave you, and the guy who wants to enslave you. The difference? In America, we have the key to the chains and can leave them when we want. In Iran, the government has the chains.

Everyone sucks. No one is good. But who is the lesser suck? America.


Stop playing your retard game and go home kid. There is no good soul in the leaders of the world. Just the ones that are a little less bad. America is less bad.

Know why?

I can talk on the internet without anything happening to me, unless I'm retarded and threaten to bomb something. In many of your nations, they have to hack their way to talk. That's why youtube is banned in Iran.

And that is the difference.

Iran: no youtube
China: Maybe youtube?
America: yes youtube.

Nothing else needs to be said.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


IE, third world nations?

Most of that list is filled with the worse of the worse.

They can enjoy calling themselves unaligned. Their actions speak otherwise.

Actual and desired. Two lovely differences.

What actions speak otherwise?

Not unaligned...non-aligned as in with the hegemony. And oops, silly me, I forgot that they're not allowed a say in this world. They're not warmongers dependent on the MIC for survival like those many blindly support, and they have such silly ideals as this:

1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
2. Mutual non-aggression
3. Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
4. Equality and mutual benefit
5. Peaceful co-existence

They must bow to the wishes of the masters or die.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


So does the P5+1. So did Nazi Germany and Japan.

Those deals mean nothing for if you are good or not.

Hell, I saw the Congo and just laughed!

If you knew anything about the world, you would too.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by illusive man


OK, what I'm going to do here is to nail just one of your feet down, so that you're the only one going in circles. Then I'll just stand still and watch. Once you answered the question, if you can, that is, we can move on to bigger and better things.

You insinuated that Israel was somehow "violating" the NPT, and outright stated that Israel should be bound by it. That was your initial justification for bringing Israel into the discussion at all. My question, should you decide to stop circling and answer it, is this: WHY is it you think Israel (or India or Pakistan for that matter) should be bound by an agreement they never made?

So far, you've drug in other countries (such as South Africa, as if they have any bearing on it at all) who WERE signatory, brought up their violations, and expected me to make the leap that because of that, it somehow applies to Israel as well.

"Non-sequitur" is the phrase that comes to mind.

Again: WHY should Israel be bound to an agreement it never made?

I'll just stand back now, and watch you go in circles by yourself.

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by nenothtu

 

wow you really like going in circles dont you,

for the Last and final time

South africa was under international Embargo
Israel (as i have said and agreed isnt an NPT member) but traded nuclear secrets with a country under international sanctions/embargo against it.

if Israel wasnt one of the countries pushing for sanctions on Iran using the NPT
i wouldnt bring the country into this, Iran so far hasnt broken any NPT Rules or Laws , and now unless you can say Israel isnt playing any part in getting sanctions on Iran using the NPT, Israel will also play its part in this debate,

i wont repeat this again, if you do happen to repeat the same thing i will just quote this reply for you

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Originally posted by illusive man
reply to post by nenothtu

 

wow you really like going in circles dont you,

for the Last and final time

South africa was under international Embargo
Israel (as i have said and agreed isnt an NPT member) but traded nuclear secrets with a country under international sanctions/embargo against it.

if Israel wasnt one of the countries pushing for sanctions on Iran using the NPT
i wouldnt bring the country into this, Iran so far hasnt broken any NPT Rules or Laws , and now unless you can say Israel isnt playing any part in getting sanctions on Iran using the NPT, Israel will also play its part in this debate,

i wont repeat this again, if you do happen to repeat the same thing i will just quote this reply for you

Can you run in circles any faster? It would be amusing to watch. Any chance you'll ever answer the question?

I bet not.

People keep making references to the President of Iran.

I would like to remind everyone that he is not in control of Iran, he does not set policy - he is a mouth piece put in place to give the illusion of choice to the Iranian people.

The person in charge of Iran in the "Supreme Leader" who is chosen by a counsel of clerics. Once appointed, it is a position held for life.

Also - 90% of this thread is nothing more than opinions trying to be passed off as facts.

5% of this thread actually discusses the topic and the remaining 5% isnt even worth reading.

reply to post by crisko


Yes. He is. And as you can see by the president's not wearing of neck ties, the president is his minion.

However, just as it was unwise to remove the emperor of Japan, it is the same for Iran.

He should simply be made to realize that he is wrong, just as the Japanese emperor was. This does not require nukes. it requires the Iranian army to be destroyed. It was not the nukes that changed Japan, it was the emperors fear of a destroyed and enslaved nation.

reply to post by illusive man

iraq did have chemical weapons wich is classified as a wmd nukes arent the only wmds lol ask any iranian and they will tell u sadam had them beacause we gave them to them thats how the us knew iraq had them there are reports of iran haveing them and useing them in the iran iraq war but those to this day have never been proven so dont try to say iraq never had any wmds just not the ones we acused them of haveing at the time en.wikipedia.org... souce for the use of chemical weapons by iraqi troops

reply to post by KilrathiLG


periods.

Use them.

Other than that, you are right

.
.
.

reply to post by Gorman91


sorry,punctiation was never my strong point. But im trying to get better! spent way to much time not using them but i will endeavor to change!

was a product of the texting generation,has effected me greatly that...... and overcrowded california education system! but the blame rests entirely on me for my ignorace

[edit on 8-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by illusive man

 

iraq did have chemical weapons wich is classified as a wmd nukes arent the only wmds lol ask any iranian and they will tell u sadam had them beacause we gave them to them thats how the us knew iraq had them there are reports of iran haveing them and useing them in the iran iraq war but those to this day have never been proven so dont try to say iraq never had any wmds just not the ones we acused them of haveing at the time en.wikipedia.org... souce for the use of chemical weapons by iraqi troops

I second that! Furthermore, there are about 5000 dead kurds who knew that Iraq had WMD's... knew it just before they died, that is. So they didn't just see use in the Iran-Iraq war.

There was also at least one VX nerve gas shell found beside the highway leading to Baghdad, set up as an IED which failed to go off. It was recovered by US troops, but I bet you never heard about that on the nightly news!

reply to post by nenothtu


i never heard about that i figured the state department would have paraded that infront of the media and said wmd this wmd that in an attempt to justify the 2nd gulf war! thanks for informing me i have enjoyed your posts emnesely especialy the one about that artifact you found i think it was a tar press or something of the like! keep spreading good info and dont let the ignorant make you chase your tail in circles! just because they try to distract you from spreading truth dosent mean that your not doing good work if i knew how to do stars and flags id give u some but i dont think thats why u post here!

edited to say: they just refuse to answer your questions beacause you speak the truth and that scares them or at least you make some of the most sense ive seen on this site!

[edit on 8-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]

reply to post by KilrathiLG


I believe it was kept under wraps because they didn't want an alarm - not an alarm that a chemical weapon had been confirmed, but an alarm that it had been attempted to put it in use. I also have to wonder about the ultimate source of the shell, and who that may have cast a bad light on... I don't believe it was American, though - I think it was Russian, so I'm not sure what bearing that would have on the secrecy involved.

Anyhow, that was several years ago, and not the massive quantities they had hoped for in the intel reports. I suspect that some of those were actually used (against Iran and the kurds), and the rest of any stockpile was moved... probably to Syria, but no way I can confirm that. If you'll recall, back in 2003 or 2004, there was a diplomatic dustup between the US and Syria.

Thanks for the kind words, and no, I don't post for flags and stars, but they're nice. If I posted for flags and stars, I'd have created more threads than just that one about the tar kiln...