Iran v US: A war of words, Not Of Bombs

[parityboy]

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been at it again. At a news conference today he repeated his call for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Despite what the networks insist on broadcasting, he didn't actually say the US government was behind the murderous attacks, he said it was one of three theories and most Americans, and most people, believe it. I'm sure he was well aware most would not bother with this subtlety and today said:

Something happened and that event was the pretext for the invasion of two countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed as a result. Don't you think that that we need to explore the real reason for 9/11... to look at that excuse?


Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/09/iranian_leader_mahmoud_ahmadin.html)

More upset Americans... :p

[Stormhammer]

two words: Fuck Ahmadinejad.

-Stormhammer-

[The God of War]

He's a shit starter.

[parkside701]

He's standing up to the American machine, raising concerns and asking questions that most Americans are too afraid and too dumb to ask. This guy, not Barry O, should have recieved the Nobel Peace Prize.

[parityboy]

He's standing up to the American machine, raising concerns and asking questions that most Americans are too afraid and too dumb to ask. This guy, not Barry O, should have recieved the Nobel Peace Prize.

Have to agree on this. When you're own government starts to act shady over what is supposed to be a cut-and-dry terrorist act, and makes claims that defy the laws of known physics, it's time to ask questions.

[Stormhammer]

Have to agree on this. When you're own government starts to act shady over what is supposed to be a cut-and-dry terrorist act, and makes claims that defy the laws of known physics, it's time to ask questions.

While I agree that there are some questions that need to be asked, and answered, I do NOT agree about him being the person asking them. I'd like six minutes in an enclosed area with him so that he can answer this question for me:

How does a man with two broken arms wipe his ass?

-Stormhammer-

[parityboy]

While I agree that there are some questions that need to be asked, and answered, I do NOT agree about him being the person asking them. I'd like six minutes in an enclosed area with him so that he can answer this question for me:

How does a man with two broken arms wipe his ass?

-Stormhammer-

He has as much right to ask those questions as anyone else in the Middle East. What exactly do you have against him?

[Stormhammer]

He has as much right to ask those questions as anyone else in the Middle East. What exactly do you have against him?

mainly, he's out to start shit with the US. That's been going on for a while, but he just happens to be the guy in charge now. I know the US isn't a bunch of angels either so don't think I've ignored that. If I thought he was asking because he is worried about a world power getting too far out of control, I wouldn't have a single problem with it. Wild guess? I'm betting he wants us out of the way so he can take over.

-Stormhammer-

[parityboy]

Take over what exactly? The U.S. uses 9/11 as an utterly lame excuse to invade Iraq and grab their oil supplies, claiming that they have links with Al Qaeda (which was bullshit; anyone with sense would know that) and that they had weapons of mass destruction (more bullshit).

They have Israel as an ally, an ally that breaks the law every second and has a large cache of nuclear weapons. Are they permitting weapons inspectors, as required by international agreement? Nope.

India and Pakistan also developed nukes. Does the US say anything? Nope, not one thing. Nothing to do with the fact that they are both major trade partners then, no?

Not only that but consider North Korea, who have proven that they actually possess weapons of mass destruction by bloody detonating them, in clear violation of international law. What do the U.S. do? Leave them. Not even one tactical strike. I wonder why...no oil perhaps?

Not only do they leave them, but they even go so far as to take "Osama bin Laden" off the top spot of the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted (http://anonym.to?http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm)list, seemingly because they don't have any evidence against him (http://anonym.to?http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html). O'rly? But enough "evidence" to invade a country which has NEVER attacked the U.S., and line up to attack another one?

The only reason why the US has an interest in the doings of Iran and Iraq is oil. Not democracy, freedom and the rule of international law. otherwise they'd call Israel to account for their treatment of Palestinians. Or the Russians for invading Georgia, or the Chinese for annexing Tibet and Nepal.

It's all about grabbing other peoples' valuables, simple as that. Nice to to see after 500 years, nothing changes...

[parkside701]

mainly, he's out to start shit with the US. That's been going on for a while, but he just happens to be the guy in charge now. I know the US isn't a bunch of angels either so don't think I've ignored that. If I thought he was asking because he is worried about a world power getting too far out of control, I wouldn't have a single problem with it. Wild guess? I'm betting he wants us out of the way so he can take over.

-Stormhammer-

He is not out to start shit with America. In fact, America and Israel are out to start shit with him. He is asking because he is worried that a world power (America) is out of control and is on the verge of startign war with his country. That guy, and most citizens of the world, don't really pay us any mind until we start trying to dictate to them what they should and shouldn't do.

[Stormhammer]

Take over what exactly? The U.S. uses 9/11 as an utterly lame excuse to invade Iraq and grab their oil supplies, claiming that they have links with Al Qaeda (which was bullshit; anyone with sense would know that) and that they had weapons of mass destruction (more bullshit).

They have Israel as an ally, an ally that breaks the law every second and has a large cache of nuclear weapons. Are they permitting weapons inspectors, as required by international agreement? Nope.

India and Pakistan also developed nukes. Does the US say anything? Nope, not one thing. Nothing to do with the fact that they are both major trade partners then, no?

Not only that but consider North Korea, who have proven that they actually possess weapons of mass destruction by bloody detonating them, in clear violation of international law. What do the U.S. do? Leave them. Not even one tactical strike. I wonder why...no oil perhaps?

Not only do they leave them, but they even go so far as to take "Osama bin Laden" off the top spot of the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted (http://anonym.to?http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm)list, seemingly because they don't have any evidence against him (http://anonym.to?http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html). O'rly? But enough "evidence" to invade a country which has NEVER attacked the U.S., and line up to attack another one?

The only reason why the US has an interest in the doings of Iran and Iraq is oil. Not democracy, freedom and the rule of international law. otherwise they'd call Israel to account for their treatment of Palestinians. Or the Russians for invading Georgia, or the Chinese for annexing Tibet and Nepal.

It's all about grabbing other peoples' valuables, simple as that. Nice to to see after 500 years, nothing changes...


^That bold part is pretty much an answer to a few of the questions you asked. I'll explain:

Yep. That is a lot of the reason why there is still war. The desire to take from others was, is, and shall always be a part of human nature. Yes, US wants the oil that the arab countries have, the arab countries want the weapons that the US has, countries like Hati that have had terrible natural disasters happen, just want to survive, Kim Jong Il Keeps barking because he wants to be taken seriously for once.

Pakistan and India are a bit of a weird one. Somethimes we (The US) are friends, sometimes we won't talk to each other. Same with Saudi Arabia. The crap with Osama will FOREVER leave a bad taste in my mouth. What I agree with is that it is sad that an entire country had to get bombed because of a few assholes. :thumbsdown:

Korea? Don't get me started. I can't count the number of people or the number of times that people I knew both in and out of the military have wondered why we haven't turned his little castle into the world's largest ashtray yet. If we had a pres who wasn't afraid to put an ass-whupin on bad children like Kim Jong, he wouldn't be up on his hind legs near as much as he is now.

Israel? I have to disagree. I've actually been there, albeit over a decade ago. The people I spoke to are against groups like the hamas attacking them on a near daily basis. mind you, I was there for about two days and only found a scattered few who would speak to foreigners like me, but that's what I got from them. Take it for what you will.

............Also, they have some HOT ass chicks over there. :inlust:

He is not out to start shit with America. In fact, America and Israel are out to start shit with him. He is asking because he is worried that a world power (America) is out of control and is on the verge of startign war with his country. That guy, and most citizens of the world, don't really pay us any mind until we start trying to dictate to them what they should and shouldn't do.

If all that he is worried about is that a world power is getting out of control, I fully understand that and agree with his concerns. God knows that America isn't the poster children of restraint and let's face it, one on one I don't think any other country can handle us. What I'm worried about is that the ways he is voicing this concern may insite other countries to start choosing sides. You know what comes after that and personally, I'm thinking that if WWIII happens, that's it. No more human race. :thumbsdown:

I do have to agree that America, or more accurately, the politicians, are sticking their noses a bit far into the buisness of others. I want to ask one thing though: If you gave to amount of power that America has to any other country, do you think that they would try to enforce their ways upon others or leave them be?

-Stormhammer-

[parityboy]

Israel? I have to disagree. I've actually been there, albeit over a decade ago. The people I spoke to are against groups like the hamas attacking them on a near daily basis. mind you, I was there for about two days and only found a scattered few who would speak to foreigners like me, but that's what I got from them. Take it for what you will.

So you think shooting and burning people out of their own country and denying them right of return is acceptable? Do those people not have a right to want their country back? If someone invaded YOUR home, would you not fight back?

What I agree with is that it is sad that an entire country had to get bombed because of a few assholes.

And which assholes would those be?


North Korea? Don't get me started. I can't count the number of people or the number of times that people I knew both in and out of the military have wondered why we haven't turned his little castle into the world's largest ashtray yet. If we had a pres who wasn't afraid to put an ass-whupin on bad children like Kim Jong, he wouldn't be up on his hind legs near as much as he is now.

I'm not saying go out and nuke North Korea; are you? I'm simply pointing out the double standard. You think roasting loads of innocent women and children is acceptable? Oh, wait...

[Stormhammer]

So you think shooting and burning people out of their own country and denying them right of return is acceptable? Do those people not have a right to want their country back? If someone invaded YOUR home, would you not fight back?.


If that's what is happening, I haven't heard about it. to answer the above question, No. I do not find that acceptable.



And which assholes would those be?

You know the ones, the assholes in charge. We got 'em, you've got 'em, everybody's got 'em. I would say that more than half of the people in America do not condone the war in Iraq. Why then are we there? Assholes in charge. 9 11 bombings? Do you think that the muslim community would want that kind of heat on their heads? nope. Assholes in charge did.




I'm not saying go out and nuke North Korea; are you? I'm simply pointing out the double standard. You think roasting loads of innocent women and children is acceptable? Oh, wait..

.

So noted on the double standard.

And No no no..........I'm not saying nuke a bunch of innocent people. I'm saying that if there was the realistic danger of unfavorable consequences to his (Kim Jong Il's) Actions, I bet he would chill. Sometimes talking works, sometimes it's gotta be an azz-whuppin.

-Stormhammer-

[parkside701]

If all that he is worried about is that a world power is getting out of control, I fully understand that and agree with his concerns.

That is what the man has been saying all these years.

God knows that America isn't the poster children of restraint and let's face it, one on one I don't think any other country can handle us.

That depends on the type of war we fight. If it were stricty technology like cyber warfare, nuclear arms, etc the biggest threat would be Russia. If it were strictly a numbers game, China. When it comes to fighting on someone elses soil, specifically when they use gurilla warfare we usually end up getting the short end of the stick. Right now, we aren't "winning" in the Afghans and we didn't "win" in Iraq. However, when it comes to proxy wars we win hands down.

What I'm worried about is that the ways he is voicing this concern may insite other countries to start choosing sides.

America's foreign policy, not the way he voices his concerns, has already incited other countries to choose sides.

You know what comes after that and personally, I'm thinking that if WWIII happens, that's it. No more human race.

Personally I wouldn't care.

I do have to agree that America, or more accurately, the politicians, are sticking their noses a bit far into the buisness of others. I want to ask one thing though: If you gave to amount of power that America has to any other country, do you think that they would try to enforce their ways upon others or leave them be?

That depends on the country in question, their outlook on humanity and how they see themselves when it comes to being responsible.

[Stormhammer]

That is what the man has been saying all these years.

Indeed? where was he ten years ago? I wonder because I hadn't heard a peepouy of him, Saddam, Kim jong il, or any of the others who think of America as the big evil. Not until after the events of 9 11 did they start putting some bass in their voices. I wonder why?


That depends on the type of war we fight. If it were stricty technology like cyber warfare, nuclear arms, etc the biggest threat would be Russia. If it were strictly a numbers game, China. When it comes to fighting on someone elses soil, specifically when they use gurilla warfare we usually end up getting the short end of the stick. Right now, we aren't "winning" in the Afghans and we didn't "win" in Iraq. However, when it comes to proxy wars we win hands down.

I'm talking about no rules, all out, anything goes, no holds barred, do what ya wanna war. That is what it'll come down to anyway if you shove someone's back against the wall.



America's foreign policy, not the way he voices his concerns, has already incited other countries to choose sides.

If someone doesn't like it, then of course they aren't going to jump on the side of that person. I'm not saying that the American foreign policy is the best, but no matter which policy you bring up, somebody is gonna hate it.


Personally I wouldn't care.

I would. Too many things to do and see for me to get stuffed in a coffin. Put the apocalypse on pause. :thumbsdown:



That depends on the country in question, their outlook on humanity and how they see themselves when it comes to being responsible.


that is up to you. Any country you choose from any time period is fair game for the question.

-Stormhammer-

[parkside701]

Indeed? where was he ten years ago?

Ten years ago he was governer general of Ardabil.

I wonder because I hadn't heard a peepouy of him, Saddam, Kim jong il, or any of the others who think of America as the big evil. Not until after the events of 9 11 did they start putting some bass in their voices. I wonder why?

If someone labeled you "The Axis of Evil" wouldn't you put a little bit of bass in your voice? Also, Saddam and Kim Jong had/have a habit of sayihng things about America. They didn't start it after 9-11.

I'm talking about no rules, all out, anything goes, no holds barred, do what ya wanna war. That is what it'll come down to anyway if you shove someone's back against the wall.

No one will win a war like that. That is why we have M.A.D.

If someone doesn't like it, then of course they aren't going to jump on the side of that person. I'm not saying that the American foreign policy is the best, but no matter which policy you bring up, somebody is gonna hate it.

But you're saying the way he voiced his concerns has caused some to jump on his side. I'm saying that isn't a factor and the lines being drawn can be directly linked to American foreign policy.

I would. Too many things to do and see for me to get stuffed in a coffin. Put the apocalypse on pause.

We all have to die. BTW, Apocalypse = revelation or the revealing of truth. You have nothing to worry about :)

that is up to you. Any country you choose from any time period is fair game for the question.

If I chose Lichenstein would that be fair?

[Stormhammer]

Ten years ago he was governer general of Ardabil.

cool. he's off the hook.



If someone labeled you "The Axis of Evil" wouldn't you put a little bit of bass in your voice? Also, Saddam and Kim Jong had/have a habit of sayihng things about America. They didn't start it after 9-11.

Hell yeah I would. If someone was running off at the mouth about me, they better have something backing it up. I guess I didn't really state this question as well as I wanted. Can't win 'em all Stormie.


No one will win a war like that. That is why we have M.A.D.

yup. Mutally Assured Destruction. The Final Solution. One more reason I don't want a third world war.



But you're saying the way he voiced his concerns has caused some to jump on his side. I'm saying that isn't a factor and the lines being drawn can be directly linked to American foreign policy.

Sometimes it isn't what you say as much as how you say it.

Example 1: Mom? Can I have some milk?
example 2: Gimmie some juice bitch!

Which one do you think would get me slapped in the mouth? I know good and well that america's foreign policy is gonna ruffle feathers. Of course, it'll be in the spotlight since America is one of the most powerful nations on Earth at the moment, so every breath we take, every move we make, they'll (The world) be watching us. celeb drama on a worldwide scale if you ask me. My main point is, he is just like Obama. you can't just speak your mind anymore when you're in a position of power like that. You have to get your message out there, but also do your best to get everyone you possibly can to understand and hopefully get them behind your message. I feel he could've done better. MUCH better.



We all have to die. BTW, Apocalypse = revelation or the revealing of truth. You have nothing to worry about :)

We all have to die. That's a fact. I'd rather it come later than sooner though. Whores not Wars! :whistle:



If I chose Lichenstein would that be fair?


Like I said, fair game. It did make for an interresting read though. A neutral country with no military suddenly given control of a very powerful army and all the resources that come with it. What do you think would happen? Would they stay as they are? Act a fool? Something that nobody sees coming? It would be interresting to say the least.

-Stormhammer-

[parityboy]

Interesting point Storm. I think I have a couple good candidates for you.

1) Ireland. Ireland did start waging a guerilla war with Great Britain until the English decided to invade them. Beforehand they were peaceful and minded their own business. They get on well with the Welsh and the Scottish. Who do they have a problem with? The English.

2) The Scandinavian countries. The Vikings went roaming about and even reached what is now the U.S. They obviously had the capability to land in reasonable force on land thousands of miles away. Did they try to build on that and become world conquerors? Nope, they posed for stone carvings then said their goodbyes and went back home.

Not everybody wants to sail around the world and take other people's land and resources...

[Stormhammer]

Interesting point Storm. I think I have a couple good candidates for you.

1) Ireland. Ireland did start waging a guerilla war with Great Britain until the English decided to invade them. Beforehand they were peaceful and minded their own business. They get on well with the Welsh and the Scottish. Who do they have a problem with? The English.

2) The Scandinavian countries. The Vikings went roaming about and even reached what is now the U.S. They obviously had the capability to land in reasonable force on land thousands of miles away. Did they try to build on that and become world conquerors? Nope, they posed for stone carvings then said their goodbyes and went back home.

Not everybody wants to sail around the world and take other people's land and resources...

good finds. :thumbsup: Perhaps if one of these countries had the power they would not desire to take over others. One problem I do have is that the others who do not have such power would seek to find some way to take that power for themselves. As we all well know there are those who, no matter how much wealth and power they have, still want more. glutony is, after all, a deadly sin. Also, power currupts. Evidence of that is all around no matter who you are or where you look. I hope that things will not go downhill during the talks. Fingers are crossed.

-Stormhammer-