Lords of USA are likely prepares a ,,limited,, attack on Iran [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Lords of USA are likely prepares a ,,limited,, attack on Iran

mtw
10-02-2007, 04:34 PM
,,New Yorker or New York times,, or something alike gave this information. They are prepared a new limited attack in which many civilians will die ( every american actions will end in this way. There are no words for this new illegal, unlawful action of USA. And what? New innocent people will lose their life, bacause of mob of american idiots and genocides? How do this Iraq and Afghanistan look like? Like a pile of ruins. And what? Must Iran look in the same way, because Bush does not like Iranian president, because he can say the truth about USA ? Iran is a country with ancient history ( it was Persia ) and with ancient culture, historical monuments. ´They have no rights to destroy it. Iraq was the country with ancient culture and it was all destroyed, stealed. Why these f...ed Americans have no consciense, no morality and no human feeelings and simply said no culture? They can do nothing, but only destroy all. Why do they want to destroy the next country? What is with these guys? What deficiency have they ( of course not mentioning of mental deficiency )? They have suppossedly all - the paradise of heaven in this damned USA. So they should sit and be happy there and give peace to other states at all.

rocketassist
10-02-2007, 04:40 PM
Stop talking bertiebigbollocks.

Black Adam
10-02-2007, 04:56 PM
She strikes again. Only this time she is making up the sources herself :haha: :rolls:

Fee
10-02-2007, 07:36 PM
mtw

1. Give a link to support your assertions, or don't start a thread.

2. The US Military has prepared contingency plans to attack almost every country on the planet. It's what they do, they are the military, they draw up scenarios and attack plans. Doesn't mean they are going to use them. Look up the word 'bluster' at Dictionary.com and it will help you to understand.

3. Stop campaigning for the ACC award.

Scotso
10-02-2007, 08:51 PM
There are no words for this new illegal, unlawful action of USA.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with having plans in place, as Fee said. It's what governments do.

Secondly, since there is no law above that of a sovereign state, you have no basis for calling it illegal.

Lastly, we can and will do what is necessary to protect our interests, as any country would.

El Legenda
10-02-2007, 09:46 PM
,,New Yorker or New York times,, or something alike gave this information. They are prepared a new limited attack in which many civilians will die ( every american actions will end in this way. There are no words for this new illegal, unlawful action of USA. And what? New innocent people will lose their life, bacause of mob of american idiots and genocides? How do this Iraq and Afghanistan look like? Like a pile of ruins. And what? Must Iran look in the same way, because Bush does not like Iranian president, because he can say the truth about USA ? Iran is a country with ancient history ( it was Persia ) and with ancient culture, historical monuments. ´They have no rights to destroy it. Iraq was the country with ancient culture and it was all destroyed, stealed. Why these f...ed Americans have no consciense, no morality and no human feeelings and simply said no culture? They can do nothing, but only destroy all. Why do they want to destroy the next country? What is with these guys? What deficiency have they ( of course not mentioning of mental deficiency )? They have suppossedly all - the paradise of heaven in this damned USA. So they should sit and be happy there and give peace to other states at all.


how is it illegal?

G4.
10-02-2007, 10:24 PM
Secondly, since there is no law above that of a sovereign state, you have no basis for calling it illegal.

Lastly, we can and will do what is necessary to protect our interests, as any country would.

Wrong but that's because the US breaks common international laws and forgot that the UNO exists . Also , in europe we have European law which is superior to any state laws

El Legenda
10-02-2007, 10:26 PM
Wrong but that's because the US breaks common international laws and forgot that the UNO exists . Also , in europe we have European law which is superior to any state laws

which law

G4.
10-02-2007, 10:29 PM
E.U law > member states (G-B , France , Germany etc) law

El Legenda
10-02-2007, 11:21 PM
E.U law > member states (G-B , France , Germany etc) law

great...but we're talking about the US

G4.
10-02-2007, 11:30 PM
i was just responding to his statement that there is no law above that of a sovereign state .

Merton
10-03-2007, 01:39 AM
I guess mtw is talking about this New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

This is not terribly important imo, Sy Hersh has been reporting at least for the last two years about the coming war with Iran and it could totally be a case where his sources just manipulate the information to signal to Iran that options are trully on the table.

Normally I hate politics even though I love history, but I follow the Iran development closely as a part of my research, the betting markets trade on the event of an airstrike against Iran, for example here: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

This is a ***** for the prbability of a US-Iran was and I am particularly interested on how this is related to, for example, crude oil prices.

Scotso
10-03-2007, 02:45 AM
Wrong but that's because the US breaks common international laws and forgot that the UNO exists . Also , in europe we have European law which is superior to any state laws

Only because the states agree to abide by those rules. What if they don't? They can't be enforced unless the states do it themselves. So no, there is no law above that of the sovereign state.

As for the UN, it's a completely useless organization in practice. It only functions as a forum for discussion.

G4.
10-03-2007, 03:02 AM
they pay a big fine if they don't , France has paid huge fines for violating those laws. I'm glad the european countries have decided to abid by those rules , it's improved civil liberties, states can be sued if they dont respect fundamental laws.
Every state of law in the world now respect to a certain degree international laws
your theory of the state is the one of the old french philosophers , how ironic

buddyholly
10-03-2007, 02:23 PM
After the visit of ''I'm in a Jihad'' to the UN, I see no reason for the attack to be ''limited.''

Bilbo
10-03-2007, 03:11 PM
After the visit of ''I'm in a Jihad'' to the UN, I see no reason for the attack to be ''limited.''

Americans are like "You punch me once I punch you twice". Taking action and saying a few words are two very difficult things.

undomiele
10-03-2007, 03:12 PM
I read the New Yorker piece and some other related interviews by the author. He's claiming that since the US public isn't in favour of striking Iran outright for its alleged nuclear ambitions, Cheney and Bush are looking to spur a limited attack on it for supposedly fomenting terrorism in Iraq, ie.: Iranian militants intervening in Iraq and killing Americans, etc.

Of course, maybe their hope is that Iran would retaliate, the US responds with more firepower, and so on until war breaks out.

As a whole, the idea of a limited attack is to get some tacit international and domestic approval to check Iranian power. However, whether or not a limited attack will achieve that is uncertain. The American public is deadset against further involvement in the Middle East and, more importantly, the US military body is adamantly resisting getting involved in another Middle Eastern military operation. Their forces are stretched thin as it is, plus theyre losing in Iraq, a country ten times smaller than Iran. I remember reading that several military commanders pledged to resign if any mandated attack on Iran transpired.

Congress will be against it too, especially as the US enters an election year.

At the same time, the Iranian leadership isn't as stupid or delusional as Saddam was when the Americans were knocking on Iraq's door. Iran can simply choose not to respond to a limited American attack. A limited attack is a limited attack, it has to end sometime and by not responding, Iran could possibly avert war. However, this would would very much depend on the international response, which as far as I know, is not in favour of supporting such attacks (outside of Sarkozy). The rest of the Middle East, with the obvious exception of Israel, would absolutely not support it - they already have a refugee crisis on their hands.

Personally, I don't think Bush and Cheney will be able to pull it off. Everyone else in the equation is deadset against attacking Iran in any way. And if you don't have the military's support you don't have the military's support. The military bit off more than they could chew with Iraq and they know it.

We shall see.

Scotso
10-03-2007, 05:28 PM
they pay a big fine if they don't , France has paid huge fines for violating those laws. I'm glad the european countries have decided to abid by those rules , it's improved civil liberties, states can be sued if they dont respect fundamental laws.
Every state of law in the world now respect to a certain degree international laws
your theory of the state is the one of the old french philosophers , how ironic

They pay a big fine if they want to. Is Germany going to invade France if they don't pay the fines? Please. It's a treaty, not a government. They have no power over the states aside from peer pressure. If there is a law above the sovereign state, then they're not sovereign.

G4.
10-03-2007, 06:25 PM
it's called legality theorized by austrian american Hans Kelsen , wether you are a citizen or a state you must follow the laws . i'm not going to ask you to understand that. Glad to see that the theories of Rousseau and Montesquieu have success in the US

buddyholly
10-04-2007, 04:10 AM
Taking action and saying a few words are two very difficult things.

For you, no doubt.

mtw
10-04-2007, 11:44 AM
I read the New Yorker piece and some other related interviews by the author. He's claiming that since the US public isn't in favour of striking Iran outright for its alleged nuclear ambitions, Cheney and Bush are looking to spur a limited attack on it for supposedly fomenting terrorism in Iraq, ie.: Iranian militants intervening in Iraq and killing Americans, etc.

Of course, maybe their hope is that Iran would retaliate, the US responds with more firepower, and so on until war breaks out.

As a whole, the idea of a limited attack is to get some tacit international and domestic approval to check Iranian power. However, whether or not a limited attack will achieve that is uncertain. The American public is deadset against further involvement in the Middle East and, more importantly, the US military body is adamantly resisting getting involved in another Middle Eastern military operation. Their forces are stretched thin as it is, plus theyre losing in Iraq, a country ten times smaller than Iran. I remember reading that several military commanders pledged to resign if any mandated attack on Iran transpired.

Congress will be against it too, especially as the US enters an election year.

At the same time, the Iranian leadership isn't as stupid or delusional as Saddam was when the Americans were knocking on Iraq's door. Iran can simply choose not to respond to a limited American attack. A limited attack is a limited attack, it has to end sometime and by not responding, Iran could possibly avert war. However, this would would very much depend on the international response, which as far as I know, is not in favour of supporting such attacks (outside of Sarkozy). The rest of the Middle East, with the obvious exception of Israel, would absolutely not support it - they already have a refugee crisis on their hands.

Personally, I don't think Bush and Cheney will be able to pull it off. Everyone else in the equation is deadset against attacking Iran in any way. And if you don't have the military's support you don't have the military's support. The military bit off more than they could chew with Iraq and they know it.

We shall see.

Iraq and Iran are independence countries and USA has no rights to interfere there. Why do you think that Iran is the part of this war? Iran has refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, loses own diplomats there every day. And why should a government officially arm insurgents of another country? And what about blackwater and of course american authorities are involved in it ( they want to investigate in own way too febrily. They want to hide something ) Maybe they arm Iraqis. They can buy weapon from neighbour countries too for instance on black market from dealers. Is it very hard?
Americans occupants are killed by Iraqi insurgents. These insurgents are not 10 years old boys, they are adult or almost adult men they fight freely because conditions in Iraq are very poor. And they don't allow on illegal occupation. The same fights were in Poland during II world war and it was normal. So why are Iraqi insurgents treated as terrorists? Saying truly americans went brutaly ( as hitlerians in Europe during II world war) to independent country and they destroyed it totally not mentioning of american genocide and crimes. And there is no direct connections between government in Iran and Iraqi underground army. The hatred of Bush against this Iranian president is relies on it that Iranian president has petroleum and he can say what he thinks of Bush and USA. And very well. It is one person, who has no fear. And besides americans have own economical ruined, hopeless USA, they should sit there and take care of their country at last. They are not part of Middle East. And it is clear that their presence in this Iraq is quite redundant. They lost this country and it is clear too thanks to their war.

mtw
10-04-2007, 11:47 AM
She strikes again. Only this time she is making up the sources herself :haha: :rolls:


No, it was american source, not mine. But it seems that your new British Primeminister has honour. He wants to withdrew his troops. And it is very well. It would be very nice, if such people were in Poland too and they should make the same thing.

mtw
10-04-2007, 11:52 AM
First of all, there's nothing wrong with having plans in place, as Fee said. It's what governments do.

Secondly, since there is no law above that of a sovereign state, you have no basis for calling it illegal.

Lastly, we can and will do what is necessary to protect our interests, as any country would.

You have totally fu... in heads. Does murdering of other people ( because it is the thing, which is commited by USA - officials for years ) and destroying of other countries economically and millitary lie in interest of USA indeed. I believe that there are normal tax payers too ( not only cia fuzzes and myrmidons ) who work hard to have something and they must pay money for plans of Bush and his officials, not mentioning about private, half - criminal companies ( this blackwater ), which are paid by american tax - payers too.
maybe he has plan of conquering of the world too. What and when should be attacked in the first place? This what is done by USA-officials is not in the interest of american society and country. It is usual illegal, inefficient trial to conquer of countries rich in oil. And nothing more. It will bring in the future reverse effect. These countries will have the aversion to USA for years and it will give nothing. Saying simply: no new territories, no petroleum, only new enemies.

Bilbo
10-04-2007, 12:19 PM
For you, no doubt.

Your brain must be smaller than that one of Homer Simpson.

buddyholly
10-04-2007, 02:59 PM
Your brain must be smaller than that one of Homer Simpson.

Oh my, but you are such a traitor. It was not so long ago that you started a thread that just simply raved about the brilliance of the Simpsons. I am sure that thread showed your real opinion of Homer. Here are a couple of your adoring quotes:

''the Simpsons have a very intellectual humour''

''Homer Simpson is the funniest character ever''

Thanks for equating my humour and intellect with that of your most adored character ever, ever, ever.

Bilbo
10-04-2007, 04:38 PM
while homer is funny and i'm a big fan of him you are not. that's what i wanted to say.

so when someone says asshole to you you punch him in the face? that's obviously two different kind of things. but that's what i mean when i said americans are like "you punch me once i punch you twice". you clearly underlined my thoughts.

G4.
10-04-2007, 07:31 PM
they not only punch him but burn his house to the ground and kill his family , but hey they defend themselves and protect their interests !

Fee
10-04-2007, 09:09 PM
mtw, what is febrily and myrmidons? I don't understand your use of those two words.

Anyway, I will join you and everyone else on the planet criticising the Cheney/Bush administration and all of the absolutely corrupt things they have done with my money. I never supported the idea of invading Iraq and knew it was a complete joke that would lead to a disaster (but I never imagined it would be this bad). But the whole Iraq thing is just a waste of time, seriously. It's just two men thumping their chest at each other. Bush is a lame-duck, impotent President at this point. It seems the only power he has left is vetoing bills and appointing people to vacancies. Congress will never approve any action against Iran, the American public would never approve it, and if Bush did anything at this point his place in history as the biggest eejit to occupy the White House would be secure. It's just bluster, so don't worry about it. Focus on the half-assed job done in Afghanistan, which is getting worse and worse each day.

Richard_from_Cal
10-04-2007, 09:57 PM
http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?t=47278&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=iran&start=500

^^--THIS poster (foo),--^^
.. on this bulletin board (uselessjunk.net) has been pointing toward a new conflict, with Iran, for more than four years (in this thread.)

I don't even think he's a Christian.

Which, by the way, doesn't the Jewish Messiah tell you to "Bless and do not curse?" (I just got off a bus with a bunch of cuties that acted like they'd been drug through the mud by a bunch of thug rappers, and they liked it...:p )

Of course, I suppose that nobody much will vaunt ME for my courtesy and consideration.

buddyholly
10-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Taking action and saying a few words are two very difficult things.

And I guess you still haven't noticed your Gerry Ford moment yet. I couldn't care less about the Simpsons or who punches who, but I do like mistakes that end up being funny posts.

buddyholly
10-05-2007, 12:37 PM
they not only punch him but burn his house to the ground and kill his family , but hey they defend themselves and protect their interests !

It wasn't that long ago that they had to defend the French and protect their interests.

G4.
10-05-2007, 03:30 PM
irrefutable argument , because of what happened in the WW2 they can do whatever they want in the world yes !

Jim Jones
10-05-2007, 07:48 PM
U.S will not attack Iran for various reasons. One is that shiites tend to be less of a threat then demented wahhabists that can be found in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc..

Iran clergy would like to be considered a threat but that would be giving too much credit for that.

mtw
10-06-2007, 06:37 PM
I think that USA doesn't attack. My press gave information that USA plans every week attack on new targets in Iran. It has another purpose. It is moral cruelty and attempt of intinidation. It shows only how terrible psychopaths rule in USA.

G4.
10-06-2007, 07:11 PM
it is mental conditioning , we need a new common a enemy , they show us who to hate so we can point out the bad guy. So we can forget about Saudi arabia who finance mosquees and send their Imams to preach hate in europe, and also Pakistan like jim jones said

Richard_from_Cal
10-06-2007, 11:45 PM
it is mental conditioning , we need a new common a enemy , they show us who to hate so we can point out the bad guy. So we can forget about Saudi arabia who finance mosquees and send their Imams to preach hate in europe, and also Pakistan like jim jones saidExactly. This is what I've recently come to wonder: Were the September 11, 2001 attacks fomented by the intelligence community in the U.S.A.---to give us a successor to the Soviet State?

I've come to doubt it, a little bit, since seeing "Kingdom,"--(the movie starring Jamie Foxx)--. But it is convenient for the "military/industrial establishment." We have a new enemy. Islamo-fascism. ...or is it the taxpayer? Anyway,...here's a clip from three days of the condor, to make you paranoid. :)
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYzs65mwXiw
vvv--here's a shorter version: in Italian .:) --vvv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAYDE-qgCGs&mode=related&search=
.

G4.
10-07-2007, 12:53 AM
Future historians will have a great subject to work on, in 100 or 200 years or more, when historians are able to question objectively the official reports without hurting personal feelings.

World Beater
10-12-2007, 05:52 AM
mtw, what is febrily and myrmidons? I don't understand your use of those two words.

Anyway, I will join you and everyone else on the planet criticising the Cheney/Bush administration and all of the absolutely corrupt things they have done with my money. I never supported the idea of invading Iraq and knew it was a complete joke that would lead to a disaster (but I never imagined it would be this bad). But the whole Iraq thing is just a waste of time, seriously. It's just two men thumping their chest at each other. Bush is a lame-duck, impotent President at this point. It seems the only power he has left is vetoing bills and appointing people to vacancies. Congress will never approve any action against Iran, the American public would never approve it, and if Bush did anything at this point his place in history as the biggest eejit to occupy the White House would be secure. It's just bluster, so don't worry about it. Focus on the half-assed job done in Afghanistan, which is getting worse and worse each day.

myrmidons - underlings who acquiesce.

El Legenda
10-12-2007, 05:54 AM
http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/pub/amnestyusa/death-penalty/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Richard_from_Cal
10-12-2007, 08:03 PM
how is it illegal?
vvvvvvv-------vvvvvvv-------vvvvvvv
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=law+of+love

Richard_from_Cal
10-12-2007, 08:26 PM
it is mental conditioning , we need a new common a enemy , they show us who to hate so we can point out the bad guy. So we can forget about Saudi arabia who finance mosquees and send their Imams to preach hate in europe, and also Pakistan like jim jones saidIn recent headlines, the local newspaper had:Groceries going up
...but no media mention "inflation"...because we still remember from the seventies, that energy prices are a large portion of the inflation equation.

The sub-headline to the news piece (which I'll include a hyperlink to, if I can find it) says:Ethanol, China, weak dollar are all playing role
:lol:
vvv-vvv
http://www.azstarnet.com/business/205303