Thought Iran Was 5-10 Years From A Bomb

[Paulie]

I can't respond to all conspiracies, though I'll try to answer Ron Paul questions.

You bring the guy up more than i even do these days. What in the blue HELL does RP have to do with grump's post, or this thread's discussion?

How could you answer RP questions anyway? You don't know NEARLY enough about the man. You don't even know his voting record for christ's sake.

 

[Annie]

Nothing conspirital about it....No oil in the ME, US doesn't give a shit. Simple. They have proved it over and over again with the likes of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda etc. If those places were full of oil, you can bet your bottom dollar Uncle Sam would have been sniffing around. The only time you guys have recently tried to help out on purely humanitarian grounds (the Balkans and Somalia), Clinton got flayed alive by the conservatives.

When did you stop beating your wife? Same thing. Which was my point.

 

[CSM]

Nothing conspirital about it....No oil in the ME, US doesn't give a shit. Simple. They have proved it over and over again with the likes of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda etc. If those places were full of oil, you can bet your bottom dollar Uncle Sam would have been sniffing around. The only time you guys have recently tried to help out on purely humanitarian grounds (the Balkans and Somalia), Clinton got flayed alive by the conservatives.

Yeah, we got bunches of oil when we sent aid (money and resources) to the tsunami victims! Lucky for us US citizens, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, we got bunches of oil when we sent aid (money and resources) to the tsunami victims! Lucky for us US citizens, eh?

Now don't ruin his point with FACTS. Facts are never that important to a good leftoid rant against the Evil Empire.

 

[glockmail]

Amnadinejad doesn't control the iranian military. He's a figurehead. He has little power in Iran. The Revolutionary Council are the rulers of Iran, and I assure you, they DO care about seeing israeli nukes raining down on their heads.

Amnadinejad has little more power than officiating at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for new hospitals. He's a quack. But, a relatively powerless quack.

I wish you cons would do your research, before you start pooping your pants, wringing your hands in fear, and trying to get us into another unneccessary war.

Next to the Leader, the President shall be the highest official State authority who is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and, as the Chief Executive, for the exercise of the executive powers, with the exception of those matters that directly relate to the Leader.

http://www.president.ir/en/

 

[glockmail]

Glockmail. Please show where he has said that in recent years, except as you have spun it. He has indeed stated that he beleived that it will happen, but I don't think he has ever said that it was his desire.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday that defeat is meaningless for those believing in martyrdom.

Speaking to officials in charge of holding ceremony
commemorating martyrdom of 36,000 army commanders during eight years of sacred defence, he said martyr seeking spirit would is the strongest shelter against enemies' guns and machine guns and no one can confront a nation with such a high morale.

"The martyrdom seeking culture will protect us against all social problems," he said.

http://www.president.ir/en/ Monday 30 July 2007 - 20:04
President:
Defeat meaningless for those believing in martyrdom

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, we got bunches of oil when we sent aid (money and resources) to the tsunami victims! Lucky for us US citizens, eh?

Ah, yes, that great military expedition to Indonesia etc...




IDIOT!

 

[CSM]

Ah, yes, that great military expedition to Indonesia etc...




IDIOT!

let's see...Navy ships and choppers...military personnel....sure sounds like a military expedition to me!

You can't even keep it civil....asshole.

 

[Dr Grump]

let's see...Navy ships and choppers...military personnel....sure sounds like a military expedition to me!

You can't even keep it civil....asshole.

Yeah, they're so similar...all those guys that took up arms against you in Indonesia unlike the Balkans or Somalia....

As for civility, you get what you reap....

 

[CSM]

Yeah, they're so similar...all those guys that took up arms against you in Indonesia unlike the Balkans or Somalia....

As for civility, you get what you reap....

your comment was about humanitarian motives...no mention of military action in that particular post. In fact, your post implied that the ONLY time the US does ANYTHING with even the appearance of humanitarian motives is if there is oil involved. I referred to an event that was NOT oil related and truly a humanitarian effort.

as for "reaping" ... please quote or cite ANY post where I called you a name or insulted you personally in any way?

 

[Dr Grump]

your comment was about humanitarian motives...no mention of military action in that particular post. In fact, your post implied that the ONLY time the US does ANYTHING with even the appearance of humanitarian motives is if there is oil involved. I referred to an event that was NOT oil related and truly a humanitarian effort.

as for "reaping" ... please quote or cite ANY post where I called you a name or insulted you personally in any way?

If you had actually followed the thread I think anybody with a modicum of common sense could see what I was getting at. Vietnam and Korea were ideological wars. GW 1 and 2 are both about securing oil. Somalia was a full blown military operation (and by military I mean there was gonna be fighting involved). As far as I can tell the only thing the US was getting out of it, was to help people out. Ditto re the Balkans (although as part of Nato, you would have thought that the US would have wanted to get involved). Indonesia was totally about humanitarian aid. No risk of fighting at all.

As for reaping, I have a memory of an elephant. The first person to ever neg rep me was Kathianne. I think it was because she saw me as the Newbie and being a bit uppity. Since then, I think we have some sort of understanding.

So who was the second person to neg rep me? Why it was you over some innocuous post I made about Bush or guns. I remember PMing you and asking you why you had done that when it wasn't an insulting post in any way, shape or form. Your answer "because I can". That has stayed with me from some reason. I put you under the "petty and vindictive" category. Maybe you had a bad day that day, maybe I got you pegged wrong, but when your first brush with somebody is under such circumstances, it stays with you...<shrug>....

 

[Paulie]

http://www.president.ir/en/

You really made no point with that link. Even the piece you quoted about the president's authority doesn't make your point for you, considering the Leader has the official say.

And this quote from Ahmadinejad supposedly:

Defeat meaningless for those believing in martyrdom

I couldn't find it on the website. It didn't let me browse July 30 news, in fact it said there was no news for that day when I tried.

Assuming he really said it, it's just yet another vague statement that you war hawks use to try and justify your unfounded fear.

If anything, Ahmadinejad is a moron for continuing to make such negatively perceivable statements. But then again, muslims have been saying that kind of thing for thousands of years anyway. It just happens to be convenient for the war hawks these days.

When you got him saying "we will attack Israel with missiles, that is inevitable" or something very similar, with no other interpretation except that which is actually said, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

 

[glockmail]

You really made no point with that link. Even the piece you quoted about the president's authority doesn't make your point for you, considering the Leader has the official say.

And this quote from Ahmadinejad supposedly:


I couldn't find it on the website. It didn't let me browse July 30 news, in fact it said there was no news for that day when I tried.

Assuming he really said it, it's just yet another vague statement that you war hawks use to try and justify your unfounded fear.

If anything, Ahmadinejad is a moron for continuing to make such negatively perceivable statements. But then again, muslims have been saying that kind of thing for thousands of years anyway. It just happens to be convenient for the war hawks these days.

When you got him saying "we will attack Israel with missiles, that is inevitable" or something very similar, with no other interpretation except that which is actually said, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

The point was that Ahmadinejad has executive powers ands is spokesman for the Leader.

The ir website works differently that you are used to. That’s why I gave you a date. Go to the archives ling then search the month that I gave you. Its not that complex, really.
Actually Muslims have only been around for 1300 years or so, not “thousands”, and although they’ve desired world domination since their inception, The anti-Israeli statements have only been ongoing since, well, the day Israel was created, in 1945.

 

[CSM]

If you had actually followed the thread I think anybody with a modicum of common sense could see what I was getting at. Vietnam and Korea were ideological wars. GW 1 and 2 are both about securing oil. Somalia was a full blown military operation (and by military I mean there was gonna be fighting involved). As far as I can tell the only thing the US was getting out of it, was to help people out. Ditto re the Balkans (although as part of Nato, you would have thought that the US would have wanted to get involved). Indonesia was totally about humanitarian aid. No risk of fighting at all.

As for reaping, I have a memory of an elephant. The first person to ever neg rep me was Kathianne. I think it was because she saw me as the Newbie and being a bit uppity. Since then, I think we have some sort of understanding.

So who was the second person to neg rep me? Why it was you over some innocuous post I made about Bush or guns. I remember PMing you and asking you why you had done that when it wasn't an insulting post in any way, shape or form. Your answer "because I can". That has stayed with me from some reason. I put you under the "petty and vindictive" category. Maybe you had a bad day that day, maybe I got you pegged wrong, but when your first brush with somebody is under such circumstances, it stays with you...<shrug>....

I asked for a post where I called you a name...I neg rep for a lot of reasons but primarily when I disagree with a post.

As for what you were getting at, I know full well you love bashing the US. I gathered that from a conglamoration of your posts...just the way you are I guess. If, when I take offense to that, it makes me petty and vindictive, then so be it.

That being said, it is obvious I disagree with your allegation that the only time the US does anything there has to be oil involved.

 

[Dr Grump]

I neg rep for a lot of reasons but primarily when I disagree with a post.

And I don't..go figure...

As for what you were getting at, I know full well you love bashing the US. I gathered that from a conglamoration of your posts...just the way you are I guess. If, when I take offense to that, it makes me petty and vindictive, then so be it.

No, I don't like bashing the US, I like bashing Bush and your foreign policy. I have a lot of nice things to say about Clinton and FDR and your next president Hillary - does that mean I still hate the US. And yes, it does make you petty and vindictive....just life I guess. There are people on here I could neg rep into oblivion if I so chose, but it would stifle debate IMO. I only reserve it for trolls (lieberalism), or people who do it to me (shrug)

That being said, it is obvious I disagree with your allegation that the only time the US does anything there has to be oil involved.

No, I have never stated CATEGORICALLY that the US does anything there has to be oil involved. In fact, I specifically gave two occasions where NO oil was involved...

 

[Paulie]

The point was that Ahmadinejad has executive powers ands is spokesman for the Leader.

The ir website works differently that you are used to. That’s why I gave you a date. Go to the archives ling then search the month that I gave you. Its not that complex, really.

Did you not read all my post or something? I specifically said I searched July 30 and came up with nothing. It said no news for that day. Whatever though.

Actually Muslims have only been around for 1300 years or so, not “thousands”,

See, now that's just yet another way to take a statement out of context. Whether it's ALMOST thousands, or THOUSANDS, still doesn't change the fact that muslims have been talking about martyrdom for way longer than the last 50 years.

and although they’ve desired world domination since their inception

Damn man, you're all about vague, unfounded statements, aren't you??

The anti-Israeli statements have only been ongoing since, well, the day Israel was created, in 1945.

First of all, the Ahmadinejad statement in question wasn't referrenced towards Israel specifically, unless you have some extra info from your source that clears that up. Second of all, it was 1948 not 1945, and third of all, why would they have CARED to make anti-israel statements when jews hadn't yet had the audacity to scoop up the holiest of lands to ALL of them, and claim them as only their OWN?

What do you expect when someone comes in and tells you that some of your most sacred religious ground is now THEIRS, and you can't continue officialyl claiming it anymore?

Trust me man, I blame both sides in that, but we're not arguing the 7 day war.

Do yo have any muslim friends? If not, would you ever?

 

[glockmail]

.... I specifically said I searched July 30 and came up with nothing. It said no news for that day. Whatever though.....

Try again. Be more open minded....

 

[DeadCanDance]

The point was that Ahmadinejad has executive powers ands is spokesman for the Leader.

The ir website works differently that you are used to. That&#8217;s why I gave you a date. Go to the archives ling then search the month that I gave you. Its not that complex, really.
Actually Muslims have only been around for 1300 years or so, not &#8220;thousands&#8221;, and although they&#8217;ve desired world domination since their inception, The anti-Israeli statements have only been ongoing since, well, the day Israel was created, in 1945.

Its clear that many bush voters are salivating for another splendid little war, and are desparately grasping at something - anything - to make the case...including vague comments from a kooky, relatively powerless figurehead president of iran.

That comment you posted is so vague, it can hardly be considered a reason to go to war. Sorry. It looks like sheer, idiotic bravado to me. Its a permutation of something that many tinpot dictators have said: that they'll "fight to the death" for their country, no retreat no surrender, etc. Take you pick.

I certainly don't interpret this as an open invitation to engage in a nuclear war with israel. Which would be difficult for iran anyway, since there's zero evidence they even have one nuclear bomb.

Without any viable evidence of an imminent threat to the United States, I'm afraid you're reverting to the war lust this country experienced in 2002: You're desparately grasping at vague, tenuous statements and assertions to gin up fear.

I don't doubt the iranian president is a quack. He's even starting to piss off members of the Supreme Council with his whacky statements. That's been well reported. But, he is a relatively powerless quack, and has zero authority to order the iranian military to do anything.

 

[doniston]

So in short, yiou seem to be admitting that the only reason you enter the conversation is to attempt (repeat) "ATTEMPT" to stick it to me. However Jackass, I don't beleive I have EVER said that a person couldn't be retired for medical reasons. I said YOU have shown that you have not been. the proof is right their in you own arguements.

No I hadn't intended to continue this and would rather let sleeping dogs lie. but if you persist, I will point out the facts of which I have recently been appraised "BY THE HORSES MOUTH". --- (The veteran's administration).

But as I have just stated. you seem destined just to make more noise, instead of concentration on worthwhile issues.

You may point out whatever you think are my imperfections as much as you please but I will still have my say, and I doubt your opinions have very much of a following.

This is the point at which you made your latest assault, so this is where I will respond even tho you cowardly retreated to a different thread You just couldn't let it rest so----

OK, since you insist, here goes.

I have just moved to a place very near to the basic headquarters of the veteran's administration regarding disability. so I decided to visit them, for the first time in some forty-odd years. basically because of our stupid discussion. so I learned the total scoop from the horses mouth ,so to speak. what I learned was that with minor exceptions, mostly terminology, the conditions were the same as they were fifty years ago.

Yes, I went to orientation lectures at the time, and was informed then, (and now) that there were those who due to the extent of their disabilities would receive a severance pay, and after a certain time, may or may not receive monthly disability payments.and some could receive as much as three times base pay for those disabilities. this is one place where rules have changed. some can now receive even more.

The only difference between your case and mine is the degree of disability, and consequently a slight difference in treatment. Mine was classified as 30% (later raised to 50 %) while you have stated that yours was in the range of 70 to 100% This is one of the few places where you got it right. (more on that later) Your range would allow you to be treated differently. At that point you would be given special privileges that normally only are afforded to the retired. "THUS BEING TREATED AS RETIRED" Please note this is not the same as BEING Retired.

I certainly never have meant or meant to say a person COULDN'T be retired and still receive disability payments In fact they could, but only in specific circumstance. TO WIT
They must complete their 20 Years service (actually 20 years, six months) to be retired ---If the person were to remain on some sort of inactive duty for the remainder of that time. they could indeed be retired, and receive retiremnet pay "AND IN ADDITION" receive disability benefits.

. In such a case they would be dipping into two different accounts.-- Retirement benefis, and Disability payments. You have never claimed that, in fact you stated flatly that you were receiving Disability Payments only. A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNT THAN RETIREMENT PAYMENTS.

I was informed by the powers that be that you (as you have expressed your situation) can not be truely retired. but only TREATED (in some respects) as being retired. Further. were your claim true, I would also be "RETIRED" rather than on disability payments. I AM "NOT" retired. I am on permanent disability.

I have paterntly watched you post certain links, and then calmly misinterpet them, to your point of veiw.and then decl;are Absolute Victory. I can only beleive that you have done the same thing thruout your "So-called retirement. I recognized this, and tried several time to bring this discussion to a halt, and I realized that we woul;d never agree. but you insist on continuing a fruitless endevour.

However Just for your information, and from a more personal standpoint: I reaslize I have raised your dander by disrespecting, and refusing to respect your rank and position. YOU see, I have never yet met or conversed with a Gunnery Sgt who was not an absolutely dominering Prick (Including Both of the ones on this Forum) Seems to be something about that particular rank and duty that screws up an otherwise decent person. There are similar situations in other services, which I will not point out specifically.

I would give you far more respect as a Disabled veteran than I could ever offer a Gunny. So your nose is out of joint. ---TOUGH.

Now I don't really care what you beleive about me, but I have tried to put an end to this particular discussion as being totally pointless, and of no particular popsitive ort negative intrest to anyone but ourselves. And I would like this to end. but knowing you. I don't think you will every be anything but a jackass about it. All you are doing is continuing to waste everyone's time----Whatever.

 

[Paulie]

Try again. Be more open minded....

I will certainly try again later when i have time, i gotta run right now.

As far as being open minded, you oughta try that yourself. I don't advocate possibly pre-emptively invading or using nuclear missiles against a country, spending another Trillion dollars or more to do so, and in the meantime choking the economic life out off them.

You seem to have your mind made up already. I'm open to continuing dialogue with them, continuing inspections, and demanding transparency.

I'll admit that we AT LEAST have a right to know what they're doing when it comes to nuclear ANYTHING. It's too serious a situation to have anyone be doing anything in secret, but the same goes for us as well. We have our closet open right now, they know what we got, so yes, we have a right to know what they're doing as well.

If Iran really isn't building a weapon, then they're really only aggravating the situation by being secretive about it.

It's just not something worth killing another million people ovre, and spending billions more that we don't have as it is.