Orlando737
Well-Known Member
Gitmo....?
Saudis vs Iran...who's going to win?
- Thread starter heckler73
- Start date
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Most countries scream death to America most notably North Korea And they have NUKES and what we all know what happened last time USA and them went to war again under estimating a enemy is USA biggest issues and what gets them schooled all the time Iraq included schooled USA , Vietnam Schooled,
The problem is you say USA has been policing middle east how so ??? you mean trying to change there governments , Rape them of there Assets and you wonder why many countries are burning american flags beheading soldiers and ISIS
Huge difference between policing and stealing
This no different the Kahdaffi he was once a US allie , But once e decided to make a currency that was litterally in gold standard , USA flipped sides supported the rebels to kill him ..
See back then that 70 dollar barrel would of costed you double cause now you had to convert US currency to there currency to purchase oil
God or bid USA doing that so support the rebels kill him off
Who are we really to dictate how another country operate, or there laws, or policies ????
I mean for the longest time YES even in school we are taught Communism is Bad ?? is it ???
i mean looks like you owe communist country trillions of dollars and TBH comunism appears to be working better then our system today
Schooling is free housing is free , how many veterans are living on the street ni USA ?? you would never see that in a Communist country What i am trying to say is Again who is USA in trying to change another countries ways ?? that is no poilicing but rather persecution but We will point fingers at other countries lol
Example how would you feel getting woken up 7 am tomorrow buy a army of Chinese AND A TANK at your front door and them saying you got 10 mins to wake everyone up and leave your house and 10 mins later your out and tank starts driving over your house and neighbors and you have to convert to communism now cause China is policing USA how would you like that ??
Sad thing is 99 percent of the news you here is censored they only allow you to here stuff propaganda that makes usa Strong and or other countries the villian
Just like Russia invading UK owe boy waas that bad Ehh ? ??..
Truth is NATO were the true cock suckers trying again to get into Russia's back yard build another base of missiles pointing at Russia ,, as if Russia would let thaat happen so yup invade UK cmon boys dont run NATO where you going start shit and run
Kind of reminds me of When Russia started pointing Nukes in your back yard in Cuba How did americans like that ??? but its ok the other way around ..
So really policing what what you think is right and wrong ?? well many countries can point out all the wrong USA has done and financially speaking USA would be the last thing any country really needs
Last edited:
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I could swear Gitmo is a prison for prisoners of war. Taking 48 secretaries and two janitors from an Embassy is a different animal.
Orlando737
Well-Known Member
Well that may be your'e perception of the place, however you would have to convince the hostage takers otherwise.
Why do they parade their victims wearing orange overalls before killing them...?
Coincidence?.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
First you say ,"yooze guys", than "you ", now "we",...hmmmm.
If China wants to jump, then China should jump. I don`t sweat them.
I think bringing governments that kill in the name of Gods is not so bad, so I`ll wait till someone takes me out for it.
Did you like get beat up a lot in life, you have little clue what it`s like to be a badass. You know why they put mean dogs and not friendly dogs in the junkyards ?
If you have a big stick, swing it they way you think is Just. Others may have other justifications that don`t line up to yours but that`s why people conflict. No New World Order,...is a good thing for mankind.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I really don`t see Americans parading anyone in orange before killing them, Got a link ? ISIS does it. Iran kept the 50 hostages in civi close.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
What hostage takers, You`ve confused the confused here.
Orlando737
Well-Known Member
Middle East is a confusing place, mate !
All the more reason to not dabble there, its 2016, the 100th year of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. It's how all this shit started in its modern form, thanks to us (UK) & France, carving 'spheres of influence' for ourselves.
UK helped establish the Saudi state in 1926..
Last edited:
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Actually Was it Reagan , and bush mentioning the New world order ??? to think there is not a select few that run the world i think is being stupid i mean SA could very well crank up there barrels of oil and tell opec to go fuck them selfs that alone would rock the world right ..
So thinking some of the elite richest people in the world can not do something to rock any boat or push a Agenda isn't this how the US works in there Government i mean big pharma or oil ty coons pledge a billion dollars there going to get there way its how America is run presently there is no denying that
As for getting beat up actually opposite very much opposite see having older Bro's that of course made a big name and me being younger sure went to court for the usual attemped murder charge haha or pounding a guy to wheel chair status ,, haha but really its like having a last name like Eskobar just the name will shit peoples pants ..
but i am a good guy now much easier to pay someone to get rid of a problem then to get your hands dirty simple really , Again just like USA has been using for a long time Black water , or pay people to do there dirty work ..
You never seen a mean dog in your life
i like the ones with a stronger bite force then a lion them are bad ass and of course packing the 200 pound weight ins 
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam
There ya go. Read up folks. It will all be relevant very soon.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Actually Was it Reagan , and bush mentioning the New world order ??? to think there is not a select few that run the world i think is being stupid i mean SA could very well crank up there barrels of oil and tell opec to go fuck them selfs that alone would rock the world right ..
So thinking some of the elite richest people in the world can not do something to rock any boat or push a Agenda isn't this how the US works in there Government i mean big pharma or oil ty coons pledge a billion dollars there going to get there way its how America is run presently there is no denying that
As for getting beat up actually opposite very much opposite see having older Bro's that of course made a big name and me being younger sure went to court for the usual attemped murder charge haha or pounding a guy to wheel chair status ,, haha but really its like having a last name like Eskobar just the name will shit peoples pants ..
but i am a good guy now much easier to pay someone to get rid of a problem then to get your hands dirty simple really , Again just like USA has been using for a long time Black water , or pay people to do there dirty work ..
You never seen a mean dog in your life
I think it was Vince McMahon. Ya can`t put out more than they use, you end up with no sale days. I guess SA will have that stick for a while but the pools will run dry.
Actually that`s just the way the big boys play, we down here got the power to not buy and throw panic attacks, the top % will shut up quick. The thing about the super rich, you minus money, they can`t even feed themselves. Besides, they have yet to answer to Arty. America is run by retail, not Industrialization. Ya can`t pay ya peeps when the buck drops to a nickel.
So What`s your problem then ?, You know if a Government that supports life and civilization, clashes with a Government that has no regard for human life, it wont take long to see the first unprovoked attack being "because we don`t like you".
You can`t have Polar Bears..................
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That was funny.I was waiting for him to answer it, too. A cursory review of Wiki, and it seemed to me they had not invaded anyone since the early Ottoman empire. Is that correct?
However, I am no fan of Hezbollah, either. Nevertheless, in considering the situation from their perspective, some of that "Death to America" puffery makes a bit more sense. Their Republic is only as old as the satellite record, and with those nutty expansionists in Israel being a threat (real or not), such rhetoric should come as hardly a surprise. In fact, it appeared to be their only defense. Kind of like a porcupine stretching out its quills, or a cat posturing and hissing.
It's actually making me wonder about the hostage crisis from back then. That might be worth re-investigating.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
See this is where many fail also to understanding grades of oil and how easy it is to extract SA has everyone beat also they cranked it down to preserve there future stakes its known fact that they have worlds largest reserve also Russia is in that picture as well but anyways .
For instance you ever wonder why USA bothers with middle east as in oil when they can get it from Canada and even drill there own ??? its cause it would cost them more to do it
Its all about sulfer content
so american , canadian oil is called sour crude and middle east also produces sour but again much cheaper to refine the inpurities
You ever wonder why really USA invaded Iraq ??? its cause there oil is amoung the best in the world SWEET CRUDE
A person can very well say canadian oil and american oil is dirty oil mostly made into diesel fuels and gas its takes more refining to get anything out of it and that costs $$$$$ and that is why we so such differences at the gas pumps Venezuela, SA Iraq oils are cleaner like honey lol in comparison easier to refine and cheaper overal and most importantly more things can be made from it clothing , pretty much all of our needs
For instance you ever wonder why USA bothers with middle east as in oil when they can get it from Canada and even drill there own ??? its cause it would cost them more to do it
Its all about sulfer content
so american , canadian oil is called sour crude and middle east also produces sour but again much cheaper to refine the inpurities
You ever wonder why really USA invaded Iraq ??? its cause there oil is amoung the best in the world SWEET CRUDE
A person can very well say canadian oil and american oil is dirty oil mostly made into diesel fuels and gas its takes more refining to get anything out of it and that costs $$$$$ and that is why we so such differences at the gas pumps Venezuela, SA Iraq oils are cleaner like honey lol in comparison easier to refine and cheaper overal and most importantly more things can be made from it clothing , pretty much all of our needs
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I was waiting for him to answer it, too. A cursory review of Wiki, and it seemed to me they had not invaded anyone since the early Ottoman empire. Is that correct?
However, I am no fan of Hezbollah, either. Nevertheless, in considering the situation from their perspective, some of that "Death to America" puffery makes a bit more sense. Their Republic is only as old as the satellite record, and with those nutty expansionists in Israel being a threat (real or not), such rhetoric should come as hardly a surprise. In fact, it appeared to be their only defense. Kind of like a porcupine stretching out its quills, or a cat posturing and hissing.
It's actually making me wonder about the hostage crisis from back then. That might be worth re-investigating.
I was actually hoping the question was, "when was the last time Iran wanted to invade some Nation ?" ..That`s easy, every day.
You can`t drop back and ask Why a Nation that can`t invade someone, hasn`t and end with "you`re why we think you`re dumb.
How come they weren`t screaming death to America when the 3rd was having their way with them ?
Where is it that Israel wants to expand ?
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
ok this is my last post i see you need to go do some reading
Iran hasn’t invaded another country for centuries and is helping the U.S. push back against the Islamic State in Iraq, but Israeli leaders and American neocons want to enlist the West in the Saudi cause of promoting Sunni Islam over Shiite Islam, while America’s interests suffer
The idea of Iran as a regional marauder that is gobbling up other countries in the Middle East and against which pressure must therefore be unrelenting has become one of the favorite themes of those determined to kill the nuclear agreement with Tehran. As an argument for rejecting the nuclear deal, this approach has always suffered from major factual and logical flaws.
Given the casual and automatic manner in which references to Iran supposedly sowing mayhem all over the region are routinely worked into almost any discussion of policy toward Iran, it perhaps is too much to expect many people to stop and study the flaws. Perhaps we should just remind people who make those casual references that if Iran really were bent on causing all that mayhem, that is all the more reason to support an agreement to assure that the marauder does not get a nuclear weapon.
But let’s not abandon facts and logic just yet. The main fact on this subject is that Iran hasn’t been doing anything close to the country-gobbling, capital-controlling, instability-creating stuff in the Middle East that it routinely gets accused of doing. Its regional activity is best characterized as the understandable and unsurprising reactions of a major regional state to an assortment of conflicts in its neighborhood that are not of its own making.
As Jon Alterman has put it, “The reality is the Iranians don’t control any Arab capital, and they couldn’t if they tried. Iraqis have a strong sense of nationalism and self-interest, as do Syrians, Lebanese and Yemenis. If you were an Iranian trying to impose your will, you’d be tearing your hair out. There is no Iranian ‘order’ in the region.” Instead, there is a lot of disorder, and amid that disorder the Iranian goal, says Alterman, “is to survive in a hostile world.”
There is no fundamental difference between most of what Iran actually is doing in the region and what either the United States or its regional Sunni friends are doing in reacting to the same disorder. Yet when the latter step into something like the confusing sectarian/tribal/personal conflict in Yemen, as the Saudis have done with their U.S.-supported military intervention replete with airstrikes, it is looked on benignly, but when the Iranians provide lesser assistance to one of the players in the same conflict, this gets described as country-gobbling trouble-making. Such inconsistency is all the more glaring when Iran and the United States are weighing in on the same side, as they are in Iraq.
A particular variant of the Iran-as-marauder argument that has featured prominently in the most recent efforts to kill the nuclear agreement is the notion that granting Iran relief from some of the sanctions to which it currently is subjected would give Iran more resources for more trouble-making in the region, and this would mean Iran would in fact cause more trouble.
This assumes that any extra funds in the Iranian bank account would go into whatever foreign activities the anti-agreement people want us to think of as trouble-making, rather than toward meeting the demands and high expectations of the Iranian public for domestic improvement.
That assumption does not square with what Iranian leaders know their political future depends upon; they fully realize that the crowds that greeted Foreign Minister Javad Zarif upon returning from the negotiations in Lausanne expect that improvement in their way of life at home; people in the crowds were not cheering Zarif because they believe there will be more money for foreign adventurism.
The assumption also does not square, as Juan Cole points out, with the actual record of how the Iranians have apportioned their resources. And the assumption that Iranian regional activities will be a function of the balance in Iran’s bank account is certainly inconsistent with the image of Iranian leaders as ideologically-driven hotheads who are out to inflame and destabilize whatever they can.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I know my different grades, There`s cooking oils light and dark, Cannabis oils strong and weak, burning oils smelly and sweet, bathing oils bubbly and acidic.
What are sulfer impuritites ? Have you been using the strong not weak ?
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
So again this comes down to US credibility which i have to say YOU fucking have none
In fact, the assumed connection between sanctions relief and greater regional activism makes the Iranians look much more like cool-headed green eyeshade types than are the Americans who promoted the biggest destabilizing, country-breaking, terrorism-stimulating event in the Middle East in recent times: a war that turned out to cost trillions.
Note a further inconsistency in what the deal-killers are saying. Many of the same people (the Israeli prime minister is a prominent but by no means the only example) who are saying that Iran should not be given sanctions relief lest the Iranians have more resources for regional trouble-making are also contending that continued pressure through sanctions is the way to get a “better deal” on the nuclear issue.
Even if either of these contentions were valid (and neither one is), they could not possibly both be valid. The sanctions from which Iran will get relief were enacted for the clearly expressed purpose of inducing concessions from Iran on the nuclear issue. With the framework agreement that was announced last week, that purpose has been achieved.
But opponents of the deal are suggesting that the United States should now say, “Well, that’s not really what we had in mind for those sanctions. We’re going to keep them in place indefinitely because we don’t want to give you resources for doing other things.”
How is that supposed to give the Iranians incentive to cooperate on anything, and specifically on nuclear matters? And for those who whine a lot about damage to U.S. credibility (many of those opposing the nuclear deal are among the principal habitual whiners), how will this switcharoo affect how other nations view U.S. credibility, and how much they will believe the United States the next time it tries to use a tool such as economic sanctions to persuade someone to change a policy?
In fact, the assumed connection between sanctions relief and greater regional activism makes the Iranians look much more like cool-headed green eyeshade types than are the Americans who promoted the biggest destabilizing, country-breaking, terrorism-stimulating event in the Middle East in recent times: a war that turned out to cost trillions.
Note a further inconsistency in what the deal-killers are saying. Many of the same people (the Israeli prime minister is a prominent but by no means the only example) who are saying that Iran should not be given sanctions relief lest the Iranians have more resources for regional trouble-making are also contending that continued pressure through sanctions is the way to get a “better deal” on the nuclear issue.
Even if either of these contentions were valid (and neither one is), they could not possibly both be valid. The sanctions from which Iran will get relief were enacted for the clearly expressed purpose of inducing concessions from Iran on the nuclear issue. With the framework agreement that was announced last week, that purpose has been achieved.
But opponents of the deal are suggesting that the United States should now say, “Well, that’s not really what we had in mind for those sanctions. We’re going to keep them in place indefinitely because we don’t want to give you resources for doing other things.”
How is that supposed to give the Iranians incentive to cooperate on anything, and specifically on nuclear matters? And for those who whine a lot about damage to U.S. credibility (many of those opposing the nuclear deal are among the principal habitual whiners), how will this switcharoo affect how other nations view U.S. credibility, and how much they will believe the United States the next time it tries to use a tool such as economic sanctions to persuade someone to change a policy?
Orlando737
Well-Known Member
Annexing the West Bank and expelling its inhabitants and the Arabs left in Israels pre-1948 borders. Expanding their settlements in the expropriated land.
They will be offered 'generous' sums to leave, much of it donated to Israel by its good friends in the US (AIPAC, Congress, Sheldon Adelman ect).
Its openly spoken about in the Israeli cabinet, the Speaker of the Knesset is on record saying it.
They will then be driven out and into Jordan, we are talking about 3 million plus folks here.
Last edited:
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Fine,
But I don`t need to do any reading because I remember what I say.
Which half of Iran are you talking about ?
You can point to posts I`ve made about Iran, some have a bad taste because they cannot be trusted. But none are that the Iranian people are savage land grabbers.
You can`t point to any one of those Nations and say they lifted a finger when a real bad guy had them by the throat. They forget shit like that in seconds. I know why Iran wants that generator and the one`s after. It solves all their power and fresh water problem for hundreds of years. It`s not a fucking toy and it is a serious fucking weapon, I see no problems with them having one or three but they should not be able to completely run it. it`s that bad of consequences should anyone go mad.
Just listen to John Kerry assure the world that he saw the concrete. John don`t see the threat to the region that other nations are not gonna take lightly at all. SA has already acted, the whole fucking area will soon seek some kind of equalizer. To gift them the deal is the only reason anyone will think bad idea. to see them through it is a more positive way to show that if you play legit, you get legit trust and ownerships. You don`t go here ya are, we`ll see later with Uranium generators, you do that with Dynamite or guns, or oil. Ten years from now, nothing happened, they get to say see, we told ya, and that`s a lot easier to swallow than , Didn`t see that coming. Go ahead and check the blood pressure of the Nuclear Scientists, You`ll see what I mean about trust.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
See and this is USA Achilles heal more n more countries are not trusting america it won't be long before many actually completely turn there backs on USA matter fact i wouldn't be surprised is sanctions on USA are imposed
If i was china i would say sorry we have to impose a 12 percentage surcharge on any goods we send to you from this date on take it or leave it haha
wonder how long supplies on shelf's in USA start disappearing matter fact odd ball i dare you to actually be honest here look at everything at you place where it was made i bet you get figures 88 percent China or japan and probably Indonesia, Taiwan , lets not for get if you have dress shows Italy or france lol and what percentage is made in USA
Cause that is where USA problem is odd look where that pc or phone your on is made lmao
If i was china i would say sorry we have to impose a 12 percentage surcharge on any goods we send to you from this date on take it or leave it haha
wonder how long supplies on shelf's in USA start disappearing matter fact odd ball i dare you to actually be honest here look at everything at you place where it was made i bet you get figures 88 percent China or japan and probably Indonesia, Taiwan , lets not for get if you have dress shows Italy or france lol and what percentage is made in USA
Cause that is where USA problem is odd look where that pc or phone your on is made lmao