Jump to content

US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks


Recommended Posts

:lol: :lol:

What happens is Iran's oil goes off line, which means world oil prices go through the roof. China who buys most of Iran's oil now has a shortage so all the things they build for the US they stop building. World wide depression is the worst case. Then Jerry blames Obama because he was dumb enough to think people like Jerry actually think any of their idea threw.

Typical of a liberal to think about money at a time like this :lol:

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

not sure if you're able to think beyond "blowing shit up",

:lol:

It's the Rebubli-Tory way!

but did you ever consider what could happen after an attack? what would happen in iraq? how would hezbollah respond to israel and all the new missiles they have? those are just military backlashes. what about the impact on oil prices and the world economy?

the world is a nasty place, full of simpletons. attacking iran will make the world even nastier.

All good points bud.

"Blowing shit up" is an immature strategy, a temper tantrum ... and it's how the war industry profits ... convincing dunderheads that blowing shit up is a solution.

But it's just a new problem ... and the profits keep rolling in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

Typical of a liberal to think about money at a time like this :lol:

I am not thinking about money. I am thinking about all those people who will end up with out food in their stomachs or milk for their kids when world productions declines because of some crazy knee jerk reaction from crazy people who want nothing more then to watch this world burn. NO THANK YOU!

Only in dreams will get to watch this world burn Jerry. I believe we are better when we all pull together, work together to solve problems.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's precisely my point. hezbollah will unleash the stockpile of missiles they've been collecting since israel last attacked lebanon. these missiles will be able to reach every city in israel.

Yes. Because Hezbollah never unleashes it's missiles on Israel already :lol:

see? this is what i mean by simpleton. you don't know what's going on beyond your fantasies of "blowing shit up". both israeli and
generals have repeated that the iranian regime is rational and not this "suicidal super nut" that you want people to think they are.

Yes.

perhaps you should remove yourself from the 'us vs them' world and learn a little about the issues beyond soundbites and team slogans. you should also take into consideration consequences of actions by looking at history and listening to experts who know what they're talking about.

Perhaps you should. The current policy is very "Carter-esque". And we all know how that turned out. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Because Hezbollah never unleashes it's missiles on Israel already :lol:

Yes.

Perhaps you should. The current policy is very "Carter-esque". And we all know how that turned out. :lol:

more tourette like responses where you regurgitate the usual 10 words when you're unable to comprehend real world issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more tourette like responses where you regurgitate the usual 10 words when you're unable to comprehend real world issues.

What? Let me explain then.

1. Hezbollah has a history of firing rockets into Israel always.

2. Iran's leader believes homosexuals don't exist in Iran. This is a clue as to how "rational" these people are.

3. In 1979, Iran's revolutionary guard stormed the US embassy (just as happened in Lybia and Egypt recently). Why? Because they know, under this administration, they can. As soon as Reagan (the male counterpart to the Democrat feminism) was elected, the hostages were returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Let me explain then.

1. Hezbollah has a history of firing rockets into Israel always.

sure. after israel started firebombing lebanon. why is firebombing by israel is okay but responding with rockets to the firebombs is not?

2. Iran's leader believes homosexuals don't exist in Iran. This is a clue as to how "rational" these people are.

it's an idiotic remark. how does this explain pressing the nuclear bomb button? especially after the experts in both israel and u.s. have said that iran will not act irrationally when it comes to attacking?

if that's your basis for 'blowing shit up', then guess who is the irrational one is.

3. In 1979, Iran's revolutionary guard stormed the US embassy (just as happened in Lybia and Egypt recently). Why? Because they know, under this administration, they can. As soon as Reagan (the male counterpart to the Democrat feminism) was elected, the hostages were returned.

first of all, so what? again, how does storming an embassy in 1979 explain their willingness to press the bomb button? is this really how you debate?

second, did you know that reagan's people made a deal with the iranian government to keep the hostages until after the elections were done in exchange for weapons. 20 minutes after reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

Edited by bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure. after israel started firebombing lebanon. why is firebombing by israel is okay but responding with rockets to the firebombs is not?

It's the other way around, man. Hundreds of rockets continually pummel Israel. very few years they put a beat down on the perpetrators.

it's an idiotic remark. how does this explain pressing the nuclear bomb button? especially after the experts in both israel and u.s. have said that iran will not act irrationally when it comes to attacking?

You're trusting two sources, with whom many disagree, with the nuclear future of millions of Jews? Sounds a little like Chamberlain's 1938 to me.

first of all, so what? again, how does storming an embassy in 1979 explain their willingness to press the bomb button? is this really how you debate?

It doesn't, it simply explains the administration we currently have is a pushover. More to the point, Iran has been honest about everything they have said (funding Hezbollah, shipping weapons through Syria, support for the Syrian regime), why would we not take them at their word? We can accuse Iran of many things, but "not doing what you said you were going to" is not one of them.

second, did you know that reagan's people made a deal with the iranian government to keep the hostages until after the elections were done in exchange for weapons. 20 minutes after reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

Awesome. That explains just how good Reagan was and just how bad Carter was. Aside from apologies and incompetence, why couldn't Carter negotiate a similar deal? :lol:

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the other way around, man. Hundreds of rockets continually pummel Israel. very few years they put a beat down on the perpetrators.

you're all over the place.

hezbollah is not the same as hamas. hezbollah is in lebanon and they did not fire rockets until israel started fireboming lebanon.

You're trusting two sources, with whom many disagree, with the nuclear future of millions of Jews? Sounds a little like Chamberlain's 1938 to me.

i trust pretty much anyone over netanyahu, especially if it's the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey.

It doesn't, it simply explains the administration we currently have is a pushover. More to the point, Iran has been honest about everything they have said (funding Hezbollah, shipping weapons through Syria, support for the Syrian regime), why would we not take them at their word? We can accuse Iran of many things, but "not doing what you said you were going to" is not one of them.

okay then. they say they would use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. if you're regurgitating the 'wipe israel off the map' comment, it's best to look into it because it was actually said that the 'the regime should be wiped off the map'. a reference to the zionist regime. iran has never said they would nuke israel.

Awesome. That explains just how good Reagan was and just how bad Carter was. Aside from apologies and incompetence, why couldn't Carter negotiate a similar deal? :lol:

how good reagan was? the hostages were kept longer than they should have been in order to damage carter's election bid. american citizens were used as pawns. how honorable.

Edited by bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hezbollah is not the same as hamas. hezbollah is in lebanon and they did not fire rockets until israel started fireboming lebanon.

do your research buddy this is a baldfaced lie.

i trust pretty much anyone over netanyahu

Well this certainly betrays your bias then, doesn't it? :lol:

okay then. they say they would use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Yes. this coming for a nation that is FLOATING ON OIL. :lol:

how good reagan was? the hostages were kept longer than they should have been in order to damage carter's election bid. american citizens were used as pawns. how honorable.

Reagain freed the hostages Carter couldn't. Pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they shouldn't invade Iran, they should blow the shit out of their nuclear sites with airstrikes.

Here's some very wise people to explain what it would take to "blow the shit out of their nuclear sites." I hope your PM has a chance to read this report since we know where he has chosen to stable his horses.

While U.S. or Israeli air strikes may delay the building by Iran of a nuclear weapon, they are unlikely to prevent it altogether and could well prove counter-productive, according to a major new report signed by nearly three dozen former top U.S. foreign-policy makers, military officers, and independent experts.

The 56-page report, “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran,”(pdf) concluded that a unilateral Israeli attack could delay Iran’s nuclear programme for up to two years while a more massive U.S. assault could set it back by up to four years.

But either effort is also likely to provoke both direct and indirect retaliation by Tehran – both in the region and beyond; destroy the U.S.-led international coalition that has imposed harsh economic sanctions against Iran; and increase the country’s determination to acquire a weapon.

“(A) military action involving aerial strikes, cyber attacks, covert operations, and special operations forces would destroy or severely damage many of Iran’s physical facilities and stockpiles,” according to the report, which was signed by three former national security advisers and two former heads of the U.S. Central Command, among others.

"But in our judgment, complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is unlikely; and Iran would still retain the scientific capacity and the experience to start its nuclear program again if it chose to do so.”

“…In fact, we believe that a U.S. attack on Iran would increase Iran’s motivation to build a bomb, because 1) the Iranian leadership would become more convinced than ever that regime change is the goal of U.S. policy, and 2) building a bomb would be seen as a way to inhibit future attacks and redress the humiliation of being attacked,” according to the report, which was unveiled at the Wilson International Center for Scholars here Thursday.

Described by its authors as an effort to provide “a basis for open and informed discussion of a matter of crucial importance to America’s national security,” it was released amidst growing tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the administration of President Barack Obama over the Israeli leader’s demands that Washington lay out specific “red lines” that, if crossed by Iran, would prompt U.S. military action against Iran.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/14-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some very wise people to explain what it would take to "blow the shit out of their nuclear sites." I hope your PM has a chance to read this report since we know where he has chosen to stable his horses.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/14-0

What a joke. You take this shit seriously?

Maybe this is fun prose at Ottawa/Washington cocktail parties, but Israel actually has to LIVE in this neighbourhood.

I submit your opinion would be different if Iran were a few hundred miles from your house, building a nuke and openly talking about how you will be vaporized.

So let's summarize this retarded analysis: "Iran is building a nuke, but if we try to stop them, it will delay them for four years, so lets hope being nice and asking them not to build a nuke will work, because that's working oh so well, and if we delay them from building a nuke, they might get mad at us and try to build a nuke"?

Wow. Stupidity squared.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morsi received Obama’s subtle but pointed message that Egypt under their new government are not allies.

It was a gaffe, that was quickly walked back a few hours later. It was also stupid.

Their “major non-NATO allies” privileges can be removed by the stroke of Obama’s pen

Not true. Unless congress approves it first. He's president, not king. Although by the way he ignores the rule of law and the constiution, you'd never know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell are you talking about?

I never said the CIA is part of the Obama admin. I'm saying that Obama didn't need any intel to tell him that attacks could be coming on the anniversary of 9/11. It is Obama who stood by and did nothing. Even after they became aware of this silly video they couldn't put 2 and 2 together.

What exactly would you propose he do about it? Lets say you are the president and you can travel back to 4 days ago...what would you do differently? Invade every muslim nation? Withdraw every Embassy from every Nation that has a substantial muslim population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke. You take this shit seriously?

Maybe this is fun prose at Ottawa/Washington cocktail parties, but Israel actually has to LIVE in this neighbourhood.

They don't have to live there, it's a choice to live there.

I submit your opinion would be different if Iran were a few hundred miles from your house, building a nuke and openly talking about how you will be vaporized.

Scare tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“(A) military action involving aerial strikes, cyber attacks, covert operations, and special operations forces would destroy or severely damage many of Iran’s physical facilities and stockpiles,” according to the report, which was signed by three former national security advisers and two former heads of the U.S. Central Command, among others.

The above is from Bisty's linked article.

Cyberattack - Already happened, it was called 'Stuxnet'

Covert Operations - Already happened, suspected hikers could have been CIA, but the USA has admitted last year I think that they would do more covert operations within IRan.

The only think left is an aerial strike. And I think we know who is the candidate to deliver the goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke. You take this shit seriously?

Maybe this is fun prose at Ottawa/Washington cocktail parties, but Israel actually has to LIVE in this neighbourhood.

I submit your opinion would be different if Iran were a few hundred miles from your house, building a nuke and openly talking about how you will be vaporized.

So let's summarize this retarded analysis: "Iran is building a nuke, but if we try to stop them, it will delay them for four years, so lets hope being nice and asking them not to build a nuke will work, because that's working oh so well, and if we delay them from building a nuke, they might get mad at us and try to build a nuke"?

Wow. Stupidity squared.

If Bibi shares your opinion that this analysis is stupidity squared then he should act on his own (with the support of Harper) and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities; they have the means to should they decide to use their full arsenal. As it stands, he is trying to provoke Obama to assist him in this task but to his credit, Obama is refusing to be intimidated by his ‘red line’ in the sand. It appears that the ball is now in Bibi’s court, and if he is successful in influencing our election, the public should be prepared for a war whose scope we have never known.

We will know soon if Bibi thinks these experts are stupidity squared because my guess is that Obama will call his bluff and tell him to ‘go for it’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bibi shares your opinion that this analysis is stupidity squared then he should act on his own (with the support of Harper) and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities; they have the means to should they decide to use their full arsenal. As it stands, he is trying to provoke Obama to assist him in this task but to his credit, Obama is refusing to be intimidated by his ‘red line’ in the sand. It appears that the ball is now in Bibi’s court, and if he is successful in influencing our election, the public should be prepared for a war whose scope we have never known.

We will know soon if Bibi thinks these experts are stupidity squared because my guess is that Obama will call his bluff and tell him to ‘go for it’.

If Israel is prepared for a strike on Iran, then I hope they understand the consequences that can and most likely will play out after such strike. Iran won't put up with it like Iraq or Syria did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the fruits of Obama's labour. He worked to oust Mubarak, he worked to oust Gaddafi. He needs to take responsibility for the fallout.

In fact, he did neither. All he worked to do was to prevent bloodshed which would not have worked in the long run anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a gaffe, that was quickly walked back a few hours later. It was also stupid.

It was a deliberate gaffe that got the desired results....good cop, bad cop role playing by the president and the state department.

Not true. Unless congress approves it first.

Shady, please provide substantiation for this. To the best of my knowledge, this status is determined by the State and Defense departments without congressional input. I will await your vast knowledge on all things American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody went over to the bear's den to provoke it.

So the west has not been poking it's nose into these other countries in order to undermine those regimes which were propped up by the west for the most part to begin with? The west funds the rebels/terrorists to tear down these regimes which eventually come back to attack western embassies in those countries?

But if the bear doesn't like dancing does that mean you can't dance in your own home?

Dance all you want, and you are free to dance in the bear's home as well. Just don't be surprised that they enforce the signed rule of 'no dancing' which can result in you getting a bloody nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...