Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rafterman

Iran blows up fake US carrier

171 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

You are always so informative.

Thank you Ella. I try to be. That is one aspect of my avatar. But I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I don’t always have the time I want to follow up with thoughts and concepts I get into on these forums and that leaves incomplete thoughts dangling (unfinished business). I hate dishonesty (as opposed to just being inaccurate). I see so much of it in this world and on this forum even a little bit within my own *side*. Those supporting Iran are in that group being dishonest.

I appreciate that so much about you. Just wanted to say that .Sort of like I have this sense of knowing that I know you will never steer us wrong .

I appreciate that but I’m not here to steer anybody. I’m here to speak out and share. You listen to all sides. You make your own decisions. Don’t rely on anyone else to do so (to tell you what to think). Then maybe, if we see pretty much eye-to-eye then you and I can travel the same path yet finding our own individual destiny. But this too is going off topic. Again, thank you for the comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Thank you Ella. I try to be. That is one aspect of my avatar. But I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I don't always have the time I want to follow up with thoughts and concepts I get into on these forums and that leaves incomplete thoughts dangling (unfinished business). I hate dishonesty (as opposed to just being inaccurate). I see so much of it in this world and on this forum even a little bit within my own *side*. Those supporting Iran are in that group being dishonest.

I appreciate that but I'm not here to steer anybody. I'm here to speak out and share. You listen to all sides. You make your own decisions. Don't rely on anyone else to do so (to tell you what to think). Then maybe, if we see pretty much eye-to-eye then you and I can travel the same path yet finding our own individual destiny. But this too is going off topic. Again, thank you for the comment.

It's the internet people should understand that no one can seriously follow up on every detail . I understand that. I still thank you though .What you do share I am able to take with me and have leads to follow up on to further information. I'm thankful about that . If you weren't not perfect I would worry . I've learned to ignor the people online that are stead fast in wanting for Iran to be armed with Nuclear weapons. I know the majority know how very dangerous that will be for the world. I think you're a good person who wishes the best for us all, that's just obvious to see about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

@RavenHawk

To see eye-to-eye seems to me to mean peaceful intentions always for oneanother. It would lead to world peace . I think that people need to reflect a lot more on peace , not just say it but mean it know it want it. I sort of wonder if people have bcome numb in knowing that we all deserve to live a peacful life. Oh well I won't give up. I'll still hope for peace. Maybe that will be the last thing left one day , to turn to. to lean on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Put your guns away. Iran is being dealt with via the United Nations.

The UN you say? The UN is not worth the paper its charter is written on. It is no different than its predecessor.

- All we hope is that the USA dont form a grand Coalition"

If we don’t do it who will?

and repeat the mistakes of Iraq. –

The mistake we made was to pull out. The whole point to occupation and nation building is to change the mindset of the people in the occupied nation. That was the beginning to needed reform in Islam. That takes several generations. Iraq was the ideal place to start because of its mix of Sunni and Shiite. A hundred years from now, we’d be pulling out leaving a far more stable region than what we found it in and would have prevented wide scale conflict. Now we are pretty much assured of it.

and by mistakes i mean going against the UN and IAEA findings

Actually no. The US abided by all requirements the UN set forth and all requirements set forth by Congress. The Invasion of Iraq was the most legal war ever in history. The IAEA findings were incomplete and tainted. Saddam played with inspectors like a master concert violinist. The IAEA couldn’t find a needle in a stack of needles. It was the world’s intel community that agreed that Saddam had WMD with himself being the most dangerous.

including the will of the international community

The will of the international community joined together in coalition against Saddam. France complained. Do you know why? Because Chirac and Saddam were in cahoots with each other. Chirac wanted to arm Saddam with nukes as a check against Iran. We cut in on France’s deal. Why shouldn’t they be upset? But the US had other ideas, like non military options. Create a stable Iraq would be a source of destabilizing influence right next door to Iran. There would be less bloodshed in the long run. And if that didn’t work, we had Iraq and Afghanistan from which to run a pincher on Iran. Now, we can only rely on heavy bombardment which translates into more death and destruction.

and making the UN that little bit less relevant for the future.

The UN is already irrelevant.

How many enemies does the US want?

How many enemies are there?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

The UN you say? The UN is not worth the paper its charter is written on. It is no different than its predecessor.

If we don't do it who will?

The mistake we made was to pull out. The whole point to occupation and nation building is to change the mindset of the people in the occupied nation. That was the beginning to needed reform in Islam. That takes several generations. Iraq was the ideal place to start because of its mix of Sunni and Shiite. A hundred years from now, we'd be pulling out leaving a far more stable region than what we found it in and would have prevented wide scale conflict. Now we are pretty much assured of it.

Actually no. The US abided by all requirements the UN set forth and all requirements set forth by Congress. The Invasion of Iraq was the most legal war ever in history. The IAEA findings were incomplete and tainted. Saddam played with inspectors like a master concert violinist. The IAEA couldn't find a needle in a stack of needles. It was the world's intel community that agreed that Saddam had WMD with himself being the most dangerous.

The will of the international community joined together in coalition against Saddam. France complained. Do you know why? Because Chirac and Saddam were in cahoots with each other. Chirac wanted to arm Saddam with nukes as a check against Iran. We cut in on France's deal. Why shouldn't they be upset? But the US had other ideas, like non military options. Create a stable Iraq would be a source of destabilizing influence right next door to Iran. There would be less bloodshed in the long run. And if that didn't work, we had Iraq and Afghanistan from which to run a pincher on Iran. Now, we can only rely on heavy bombardment which translates into more death and destruction.

The UN is already irrelevant.

How many enemies are there?

RavenHawk!

I am giving you fair warning....STOP...plagiarizing me! I don't know how you keep pulling these posts out of my head before I get a chance to even write them but it has to end. What is in my head is mine! That you are somehow extracting thoughts out of my brain is a bit creepish. Are you stalking my inner most mind? lol

Seriously...I so agree with everything you have said! :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

@RavenHawk

To see eye-to-eye seems to me to mean peaceful intentions always for oneanother. It would lead to world peace . I think that people need to reflect a lot more on peace , not just say it but mean it know it want it. I sort of wonder if people have bcome numb in knowing that we all deserve to live a peacful life. Oh well I won't give up. I'll still hope for peace. Maybe that will be the last thing left one day , to turn to. to lean on .

Peace means to get away from the big-brother control of Socialism (most forms of government). But as long as it the narcissistic that drive to the top seeking power, that will never be the case and that’s excluding conflicts over resources. It’s for these reasons that the following quote best describes my stance. “Balthasar is a good man. But until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright!” This isn’t something you can force through Socialism. It is instilling individual responsibility and understanding.

Live Long and Prosper.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

RavenHawk!

I am giving you fair warning....STOP...plagiarizing me! I don't know how you keep pulling these posts out of my head before I get a chance to even write them but it has to end. What is in my head is mine! That you are somehow extracting thoughts out of my brain is a bit creepish. Are you stalking my inner most mind? lol

Seriously...I so agree with everything you have said! :tu:

You’ve got one of those Ma Bell implants from the “President’s Analyst”. I’m just listening :-) Actually, I’m just in a mood today. My soul is ill from what is going on (as I mentioned from ISIS and Obama). The sanity of the world is slipping away and Nero is fiddling and too many people are brainwashed. “Young fool... Only now, at the end, do you understand...”. How can people not see the similarities of ISIS (Islam) with the Nazis and the link that binds them? How can people not see the similarities between Palpatine and Obama?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

It's not your fault... you were probably just brought up this way :whistle:

Damn Right! :gun:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Put your guns away. Iran is being dealt with via the United Nations. - All we hope is that the USA dont form a grand Coalition" and repeat the mistakes of Iraq. - and by mistakes i mean going against the UN and IAEA findings including the will of the international community and making the UN that little bit less relevant for the future. How many enemies does the US want?

You can rest assured that Obama will never attack Iran. Israel might do but the US will never while Oby is in the Oval office. The fact that Saudi Arabia - the most anti semitic country on the planet is offering Israel air space to bomb Iran should be quite a warning flag. Doesn't that pique your interest even a little? I mean, I've heard of strange bedfellows but THIS is ridiculous. I have a lot of trouble actually believing that those here who speak against Israel and the US vis a vis Iran cannot know that Iran is dangerous. I think they are so completely wrapped up in their personal biases and politics that they will condone anything done by anyone if they perceive it as harming those 2 nations. What a surprise someday when they wake up to an Iranian Hegemon in the gulf. Sure, Bush can still be blamed, but it won't help it the slightest. Edited by and then
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

You've got one of those Ma Bell implants from the "President's Analyst". I'm just listening :-) Actually, I'm just in a mood today. My soul is ill from what is going on (as I mentioned from ISIS and Obama). The sanity of the world is slipping away and Nero is fiddling and too many people are brainwashed. "Young fool... Only now, at the end, do you understand...". How can people not see the similarities of ISIS (Islam) with the Nazis and the link that binds them? How can people not see the similarities between Palpatine and Obama?

I think that people cannot see the similarities between ISIS and the Nazis because they don't really know anything about the Nazis.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't seen the movie The Pianist to watch it. It is unbelievable what Hitler did...and yet...many not only don't know...they have somehow been brainwashed into the belief that it never happened.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

Why do I get this feeling that you guys are always standing side by side with us , like if we were to fight , you can count on it , you'll be there too , right by our side . And like if we have enemies , I guess that means so do you.

British Foreign policy is very similar to American foreign policy. which is not surprising because we share so many values. It's why we are always there holding the ****ty end of the stick. But We have to be careful in our friendship that we dont run the risk of not speaking out when the foreign policy is a flawed and wilfully sleepwalk into trouble.

The UN you say? The UN is not worth the paper its charter is written on. It is no different than its predecessor.

If we don't do it who will?

The mistake we made was to pull out. The whole point to occupation and nation building is to change the mindset of the people in the occupied nation. That was the beginning to needed reform in Islam. That takes several generations. Iraq was the ideal place to start because of its mix of Sunni and Shiite. A hundred years from now, we'd be pulling out leaving a far more stable region than what we found it in and would have prevented wide scale conflict. Now we are pretty much assured of it.

Actually no. The US abided by all requirements the UN set forth and all requirements set forth by Congress. The Invasion of Iraq was the most legal war ever in history. The IAEA findings were incomplete and tainted. Saddam played with inspectors like a master concert violinist. The IAEA couldn't find a needle in a stack of needles. It was the world's intel community that agreed that Saddam had WMD with himself being the most dangerous.

The will of the international community joined together in coalition against Saddam. France complained. Do you know why? Because Chirac and Saddam were in cahoots with each other. Chirac wanted to arm Saddam with nukes as a check against Iran. We cut in on France's deal. Why shouldn't they be upset? But the US had other ideas, like non military options. Create a stable Iraq would be a source of destabilizing influence right next door to Iran. There would be less bloodshed in the long run. And if that didn't work, we had Iraq and Afghanistan from which to run a pincher on Iran. Now, we can only rely on heavy bombardment which translates into more death and destruction.

The UN is already irrelevant.

How many enemies are there?

The United Nations is only as good as the will of its membership, The US should be a leading figure in the UN, but the American performance at the UN over Iraq in 2002-2003 was anything but leading, we all knew regardless of the UN's findings or mandate the US would launch a military campaign against a sovereign Nation. based on faulty intelligence and no coherent plan in the aftermath of the Saddam regime falling. There was No UN mandate for the Iraqi invasion and whichever way you spin it Iraq was a disaster in foreign policy.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The United Nations is only as good as the will of its membership,

Isn’t that what I said? The sensibilities of the nations are just too different unless the weaker ones are bullied by the dominant ones. Then the UN does things like appoint representatives of nations that violate human rights on a regular basis on the Human Rights council. Hello?

The US should be a leading figure in the UN, but the American performance at the UN over Iraq in 2002-2003 was anything but leading,

So building a coalition wasn’t *leading*? Under Bush, America was very much the leader. It’s been under Obama that we’ve slid from being a leader. How many red lines can a President draw and not act before people lose faith in his leadership?

we all knew regardless of the UN's findings or mandate the US would launch a military campaign against a sovereign Nation.

And that was news? It was long overdue. It should have happened in Iran in 1979.

based on faulty intelligence

Inaccurate, not faulty. Saddam had WMDs in the past and he would always have them in the future.

and no coherent plan in the aftermath of the Saddam regime falling.

Finally you hit on something accurate. Phase IV was lacking. But in time they were figuring out how to do it. What we did was still much better than allowing Wahhabist influence undermine Baath party control. Oh wait that just happened since our retreat.

There was No UN mandate for the Iraqi invasion and whichever way you spin it Iraq was a disaster in foreign policy.

There were many Resolutions that called for any nation to take action if Saddam violated the ceasefire, which he did on numerous occasions. That is not spin.

Resolution 1441:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area...

Actually, the Invasion of Iraq was a success at least until we cut and ran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

Meanwhile Obama is busy licking the sandals of the goat in chief over there.

Sandal licking isn't a bad metaphor..we get it.

But this ain't no metaphore:

bush-saudi.jpg?w=640

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

I was wondering what they were going to do with that floating barge.

Good propaganda video, terrible Military Training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Yes, ther should be an American instigated change of government in Iran, I mean it worked so well the last time you lot changed the government there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Yes, ther should be an American instigated change of government in Iran, I mean it worked so well the last time you lot changed the government there.

And you know all about that right? For those who don't, but feel the need to blindly agree with you...for those who really want to be educated with the truth:

link

The Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran was the British and Russian invasion of the Empire of Iran during World War II, by Soviet, British and other Commonwealth armed forces. The invasion lasted from 25 August to 17 September 1941, and was codenamed Operation Countenance. The purpose was to secure Iranian oil fields and ensure Allied supply lines for the Soviets fighting against Axis forces on the Eastern Front. Though Iran was officially neutral, according to the Allies its monarch Reza Shah was friendly toward the Axis powers and was deposed during the subsequent occupation and replaced with his young son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

So, America didn't really change the government did they...no...mis-information on your part...The Brits and Russians got rid of the Shah's father and secured the Iranian oil fields. They did not 'install a puppet' as the charge goes. They removed the father and installed the son. Who continued until the Coup by the Ayatollah Kohmeini in 1979.

The Ayatollah Khomeini led a coup that overthrew the Shah...THAT was the change of Government that has enthralled the entire Middle East in chaos.

Khomeini took American hostages, held them for 444 days and began a reign of terrorism that is still alive and building a nuclear weapon even as we speak.

You are welcome in advance for thanking me for the history lesson.

Edited by joc
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Well there you go.

For once it wasn't the US messing about with other people's politics that made things worse. I can't see why I thought it might have been though.

It was my lot rather then yours who helped mess up Iran.

Still, us Westerners messing with Middle Eastern politics ends so well doesn't it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I don't know why the West is all in a lather about Iran, anyways. It would seem we already have more pressing concerns. Treating Iran as an equal among nations and according them the dignity of respect an ancient, sophisticated and educated people deserve, would seem to me a more proper approach. America needs to get over that Iran Hostage thing. I think inadvertently downing one of their airliners evened that score a long time ago. If Iran really wants nukes they will have them, and the conquest of Iraq showed them why they must have them. Nothing like having your trigger finger on megatons of mayhem to forestall invasion. That being the case, it behooves us to be speaking terms with them, rather than otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

1953 Iranian coup d'état

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom(under the name 'Operation Boot') and theUnited States (under the name TPAJAXProject).[3][4][5][6]

Edited by acidhead
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Its all from the same playbook ~

Movie Censorship and American Culture

edited by Francis G. Couvares

The Paradox of Protest ~ page link

~

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

1953 Iranian coup d'état

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom(under the name 'Operation Boot') and theUnited States (under the name TPAJAXProject).[3][4][5][6]

Let’s try this again. Mossaddegh was not democratically elected via a nation wide election. He was nominated via the backroom deal by Iran’s Parliament and the Shah appointed him. The PM serves at the pleasure of the King. Mossaddegh was beginning to usurp power from the King and the so-called 53 coup d'état was actually the restoration of the Monarchy, the rightful ruler of Iran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I don't know why the West is all in a lather about Iran, anyways. It would seem we already have more pressing concerns. Treating Iran as an equal among nations and according them the dignity of respect an ancient, sophisticated and educated people deserve, would seem to me a more proper approach. America needs to get over that Iran Hostage thing. I think inadvertently downing one of their airliners evened that score a long time ago. If Iran really wants nukes they will have them, and the conquest of Iraq showed them why they must have them. Nothing like having your trigger finger on megatons of mayhem to forestall invasion. That being the case, it behooves us to be speaking terms with them, rather than otherwise.

You find no threat from them as they begin massing IRGC on the Golan opposite Israel? No problem with them sponsoring Hamas, Hizballah and Assad? I agree that they have gone too far with their research and they cannot be stopped from having nukes now. But you seem rather sanguine about them being allowed to just do what they please when they have repeatedly proven that they want to dominate the Gulf region and control the flow of oil. Those megatons might forestall the US but if Israel feels threatened they will act, having nothing left to lose. If crushing sanctions were levied as soon as the presence of nuclear weapons was established then a change might be made in time. But the whole western world would have to work together with no daylight between them. Since that isn't going to happen, we will soon enough live in a world where threats, intimidation and actual terror attacks cannot be defended against without risking nuclear warfare. The thing I don't believe is that they WANT to speak with us...they just want to TELL us. Once they have their bomb (s) they will begin to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead

Just curious. ...

Why was Mohammad Mosaddegh overthrown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Why do I get this feeling that you guys are always standing side by side with us , like if we were to fight , you can count on it , you'll be there too , right by our side . And like if we have enemies , I guess that means so do you.

Because the previous Prime Minister, Tony "Liar" Blair, was a coward and a monstrous egomaniac, and so eagerly went along with whatever his big pal, G. W. Bush, did.. Meanwhile the current Prime Minister, David "Utterly Useless" Cameron, has run down the armed forces to such an extent that he couldn't possibly do anything without the co-operation of the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

You are always so informative. I appreciate that so much about you. Just wanted to say that .Sort of like I have this sense of knowing that I know you will never steer us wrong .

Well, you'd expect representatives of the Israeli Ministry of Propaganda- Information to be in possession of all the latest facts, just as long as it's Israel's preferred version of the facts, of course.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.