IAP Political Forum

wtf, I wonder what the jews would have done to her if she said the same thing about them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow


Is that thing a shemale? ;D ;D ;D
Besides what is this IIIrd Reich Germanic swatsica star hanging over her neck?

I didn't know that Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler had a daughter!!!!!!

LOL well if "people" like this thing hate iranians then iraninans certainly doing something right!

just to prove how pointless your existence is i will manipulate her/his words as you done in the past with Ahminijude's remarks... what she/he meant is that she/he hates Iranians that allow their government to throw it's own country to the war against much powerful enemy (US)...

moreover he/she is some kind of spawn in the system not a king like Ahminijude,,,

how about that? prove me i'm wrong,,, just now without some turn-yesterday-farsi-translator...

I have not manipulated any of her words. I know english is not your first language and you have had a tendency to get your knickers round the twist as soons as someone mentions anything about the jews. This isn't one of them so don't let the paranoia get a better judgement!


Amen! I rest my case! God bless you in heaven!

this is one of them (cases when you use Jews as approval of something) and i did manipulated with her words as you manipulated with Ahminijude's...

The MP's a freak. Whats the controversy?

Ahk, I am not kidding but I had to wash my eyes for ten minutes after seeing her/him/whatever you make of it. It looks like a cross between a dragon/griffin and a man. 

I think that there's a very tensed competition over "who will be the most ugly, racist and dirty thing in the Bush administration". Watch this space.

"I hate all Iranians," said Debra Cagan 
At a recent meeting between high ranking Defense Department officials and British Parliamentarians at the Pentagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs Debra Cagan remarked, "In any case, I hate all Iranians." The incident was confirmed by three of the visiting MPs present at the meeting.
This kind of hateful speech is completely inappropriate for a U.S. government official dealing with sensitive international issues, and is grounds for Cagan's immediate removal.

The drumbeats of war are growing louder every day. While there are some elements in the current administration pursuing genuine diplomacy with Iran, they are constantly being undermined by those elements who wish to see it fail. Cagan's comments place her in this second camp.

Good. I wasn't sure if it was just me.

Good, now can you post more criticism about removing the idiot in Iran for his remarks.

this is the face of Neoconservatism, an entity that underwent existential/ideological/hormonal metamorphosis. They all started as power-to-the-people-justice-all-u-need-is-love lefties, and became kill-em-all-pull-da-trigger computer game kids who can't believe they got the power to trash people around the globe.


well said. A "spawn" in the system. Well said. Pawn (chess figure) + Spawn (remember the movie?). The thing is, America is literally littered with these Jewish spawns, these psychotic warmongers who "hate all Iranians", Arabs, Russians.. The spawns are everywhere. They are everywhere. Sounds obsessive? Anti-Semitic? Don't care. Perle, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Feith, Frederick Cagan, Debra Cagan (and a dozen of other Cagans), Fleischer, Frum, Lieberman, 1000 Cohens, Bernard Lewis, Marti Peretz, Kristol, Podhoretz, Ross, Kissinger, Rubin, Horowitz, Ledeen... The spawns are everywhere so don't focus on kings too much. BTW, Ahmi is not a "king", he ain't in control of Iran, u know that.

.


Peisi Mate!

Glad you're here with your anti-MOSSAD buddies. What do you say amongst yourselves mate?


Kind regards
Terry


.

very casual stuff, Admiral. Beer, chicks, soccer.

Maybe she has had a bad experience with all the Iranians she has met.
She was talking from presonal experience IMO.

I don't defend her. She is a goof. You just don't talk that way.
She deserves to get fired but after Bush told Iran belonged to the Axis of Evil, go figure.

All this doesn't change the fact that there is no plan to attack Iran now but that there will be one when Iran will be close to develop nuclear bombs.
Whether US diplomat hate "all Iranian" or "some Iranians" or just "one Iranian" won't change that fact.

.






(yawn)

Bullsheit, Israel will do the hit.


.

Israel is maybe "mission capable" and they might strike Iran if no one else do it. But in all logic, international coalition forces will gather into the Iranian airspace if we want to hit Iran nuclear and militaro-industrial complex with effectiveness.

A couple of Isrealy jets alone won't neutralise the nuclear building machine of Iran.

You think they can gather a coalition? And who will take part in it exept US and Israel?

.




It is painfully obvious you haven't a clue about Israel's capabilities, including several hundred Nuclear missiles. Do your home work, much, much better.  ::)



.

On the other hand,I believe you underestimate the Iranian capabilities.
Don't forget that Iran has a stronger army than Iraq had 20 years ago.
Besides, I can see this is typical western arrogance, what makes you think that russian technology and weaponry is inferior to western? 
Have you had any experience at all into this subject ?

Furthermore...did you hear about "What goes around comes around"?
Did you make your homework about the capabilities of russian Suhoi warplane? (I don't remember which is the latest version)
Where for Israeli jets have to cross through hostile territory all the way to their targets, Iranians will have green light through Syrian teritory, and don't think Iranians are not going to use that golden opportunity to retaliate.
I think you have to make your homework in geography and history alltogether.

.





You ere massively in that assessment. Israel does not have to cross hostile territory, further, Iran can not touch Israel with anything. You need to research exactly what Iran has. I have.  ;)


.

cat_fta,

Nobody underestimate Iranian capabilities: They may down a few warplanes but their airbases, fleet and ground installation will be totaly destroyed nonetheless.
Now when I say that they may down a few planes, it's assuming Iranians recieve tha new anti-air missiles recently ordered from Russia. Because if they use 10 years old russian weapons, or devices inspired from russian technology, it will be perfectly useless.

Iranian superiority is the size of their army, their ground force, the size of their land, difficult terrain, huge minefields, the fanatism of their elite and of part of their population.
The last point is weakness in normal time and in any long term developement, but a huge advantage on the battlefield when war is raging.
For these reasons, advancing into Iran with ground forces will be very dificult for the US.

Very funny, your logic.
You just have to throw a few old, rusted Scud missiles over Tel-Aviv and Haifa and you'll scare the shit out of the mighty Israel.
All I'm saying is: you live in the past if you believe that what worked 20 years ago will work again. That's when you become over-confident in your superiority, is exactly what will bring your end. It happened the same to Napoleon and to Hitler in more recent times.

.




Wrong yet again. Why didn't you mention Bush, Putin, Musharif, China and all the rest while you are at it. Poor logic, and definitely not up to the facts. I may just mark it down to anti-semitism. Or are you MOSSAD spinning?  ;D


.

I'm definitelly not the last thing.

I think the most serious reply from Iran won't be just several missile strikes on Israel. If i were Khamenei, i would try to destroy all pipelines in near countries, which don't transport oil/gas from Iran. First of all, Baku-Cheyhan. Than i would strike Basra, and if any of the Gulf arab nations support agression against Iran, i would strike oil ports in that countries. Though, i am not so sure Iran has capablities to do all that stuff.

But can you imagine, what happens to global economy in such case?

This idea of the war against Iran is total crap, i think. Very irresponsible and naive. And Europe will pay.. as usual..

.




Typical French communist byline.  ::)


Europe and especially France, don't do jack but get in the way. Europe never pays. All they do is stick their head in the sand. Enjoy Mr. Putin while you can, before you are his.  ;)


.

Europe and especially France will pay with energy crisis and will be attacked by islamic extremists. You only see what you want to see and don't realize what you are meddling in.

I believe, I mentioned to you in the past:

....and yours is typical britsh snub byline  :)

And I don't know which one is to be taken more seriously

London and Madrid? Euros have been paying for taking part in other people's war. They pay for American crimes with blood and money, and still get bashed by Americans. It's true that Euros need to revive their atrophied balls, - not to go bombing from country to country, but to learn how to say "NO" to the daddy. The learning, I'm afraid, will come at a bloody price.

So, you quote what happened to Napoleon and to Hitler in more recent times while saying that what happened 20 years ago won't happen again. Go figure...

As Shmack-jan said, Iran will retaliate with more than a few rusted scud missiles. They will probably launch a massive militant campain in Iraq with thousands of infiltrated jihadists.
They will throw all their semi-high-tech weaponery in Battle, hitting a Palestinian camps near Israel there, sinking a coalition minesweeper there and capturing an US pilot here. But the bulk of their action will be done by men on the ground in civilian clothing, IEDs and ak47.
Just like today, but at larger scale.

An attack by the West won't bring us to the end nor the US to collapse.
Of course Iran will claim victory and be considered victorious whatever damage they endured, but that won't be the end of the West.
Those who think so have no idea where Europe has been through during the first part of the XX-th century. A bombing campain on Iran will be a joke by comparison.

One thing is sure: Everybody will suffer from a war against Iran, the americans, the europeans, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the arabs, the isrealis, etc...
That's why no one want this war.

And it won't happen if the Iranians stop their nuclear program.

when you get right down to it, historically speaking, that is really only fair.

we don't think about our actions until we face the price for them. Euros would follow Americans into every debacle as long as no price was attached. Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, though anti-war from the beginning, were invigorated in the anti-war sentiment when they lost soldiers in Iraq. Spaniards, hit by terrorists, directed the anger to those who got them into the debacle, - US and Aznar. Canadians are wavering in the support for the Afghan mission, each casualty adding to the support for withdrawal. The wars could not go unnoticed, and once they get noticed (and that requires funerals), it becomes clear that "this is not our war" everywhere. Hopefully a lesson has been learnt with regard to the new neocon thriller, war with Iran.

Peisithanatos,

It's clear that nobody likes wars and everybody knows that occupying a country 4 years is insane.
Poeple agreed to "try something" in Iraq but not indefintely. What poeple were the most fed up about was not the casualities (relatively insignificant) nor the terrorist attacks (which should have the opposite effect) but the fact that this occupation dragged for ages without improvement (recent events notwithstanding).
Spaniard were already for the withdrawal well before the Madrid bombing. Poles who had almost no casuality see no point in sending troops there. Not that their soldiers don't like sun, but there is just no reason for them to be there from a polish perspective.
Americans start thinking the same as european, just one year later. Normal since americans actively ignore political and international issues.

u can occupy a country for ages, if the country doesn't resist. Such occupation goes unnoticed. Formally, Americans are in same situation in Iraq as in Germany:by an agreement with the local government. I never in my life heard the question asked "Why is there a huge American military presence in Germany 60 years after WWII and 20 years after the Cold War?" (though the question holds much relevance). It is accepted as a fact of nature, a self-evident truth that Europe must be filled with American troops, from Iceland and Portugal to Estonia and Bulgaria. I bet u most Americans don't even know that they have lots of soldiers in places like Italia and Greece. Only recently Americans learnt they actually had a large military base in Turkey, when the Armenian genocide issue came to the front. They don't know where they have troops, and that's because those troops are not killed.


"insignificant" is a very bad word here. U can say, relatively minor but VERY significant. Number of casualties does not automatically determine public significance of them. U know the modern West. A single death of an average person can be the top news for days. U remember what happened in Italy when 18 Italians were killed. It was the main knews for days, if not weeks. Shock. In 1996 Russia withdrew from Chechnya after losing, officialy, only 4000 soldiers dead. That's nothing compared to the Russian losses in WWII, and yet Russia did not withdraw from WWII after losing tens of millions but withdrew from Chechnya after losing 4000 (though unofficial estimates reach 10 000). When a war is UNNECESSARY and fought OVER THERE, not over here, any single death becomes "significant".


take the deaths out of the picture, and u're looking at a normal work in progress. No one expected quick POLITICAL success in Iraq, because Iraq has a history and an enertia of ages, and stuff. Without the painful price of death, it's just a difficult and complex work that requires patience. U had election, u had a new government, a constitution, schools are built, blas blas, normal work in a country with a bad history. And nothing wrong about spending time and money helping to rebuild a country. Did that in Japan, Germany, Korea. The picture changes dramatically when dead bodies beging to arrive. When Lou Dobbs declares every freaking day "Two (three, five, seven) more American soldiers were killed in Iraq today, bringing the total to...".


and what would be a sign of improvement? What ever happens, how many elections and consitutions they have, and how ever many schools they rebuild, these would not be considered sings of "improvement" as long as dead bodies continue to arrive. On the other hand, if attacks stop, there will be a sense of "imrovement" irrespective of political and economic developments. So "improvements" and "casualties" in fact pertain to the same thing.