Oil quotation excluding Dollars: should we save the USA, Iran or the world?

philosophical debates and companies.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 23/08/10, 13:56

Christophe wrote:There is no oil in Pakistan anyway ... and it is not very interesting strategically I think ... : Idea:

In fact, the crusade was a war of conquest disguised as a campaign against heresy.


You could very well transpose it now:

In fact, the crusade was a war of conquest disguised as a campaign against terrorism.


So Bush, the last crusader? :|


... well if we believe the link I give on Wiki ...

This is the type of situation where a "single man" can very quickly become the hostage of a situation, especially when we remember that he was himself the victim of an attack ...> then had "forgiven".

Wikipedia wrote:Several theses have been formulated on a possible sponsor. According to some sources [...] because of the Turkish nationality of Mehmet Ali Ağca think that radical Islamists could be at the origin of this attack, this one being against the visit of the Pope in Turkey, seeing in him the Commander of the Crusades,


(but I'm not saying that it was, that's just what troubled me ... other sources talk about the mafia or the intelligence services of the Russian army)

... Anyway: 9/11 twenty years later! Breathtaking how far back we have to go, right?

... after the "forgiveness" of the 1981 attack, this biblical notion, however central, would seem to have itself been de facto relegated to the subject of September 11, 2001 ... Definitely strange ... But everyone has to form their opinion.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 22/09/10, 11:46

Ahmadinejad raises the specter of a war with the United States in New York

From Pierre-Antoine DONNET (AFP) - 18 hours ago

NEW YORK (United Nations) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday spoke of the specter of a "limitless" war with the United States, on the sidelines of a United Nations summit in New York to fight poverty in the world .

"The United States has never known a serious war and has never been victorious", said the head of the Iranian state during a meeting with American media on the occasion of the UN summit on the Millennium Development Goals.

"The United States doesn't understand what a war looks like. When a war begins, it knows no bounds," he added.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons under the cover of its civilian nuclear program, which Tehran continues to deny. The United Nations has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Iran on its nuclear program, and the United States has called for swift and full implementation of these measures.

The Iranian president was asked whether he thought it would be an act of war if the United States allowed Israeli fighter jets to fly over Iraq to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

He replied: "First of all, do you think anyone would attack Iran?" "I really don't think so. The Zionist regime is a very small entity on the map, even to the point that it does not appear as a real factor in our equation," he said.

Ahmadinejad said the United States should not interfere in the affairs of his country, according to remarks reported by the Iranian agency Fars.


Suite and source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... OFgTbGSv2A
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 22/09/10, 13:26

"The United States has never known a serious war and has never been victorious", said the head of the Iranian state during a meeting with American media on the occasion of the UN summit on the Millennium Development Goals.

It seems that the Persian history books have had translation failures ...

another diatribe more ... as long as it remains of the talk ... :?
0 x
Image
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 22/09/10, 13:39

It is however true: he speaks of war on his own territory.

Half true: the true inhabitants of North America we were the object of a war of conquest without knowing only the concept of property, they lost it and they still pay for it today.

The Palestinian Americans ...

And these invaders continue their war of conquest.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 22/09/10, 13:47

Hi Bernard

on reading the full press release, it appears that the citation is not subject to any geographic restriction.

As usual, it is Marmood Im'i said Jihad.

and that doesn't mean that the USA is much better ...
0 x
Image
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 22/09/10, 14:15

Iranian psychology is close to Chinese psychology: they don't want to conquer, but they want to be at home.

Iran is trying to explain to the American settlers that they (the American settlers) cannot understand what it is to be invaded and defend against it. American settlers have never been invaded from the land they stole from Native Americans.

In summary: an American shah is enough. The Iranians have already given well, they already know the colonization of the USA.

The Iranian feeling is also a very French feeling of the terroir, despite some colonizing minorities eager for power here: look in Niger, the ongoing looting of uranium ...
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 22/09/10, 15:56

Hi Bernard,

Explained like this, there is a logic.

Ah I think we have found a good spokesperson for Iran. :D

I still prefer the Chinese ... for the moment they are calm. 8)
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 22/09/10, 16:19

bernardd wrote:It is however true: he speaks of war on his own territory.

Half true: the true inhabitants of North America we were the object of a war of conquest without knowing only the concept of property, they lost it and they still pay for it today.


You can add the war of independence ... and there the USA won it on its own territory ...

The session war was a civil war ... so hard to say which Americans won / lost ...

Otherwise +1 with Remundo, he has to stop smoking it becomes ridiculous there, we knew that the Afghan was "good" apparently Iranian too ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 22/09/10, 21:12

bernardd wrote:In summary: an American shah is enough. The Iranians have already given well, they already know the colonization of the USA.

The Iranian feeling, it is also a very French feeling of the soil, in spite of some colonizing minorities eager to be able on our premises: look in Niger, the ongoing looting of uranium...
... funny that, that this thread goes back now "thanks to the news"! You don't mean to say all of them so well!

And hop! More grain to grind from AFP:

AFP wrote:USA: Ambassador-designate in Mauritania wants to strengthen the fight anti-AQIM ["Al Qaeda" Islamic Maghreb]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... bekCB1USSw

... mean by that, a group of highwaymen raging in the Maghreb, and who allegedly pledged allegiance to "Al Qaeda" barely a few years ago [source: 20:00 p.m. F2 / TF1 newspaper this evening].

Indices on how the "organization" would recruit its flock among common law delinquents (and not city mosques) to do "bad things", maintain suspense and stir up trouble where there would be inétrêt to do so?

Definitely the paradigm of "preventive war" still has a bright future ahead of it, because all the ingredients are there:
- on the one hand, the Americans are in trouble to teach Iran a lesson, after what they did in Iraq.
- on the other, the regime in place takes advantage of this skillfully.
- in reality their first target would probably be Israel and not America.
- which itself surfs on the "victim's game" and the clash of civilizations to justify its policy. This is why many observers say that they have no interest in going towards "Peace".

But to wage a preventive war you need a "good" reason to present to international public opinion: always according to this same dirty vision of the world, what will be next?
Because the (real) threat of weapons of mass destruction, which is at the center of this affair, is heated. Americans and Israelis are caught in their own trap of shouting "fire, fire" when there was no fire. The day when there really will be fire, who will still want to follow them ...

Question: since the US administration is no less well informed than AFP and has decided to put an end to the "global war on terrorism":
http://news.search.ch/ausland/2010-05-2 ... ee.fr.html

... how is it that she still brings official credit to small groups of which she knows the origin and the real activities?

And as I like to mix the interests of oil, those of uranium and their relationship with the progress of renewable energies, (!!!) I would say that the implementation of Désertec, risks being a period "hot to to cross"...
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 22/09/10, 23:03

Christophe wrote:You can add the war of independence ... and there the USA won it on its own territory ...


Nothing to do: the settlers' territory was not disputed, it was their autonomy that was refused by the pack leaders. Canadians had less arrogance, they are still subject to a queen today ...
0 x
See you soon !

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 180 guests