Iran Sanctions Bill From Sens. Bob Menendez And Mark Kirk Could Endanger U.S. Negotiations
Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are threatening to push the United States toward war with Iran, circulating and planning to introduce a sanctions bill despite warnings that it could derail nuclear negotiations at a delicate moment.

International observers and both parties to the negotiations have repeatedly pleaded with Congress to allow the talks to unfold -- warnings that Kirk and Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, appear intent on ignoring. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is also part of the effort, though much of the final decision rests with Menendez.
"The White House doesn't want a bill, that's true. Menendez and Kirk are working on it and trying to build the list of cosponsors. Likely to be introduced soon," said a Senate Democratic aide involved in the effort.
The lawmakers are circulating a draft sanctions bill that would target the Iranian petroleum and mining industries, and set up unilateral guidelines for what would constitute compliance.

Defenders of the Menendez move say it is intended to strengthen the White House hand and that if Senate Democrats don't introduce a bill, Republican hard-liners will push a much more extreme bill with an even greater likelihood of blowing up the talks. "The goal isn't to disrupt things, it's to make Iran even more willing to make serious concessions by making them aware of what will happen if they don't," said the aide.
But the argument that the move is aimed to benefit the White House is undermined by the White House's own vehement opposition to it. It is further undercut by the lead supporter of the Menendez bill, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has pushed hard to derail the talks and encouraged Congress to undermine the president's effort. Schumer and Menendez are close allies of AIPAC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19..._n_4472439.html

Den Brüdern in Teheran ist nicht über den Weg zu trauen:

"The official narrative in Tehran is that Iran signed nothing. “There is no treaty and no pact,” says Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “only a statement of intent.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/16/iran-nuke-d...etly-collapses/

Somit scheint alles Show zu sein, Rouhani ist der Schauspieler, der Regiseur ist Khamenei:

"On Sunday, an editorial in the daily Kayhan, published by the office of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khameini, claimed that the “six month” period of the accord was meaningless and that a final agreement might “even take 20 years to negotiate.”

Zitat von nahal im Beitrag #9377

---

Den Brüdern in Teheran ist nicht über den Weg zu trauen:

"The official narrative in Tehran is that Iran signed nothing. “There is no treaty and no pact,” says Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “only a statement of intent.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/16/iran-nuke-d...etly-collapses/

Somit scheint alles Show zu sein, Rouhani ist der Schauspieler, der Regiseur ist Khamenei:

"On Sunday, an editorial in the daily Kayhan, published by the office of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khameini, claimed that the “six month” period of the accord was meaningless and that a final agreement might “even take 20 years to negotiate.”

---

Zitat von Hans Bergman im Beitrag #9379

---

Zitat von nahal im Beitrag #9377

---

Den Brüdern in Teheran ist nicht über den Weg zu trauen:...

---

Zustimmung. Wer so blauäugig ist, der könnte gleich auch Israelis trauen.

---

Zitat von nahal im Beitrag #9377

---

Den Brüdern in Teheran ist nicht über den Weg zu trauen:

"The official narrative in Tehran is that Iran signed nothing. “There is no treaty and no pact,” says Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “only a statement of intent.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/16/iran-nuke-d...etly-collapses/

Somit scheint alles Show zu sein, Rouhani ist der Schauspieler, der Regiseur ist Khamenei:

"On Sunday, an editorial in the daily Kayhan, published by the office of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khameini, claimed that the “six month” period of the accord was meaningless and that a final agreement might “even take 20 years to negotiate.”

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #9381

---

Zitat von nahal im Beitrag #9377

---

Den Brüdern in Teheran ist nicht über den Weg zu trauen:

"The official narrative in Tehran is that Iran signed nothing. “There is no treaty and no pact,” says Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, “only a statement of intent.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/16/iran-nuke-d...etly-collapses/

Somit scheint alles Show zu sein, Rouhani ist der Schauspieler, der Regiseur ist Khamenei:

"On Sunday, an editorial in the daily Kayhan, published by the office of “Supreme Guide” Ali Khameini, claimed that the “six month” period of the accord was meaningless and that a final agreement might “even take 20 years to negotiate.”

---

Die New York Post ist eine Murdoch Publication, also ein rightwing propaganda piece wie Fox News. Das Verbreiten von Luegen und Unwahrheiten ist denen nichts Ungewoehnliches.
Der Schreiber des Artikels Amir Taheri ist ebenfalls ein bekannter Luegner:

Amir Taheri (born 9 June 1942, Ahvaz) is an Iranian-born conservative[1] author based in Europe. His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to Islamist terrorism. He has been the subject of many controversies involving fabrications in his writings, most notable of which was the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy. He's the current Chairman of Gatestone Institute in Europe. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri
Einige seiner Luegen der Vergangeheit sind auf der vorstehenden Wikipedia Website nachlesbar.

Und hier:
"...Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist, was educated in Tehran, London and Paris. [1] A "prominent Iranian journalist under the Shah", Taheri "now advocates regime change in Iran. [2]. As of 2013, Taheri is writing for Majalla [3] a publication owned by the Saudi Research and Publishing Company (SRPC).

A Faked Report on Iran
"A Colour Code for Iran's Infidels" written by Taheri, a "prominent U.S. neo-conservative" [4], was published May 19, 2006, by Canada's National Post. The story "regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive colour badges circulated around the world this weekend before it was exposed as false," Jim Lobe wrote May 22, 2006, for Inter Press Service.

"The National Post retracted the article hours after it was posted to their site, and blamed Taheri for the bad info." [5] Eleana Benador later admitted that her PR firm, Benador Associates, had planted the false story. Reporting on the controversy, Larry Cohler-Esses wrote in The Nation: [6]

Benador, who said her client [Amir Taheri] was "traveling in the Middle East," was impatient with dissections of his work. Terming accuracy with regard to Iran "a luxury," she said, "My major concern is the large picture. Is Taheri writing one or two details that are not accurate? This is a guy who is putting his life at stake." She noted that "the Iranian government has killed its opponents." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "says he wants to destroy Israel. He says the Holocaust never happened.... As much as being accurate is important, in the end it's important to side with what's right. What's wrong is siding with the terrorists."

Taheri might seem to be one of Benador's biggest liabilities. In fact, he is right now the agency's proudest coup. On May 30--just days after the National Post's apology for running his false story on Iranian Jews--Taheri was one of a group of "Iraq experts" brought to the White House to consult with George W. Bush on the disastrous situation there. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Amir_Taheri

Taheri ist ein featured speaker von Benador Associates, dem illustren Club um Richard Perle, Wulfowitz und andere Neocons etc., jenen Gangstern, die ihren Anteil daran hatten, die USA in den Irak Krieg zu bringen. Details hier:

Benador Associates
Jim Lobe describes Benador as follows:
"When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been… But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible. Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months."
— Jim Lobe, The Andean Condor among the Hawks, Asia Times, August 15, 2003.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...ador_Associates

Taheri, Amir
September 04, 2012
Iranian-born writer Amir Taheri has a history of making suspicious claims about Iran that have been used by neoconservatives to bolster the case for attacking that country.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/index.php...&Search=Search/

Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born writer and pundit based in Europe who is known for his hardline anti-clerical views on Iran. A longstanding contributor to the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post as well as other outlets in Europe, the United States, and the Middle East, Taheri has also written several books, some of which have occasionally been the subject of accusations of fabrication....

Taheri’s hawkish approach on Iran has made him a favorite of neoconservatives in the United States. He is a past client of the now-defunct Benador Associates, a neoconservative public relations firm that publicized the work of several leading neoconservatives during the George W. Bush presidency, and has been a columnist for the “Islamophobic” Gatestone Institute, a spin-off of the Hudson Institute led by anti-Islam activist and philanthropist Nina Rosenwald....

Taheri has adopted a hawkish “pro-Israel” perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing in a July 2012 column that the “two-state solution” to the conflict rested in part on the “questionable assumption” that “Palestinians regarded themselves as a nation in a world of nation-states and wished to create a state of their own.” Taheri suggested that what Palestinians actually wanted was not a sovereign state but, depending on the particular faction, either to “revive the global caliphate” or merely to ensure “the destruction of the Jewish state.”[3] In a June 2012 commentary posted on the Gatestone Institute’s website, Taheri surmised that Israel’s critics amounted to a coalition of “traditional anti-Semites, Stalinist Cold Warriors, useful idiots, pan-Arab hegemonists, anti-Americans of all stripes, and Islamist revanchists.”...

Taheri’s work on Iran is perhaps best known for its history of misrepresentations and outright fabrications. “Amir Taheri is one of the strangest ingredients in America's media soup,” wrote Jonathan Schwarz for Mother Jones. “There may not be anyone else who simply makes things up as regularly as he does, with so few consequences.”...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/taheri_amir/

Eine einzigartige Luegnertruppe mit verhaengnisvollem Einfluss.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9382

---

Scheint so eine Art iranischer Achmed Chalabi zu sein...

---

Ein Artikel aus Feb. 2003:

Conflict and catchphrases
Brian Whitaker explains what 'creative destruction' and 'total war' mean in the context of current US foreign policy

Faced with obstruction from the French and Germans, ransom demands from the Turks, and opposition from millions of demonstrators around the world, the desired invasion of Iraq has fallen behind schedule.
But not to worry. The process of selecting the next candidates for regime change is already under way.

In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.
Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.
The attraction of this approach is easy to see. After Afghanistan and Iraq, conquering Syria and Iran would create an unbroken chain of puppet regimes stretching from the Mediterranean to China.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Palestinian regime change, or rather regime dismantling, has begun. Yasser Arafat is now more or less written off, although there is nobody to replace him, which suits Mr Sharon just fine. The Saudis are also being targeted and, ultimately, Egypt will be, too.

While all this may be sold to the public, and to gullible leaders such as Tony Blair, on the basis of specific issues, such as suicide bombings in the case of the Palestinians, the vision driving US policy under the president, George Bush, is far broader.
The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war". Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen, one of the US's leading rightwing ideologues, explained: "We should have no misgivings about our ability to destroy tyrannies. It is what we do best.

"It comes naturally to us, for we are the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate us and are driven to attack us."

The concept of total war, which is also espoused by Mr Ledeen, was elaborated upon in the same publication by Adam Mersereau, a former Marine Corps officer.
He contrasted total war with "limited" war, in which military force is used to achieve a particular foreign policy objective "without mobilising the entire nation, and while minimising casualties".
"By total war," he wrote, "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.
"A total war strategy does not have to include the intentional targeting of civilians, but the sparing of civilian lives cannot be its first priority ... The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people group.
"Limited war pits combatants against combatants, while total war pits nation against nation, and even culture against culture."

This sort of thing may strike the average non-American as power-crazed and mad (and, before the emails start flooding in from the US, I should add that many Americans find it abhorrent, too). However, the real point is not whether such ideas are mad, it is the amount of influence that they have on policy.

Many of the total war and creative destruction crowd get their ideas across to the public through an agency called Benador Associates, which arranges their TV appearances and speaking engagements, and helps to place their articles in newspapers.
The agency, which has offices in New York, London and Paris, is run by Eleana Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist. Since I last wrote about Ms Benador (US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy World dispatch, August 19 2002), her business seems to have expanded remarkably.
She has added 10 more "experts" to her list of clients and, on February 13, hosted a free lunch for a question and answer session with the Pentagon's leading hardline adviser, Richard Perle.
In addition, she has started a mailing service, through which subscribers receive, free of charge, up to six daily articles. Anyone who wishes to monitor the developing thoughts of America's neo-conservatives, and can resist being offended by the content, will find a subscription informative.

Ms Benador has been busy networking on the political-social circuit, too. Although details are scarce, the website of Bob Guzzardi, a Pennsylvania property man and Israel enthusiast, shows photographs of a jolly party attended by Ms Benador along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Representative Joseph Hoeffel, Daniel Pipes (the bete noire of American Muslims) and Reza Pahlavi, the pretender to the throne of Iran.
Several of her experts regard the fall of the Iranian regime as a certain consequence of war in Iraq, whether as a result of deliberate US efforts or those of Iran's supposedly rebellious youth. At least one of them has been talking up the possibility that Mr Pahlavi could take over as Iran's new Shah.

"It is no surprise that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah, has arisen seemingly out of nowhere to become the leading opposition figure, not only among Iranians in Los Angeles, but among Iranians still living under the mullahs in Tehran."
Those words were written by Michael Rubin, who has also promoted the idea that ex-crown prince Hassan of Jordan might become king of Iraq.
Mr Rubin, a Benador client and once a prolific article writer, has been silent for several months. This, Ms Benador's website explains, is because he is "currently on assignment as an Iran and Iraq adviser in special plans at the Pentagon, and will be unavailable for public appearances until October 2003".

Still, there are plenty of others to fill the gap while Mr Rubin hatches his special plans. The Benador website lists more than 220 published articles, including 50 in the National Review, 42 in the Washington Times, 37 in the Washington Post, 18 in the National Post, 17 in the Wall Street Journal, 15 in the Los Angeles Times, eight each in the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, and six in the New York Times.
Two others appeared in Britain: one in the Financial Times, and the other in the Daily Telegraph.

Wichtigster Absatz des Artikels:

Readers who like to keep an eye on such things should watch out for media appearances by any of the following Benador "experts": AM Rosenthal, Alexander M Haig Jr, Amir Taheri, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Azar Nafisi, Barry Rubin, Charles Jacobs, Charles Krauthammer, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Frank J Gaffney Jr, George Jonas, Hillel Fradkin, Ismail Cem, John Eibner, Kanan Makiya, Khalid Duran, Khidhir Hamza, Laurie Mylroie, Mansoor Ijaz, Martin Kramer, Max Boot, Meyrav Wurmser, Michael A Ledeen, Michael Rubin, Michel Gurfinkiel, Paul Marshall, R James Woolsey, Richard O Spertzel, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, Ruth Wedgwood, Shaykh Kabbani, Stanley H Kaplan, Tashbih Sayyed, Tom Rose and Walid Phares.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/fe...rlddispatch.usa

Man merke sich die hier angefuehrten Namen.

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9382

---

Scheint so eine Art iranischer Achmed Chalabi zu sein...

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #9384

---

Ein Artikel aus Feb. 2003:

Conflict and catchphrases
Brian Whitaker explains what 'creative destruction' and 'total war' mean in the context of current US foreign policy

Faced with obstruction from the French and Germans, ransom demands from the Turks, and opposition from millions of demonstrators around the world, the desired invasion of Iraq has fallen behind schedule.
But not to worry. The process of selecting the next candidates for regime change is already under way.

In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.
Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.
The attraction of this approach is easy to see. After Afghanistan and Iraq, conquering Syria and Iran would create an unbroken chain of puppet regimes stretching from the Mediterranean to China.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Palestinian regime change, or rather regime dismantling, has begun. Yasser Arafat is now more or less written off, although there is nobody to replace him, which suits Mr Sharon just fine. The Saudis are also being targeted and, ultimately, Egypt will be, too.

While all this may be sold to the public, and to gullible leaders such as Tony Blair, on the basis of specific issues, such as suicide bombings in the case of the Palestinians, the vision driving US policy under the president, George Bush, is far broader.
The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war". Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen, one of the US's leading rightwing ideologues, explained: "We should have no misgivings about our ability to destroy tyrannies. It is what we do best.

"It comes naturally to us, for we are the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate us and are driven to attack us."

The concept of total war, which is also espoused by Mr Ledeen, was elaborated upon in the same publication by Adam Mersereau, a former Marine Corps officer.
He contrasted total war with "limited" war, in which military force is used to achieve a particular foreign policy objective "without mobilising the entire nation, and while minimising casualties".
"By total war," he wrote, "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.
"A total war strategy does not have to include the intentional targeting of civilians, but the sparing of civilian lives cannot be its first priority ... The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people group.
"Limited war pits combatants against combatants, while total war pits nation against nation, and even culture against culture."

This sort of thing may strike the average non-American as power-crazed and mad (and, before the emails start flooding in from the US, I should add that many Americans find it abhorrent, too). However, the real point is not whether such ideas are mad, it is the amount of influence that they have on policy.

Many of the total war and creative destruction crowd get their ideas across to the public through an agency called Benador Associates, which arranges their TV appearances and speaking engagements, and helps to place their articles in newspapers.
The agency, which has offices in New York, London and Paris, is run by Eleana Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist. Since I last wrote about Ms Benador (US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy World dispatch, August 19 2002), her business seems to have expanded remarkably.
She has added 10 more "experts" to her list of clients and, on February 13, hosted a free lunch for a question and answer session with the Pentagon's leading hardline adviser, Richard Perle.
In addition, she has started a mailing service, through which subscribers receive, free of charge, up to six daily articles. Anyone who wishes to monitor the developing thoughts of America's neo-conservatives, and can resist being offended by the content, will find a subscription informative.

Ms Benador has been busy networking on the political-social circuit, too. Although details are scarce, the website of Bob Guzzardi, a Pennsylvania property man and Israel enthusiast, shows photographs of a jolly party attended by Ms Benador along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Representative Joseph Hoeffel, Daniel Pipes (the bete noire of American Muslims) and Reza Pahlavi, the pretender to the throne of Iran.
Several of her experts regard the fall of the Iranian regime as a certain consequence of war in Iraq, whether as a result of deliberate US efforts or those of Iran's supposedly rebellious youth. At least one of them has been talking up the possibility that Mr Pahlavi could take over as Iran's new Shah.

"It is no surprise that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah, has arisen seemingly out of nowhere to become the leading opposition figure, not only among Iranians in Los Angeles, but among Iranians still living under the mullahs in Tehran."
Those words were written by Michael Rubin, who has also promoted the idea that ex-crown prince Hassan of Jordan might become king of Iraq.
Mr Rubin, a Benador client and once a prolific article writer, has been silent for several months. This, Ms Benador's website explains, is because he is "currently on assignment as an Iran and Iraq adviser in special plans at the Pentagon, and will be unavailable for public appearances until October 2003".

Still, there are plenty of others to fill the gap while Mr Rubin hatches his special plans. The Benador website lists more than 220 published articles, including 50 in the National Review, 42 in the Washington Times, 37 in the Washington Post, 18 in the National Post, 17 in the Wall Street Journal, 15 in the Los Angeles Times, eight each in the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, and six in the New York Times.
Two others appeared in Britain: one in the Financial Times, and the other in the Daily Telegraph.

Wichtigster Absatz des Artikels:

Readers who like to keep an eye on such things should watch out for media appearances by any of the following Benador "experts": AM Rosenthal, Alexander M Haig Jr, Amir Taheri, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Azar Nafisi, Barry Rubin, Charles Jacobs, Charles Krauthammer, Fereydoun Hoveyda, Frank J Gaffney Jr, George Jonas, Hillel Fradkin, Ismail Cem, John Eibner, Kanan Makiya, Khalid Duran, Khidhir Hamza, Laurie Mylroie, Mansoor Ijaz, Martin Kramer, Max Boot, Meyrav Wurmser, Michael A Ledeen, Michael Rubin, Michel Gurfinkiel, Paul Marshall, R James Woolsey, Richard O Spertzel, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, Ruth Wedgwood, Shaykh Kabbani, Stanley H Kaplan, Tashbih Sayyed, Tom Rose and Walid Phares.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/fe...rlddispatch.usa

Man merke sich die hier angefuehrten Namen.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

Aber das Kriegstreiberpack wird sicherlich weiter versuchen einen Kriegsgrund zu finden.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9390

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

Aber das Kriegstreiberpack wird sicherlich weiter versuchen einen Kriegsgrund zu finden.

---

Zwei Doofe, ein Gedanke. :-)

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9391

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9390

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

Aber das Kriegstreiberpack wird sicherlich weiter versuchen einen Kriegsgrund zu finden.

---

Zwei Doofe, ein Gedanke. :-)

---

:-)))

diese "Doofen nehmen weltweit immer mehr zu und sie werden immer deutlicher.
Das ist es, was die Kriegstreiber überall so aufgeregt macht. Gefährlicher Augenblick...

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9389

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Wer war damals der Angreifer und wer ist es heute?
Es ist einfach so, diese Kriegshetzer haben immer noch nicht genug Zerstörung und Chaos gehabt. Die 10 oder 12 Billionen Dollar, die für diese absurden Kriege ausgegeben wurden - von den menschlichen Verlusten ganz zu schweigen -, reichen immer noch nicht.

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9393

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

---

Das habe ich auch nicht behauptet.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein,....

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9395

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9393

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

---

Das habe ich auch nicht behauptet.

---

Es hat auch keiner gesagt, dass Du behauptet hast..............

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9395

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9393

---

Zitat von Lea S. im Beitrag #9388

---

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #9387

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und dann diese Sätze: "I mean the kind of warfare that not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends that spawned the war in the first place.

---

In Deutschland und Japan hats geklappt.

---

Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Japan hat Iran aber keine Angriffskrieg über den halben Kontinent - und auch sonst nicht - gestartet. Selbst die angestossene Besetung Kuwaits kann man dem Iran nicht anlasten.

---

Das habe ich auch nicht behauptet.

---

Es hat auch keiner gesagt, dass Du behauptet hast..............

---

Zitat von ente im Beitrag #9396

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein,....

---

... so schickt man Dir Sayada heim. Ist zwar keins der 72 hourie, aber recht penetrant, fast pelzig.

Hunde sind besser: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/new-york-...n-a-939788.html

Welche Leistung,welcher Mut, welche Treue dieses Hundes. Die Reaktionen der Menschen zeigen eindeutigen Respekt.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9399

---

Zitat von ente im Beitrag #9396

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #9386

---

Und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein,....

---

... so schickt man Dir Sayada heim. Ist zwar keins der 72 hourie, aber recht penetrant, fast pelzig.

Hunde sind besser: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/new-york-...n-a-939788.html

Welche Leistung,welcher Mut, welche Treue dieses Hundes. Die Reaktionen der Menschen zeigen eindeutigen Respekt.

---

Ich verstehe mich sehr gut mit sayada!!!

Die Geschichte ist aber wirklich schön. Fast so eine Art Hachiko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2MFzAArWls

---