There is No Nuclear Weapons Program in Iran, but Americans Don't Want to Hear It...

[sammi jo]

The main tactic of the Bush Administration seems to be to creating a fantasy world in order to frighten the public into supporting an otherwise unsupportable agenda. We all know this history behind the NeoCon M.O.: it goes all the way back to the Straussian era, and the promotion of the USSR as being far more of a threat than it actually was.

We all know what happened in the last 6 years, and Iran is the latest in the line of fearmongering. If IAEA inspectors cannot find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program in 4 years of searching (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/294914.html), then the chances are that Iran is the more honest and straight party, and BushCorp. is making it all up (Surprised?).

The genuinely scary element has nothing to do with Iran having nukes. Even if they did (which they patently don't, and they are not developing them either), they would have no reason to use them against us, (nor against anyone for that matter). The most sinister and inexplicable part of this whole 6 year Faustian nightmare, is that a large segment of the population has taken leave of its senses, abandoned rationality, and prefers to acknowledge what is being fed to them by the Bush administration and its corporate media cronies, and anyone who asks even the mildest of questions is shouted down.

What has separated so many Americans from reality? The rest of the world's population doesn't appear to suffer from this weird psychological affliction (in such proportions at least)... Why, in the most free nation in earth, (in theory), where real information is readily available, a government can tell the people a shipload of bizarre and baseless rubbish, and so many people implicitly take it on board, as part of the real world?

Whats in the water supply? Just kidding, but it really makes one wonder how so much cognitve dissonance (combined with "armchair patriotism") remains established on such a large scale.

A recent poll taken a few days ago (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bomb_Iran_majority_of_Americans_says_1030.html) found that the majority of Americans wanted to see Iran get bombed by the US. Does anyone here on this board support the Bush Administration's position that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program? If so, why? What is the evidence? Whats are your reasons? Where is the "smoking gun"? What are the professionals at the IAEA missing out on? Do you support this position, not because of the (lack of) evidence, but because you want to see some action and get some "entertainment"? I am trying to fathom out why the support for such extremism in the absence of evidence, and why there is so much support for a more general war against science waged by this Administration, which relies more on faith-based mumbojumbo?

A good rule of thumb for the next 12 months (provided the Nov. 2008 elections take place as scheduled): If Cheney says something, then you can be pretty sure that the opposite represents reality.

[Outsider]

What's frightening is you're reply is above the starting thread...:???::err:


DST spookiness!!! Woooooooooo!!!

[@_@ Artman]

That is genuinely frightening.

What's frightening is you're reply is above the starting thread...:???::err:

[@_@ Artman]

DST spookiness!!! Woooooooooo!!!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/explhead.gif

[AsLan^]

I think they'd be stupid not to have a nuclear weapons program.

That being said, I certainly don't support bombing them, or even telling them not to develop nuclear weapons.

[mojo2]

That is genuinely frightening.

What other steps can be taken to ensure the long-term security and viability of the Jewish State?

[mojo2]

The main tactic of the Bush Administration seems to be to creating a fantasy world in order to frighten the public into supporting an otherwise unsupportable agenda. We all know this history behind the NeoCon M.O.: it goes all the way back to the Straussian era, and the promotion of the USSR as being far more of a threat than it actually was.

We all know what happened in the last 6 years, and Iran is the latest in the line of fearmongering. If IAEA inspectors cannot find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program in 4 years of searching (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/294914.html), then the chances are that Iran is the more honest and straight party, and BushCorp. is making it all up (Surprised?).

The genuinely scary element has nothing to do with Iran having nukes. Even if they did (which they patently don't, and they are not developing them either), they would have no reason to use them against us, (nor against anyone for that matter). The most sinister and inexplicable part of this whole 6 year Faustian nightmare, is that a large segment of the population has taken leave of its senses, abandoned rationality, and prefers to acknowledge what is being fed to them by the Bush administration and its corporate media cronies, and anyone who asks even the mildest of questions is shouted down.

What has separated so many Americans from reality? The rest of the world's population doesn't appear to suffer from this weird psychological affliction (in such proportions at least)... Why, in the most free nation in earth, (in theory), where real information is readily available, a government can tell the people a shipload of bizarre and baseless rubbish, and so many people implicitly take it on board, as part of the real world?

Whats in the water supply? Just kidding, but it really makes one wonder how so much cognitve dissonance (combined with "armchair patriotism") remains established on such a large scale.

A recent poll taken a few days ago (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bomb_Iran_majority_of_Americans_says_1030.html) found that the majority of Americans wanted to see Iran get bombed by the US. Does anyone here on this board support the Bush Administration's position that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program? If so, why? What is the evidence? Whats are your reasons? Where is the "smoking gun"? What are the professionals at the IAEA missing out on? Do you support this position, not because of the (lack of) evidence, but because you want to see some action and get some "entertainment"? I am trying to fathom out why the support for such extremism in the absence of evidence, and why there is so much support for a more general war against science waged by this Administration, which relies more on faith-based mumbojumbo?

A good rule of thumb for the next 12 months (provided the Nov. 2008 elections take place as scheduled): If Cheney says something, then you can be pretty sure that the opposite represents reality.


The question ALL of us should be asking ourselves is if we were Ahmadinejad & Co. whether we would be playing a game of Global Thermonuclear "Chicken" with the world if we had nothing to hide.

[@_@ Artman]

The question ALL of us should be asking ourselves is if we were Ahmadinejad & Co. whether we would be playing a game of Global Thermonuclear "Chicken" with the world if we had nothing to hide.

Dmz? SWD2001? Could someone groom this newbie on your ways? Thanks.

[mojo2]

Dmz? SWD2001? Could someone groom this newbie on your ways? Thanks.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7692/ahhhku5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[sammi jo]

The question ALL of us should be asking ourselves is if we were Ahmadinejad & Co. whether we would be playing a game of Global Thermonuclear "Chicken" with the world if we had nothing to hide.

Well, who do you think is more believable?

In one corner, we have the IAEA inspectorate. These folk know exactly what they are looking for, and have state of the art equipment to detect signatures of weapons research and manufacture. If Iran does have a weapons program, then the Iranians are so damned good at concealment that they've evaded all the experts, even with the eyes of the world trained on them. It is not easy to hide nuclear weapons manufacture, especially if you are a newbie at it and have to do everything from scratch.... it requires a large infrastructure and a host of support industries.

In the opposite corner sits Bush, Cheney and the neoconservative cabal. They are not renowned for being straight and honest. They have lied about everything imaginable since coming to office. They have a motivation to lie about Iran, just as they did about Iraq. Not only are they proven liars, and thus anything they say must be considered unreliable and questionable, but they are also masters of doublespeak. If they have lied just the once, then anything they may say in the future should be taken with a pinch (truckload?) of salt. And yes, the neoconservative class of the 2000s is all about applied racism as well, there is no denying that. The hardliners within that group (Kagan, Ledeen, Horowitz, Elliott, Bauer, Podhoretz, etc etc) have expressed unmitigated hatred towards muslims and Arabs in general on many occasions, and their signature document has even recommended the development of "genotype-sensitive" biological weapons, presumably aimed at the control (or even elimination?) of such peoples? When you're dealing with delusional crazies with a thirst for unlimited power, expect *anything*... we know this from the ugly history of the first half of the 20th Century.

So, who is more believable? A group of (presumably) rational scientists whose common agenda is to find nukes..... or a bunch of self serving, lying, hatemongering pyschopathic lunatics from hell whose common agenda is greed, death and destruction? No, I am not exaggerating.

~

I don't like AhmadiNajad (he's nuts as well) and neither does anyone I know (hardline religious conservatives of any brand cannot be considered as trustworthy), but remember, AhmadiNajad has limited executive power; he is not a dictator. Ayatollah Ali Khameini holds the reins of power regarding Iran's domestic and foreign policies, as well as military affairs.. and he is far more moderate than AhmadiNajad. But as I mentioned in a previous thread, Iran has had a nuclear power (not weapons) program for the past half century... yet suddenly, because Cheney and company get antsy because the timetable to start their next war is overdue, they expect us to all to abandon rationality and the real world? Just because our corporate media is promoting the BushCorp lies machine on television, radio, internet and and print doesnt mean to say that you are obliged to believe or acknowledge it.

[screener]

The question ALL of us should be asking ourselves is if we were Ahmadinejad & Co. whether we would be playing a game of Global Thermonuclear "Chicken" with the world if we had nothing to hide.

The question is, why did Saddam play WMD "Chicken" and what the result was.

You want to be led by fear again?

[tonton]

The question is, why did Saddam play WMD "Chicken" and what the result was.

You want to be led by fear again?

Let's say someone who had a grudge against you claimed you had a ton of cocaine in your house. You used to sell pot and had been busted pretty big for selling some to schoolkids, but had been clean for a while. A long time ago, you did have some heroin that the cops gave you for an undercover operation, but you got rid of it a long time ago.

The cops go in, with a warrant, and search. You let them.

Nothing.

On the second day, they keep looking.

Nothing.

On the fifth day, they say, "We really don't think there's anything here."

Their orders are to keep looking. The police say "either you give us the drugs, prove that you don't have any with documented paperwork," (how on earth do you do that?), "or we're going to send in the wrecking crew to tear down your house so that we can find them in your secret hiding places."

Nothing.

Finally, on the eleventh day, you're fed up, and scream, "get out of my house!"

Don't you?

Then they send in the wrecking crew. Your kids get accidentally killed. Oops. Ah well, they were just drug dealers' kids anyway...

Oh, and then they execute you.

Now... what does your cousin do?

[jimmac]

You forgot the part about this guy is similar to this other guy that hijacked this bull dozer and ramed your parent's house killing them both. Since they have similarities they must be the same and the first guy must have deserved what he got because of that huh?

Ps. Maybe the first guy harboured Bull dozer operation trainies in his house! We just don't know........

[@_@ Artman]

It’s no secret that the dollar is on a downward spiral. Its value is dropping, and the Fed isn’t doing a whole lot to change that. As a result, a number of countries are considering a shift away from the dollar to preserve their assets. These are seven of the countries currently considering a move from the dollar, and how they’ll have an effect on its value and the US economy.

1. Saudi Arabia: The Telegraph reports that for the first time, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates along with the US Federal Reserve. This is seen as a signal that a break from the dollar currency peg is imminent. The kingdom is taking “appropriate measures” to protect itself from letting the dollar cause problems for their own economy. They’re concerned about the threat of inflation and don’t want to deal with “recessionary conditions” in the US. Hans Redeker of BNP Paribas believes this creates a “very dangerous situation for the dollar,” as Saudi Arabia alone has management of $800 billion. Experts fear that a break from the dollar in Saudi Arabia could set off a “stampede” from the dollar in the Middle East, a region that manages $3,500 billion.

2. South Korea: In 2005, Korea announced its intention to shift its investments to currencies of countries other than the US. Although they’re simply making plans to diversify for the future, that doesn’t mean a large dollar drop isn’t in the works. There are whispers that the Bank of Korea is planning on selling $1 billion US bonds in the near future, after a $100 million sale this past August.

3. China: After already dropping the dollar peg in 2005, China has more trouble up its sleeve. Currently, China is threatening a “nuclear option” of huge dollar liquidation in response to possible trade sanctions intended to force a yuan revaluation. Although China “doesn’t want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order,” their large sum of US dollars does serve as a “bargaining chip.” As we’ve noted in the past, China has the power to take the wind out of the dollar.

4. Venezuela: Venezuela holds little loyalty to the dollar. In fact, they’ve shown overt disapproval, choosing to establish barter deals for oil. These barter deals, established under Hugo Chavez, allow Venezuela to trade oil with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba without using the dollar, shorting the US its usual subsidy. Chavez is not shy about this decision, and has publicly encouraged others to adopt similar arrangements. In 2000, Chavez recommended to OPEC that they “take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers,” or in other words, stop using the dollar, or even the euro, for oil transactions. In September, Chavez instructed Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA to change its dollar investments to euros and other currencies in order to mitigate risk.

5. Sudan: Sudan is, once again, planning to convert its dollar holdings to the euro and other currencies. Additionally, they’ve recommended to commercial banks, government departments, and private businesses to do the same. In 1997, the Central Bank of Sudan made a similar recommendation in reaction to US sactions from former President Clinton, but the implementation failed. This time around, 31 Sudanese companies have become subject to sanctions, preventing them from doing trade or financial transactions with the US. Officially, the sanctions are reported to have little effect, but there are indications that the economy is suffering due to these restrictions. A decision to move Sudan away from the dollar is intended to allow the country to work around these sanctions as well as any implemented in the future. However, a Khartoum committee recently concluded that proposals for a reduced dependence on the dollar are “not feasible.” Regardless, it is clear that Sudan’s intent is to attempt a break from the dollar in the future.

6. Iran: Iran is perhaps the most likely candidate for an imminent abandonment of the dollar. Recently, Iran requested that its shipments to Japan be traded for yen instead of dollars. Further, Iran has plans in the works to create an open commodity exchange called the Iran Oil Bourse. This exchange would make it possible to trade oil and gas in non-dollar currencies, the euro in particular. Athough the oil bourse has missed at least three of its announced opening dates, it serves to make clear Iran’s intentions for the dollar. As of October 2007, Iran receives non-dollar currencies for 85% of its oil exports, and has plans to move the remaining 15% to currencies like the United Arab Emirates dirham.

7. Russia: Iran is not alone in its desire to establish an alternative to trading oil and other commodities in dollars. In 2006, Russian President Vladmir Putin expressed interest in establishing a Russian stock exchange which would allow “oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for in Roubles.” Russia’s intentions are no secret–in the past, they’ve made it clear that they’re wary of holding too many dollar reserves. In 2004, Russian central bank First Deputy Chairmain Alexei Ulyukayev remarked, “Most of our reserves are in dollars, and that’s a cause for concern.” He went on to explain that, after considering the dollar’s rate against the euro, Russia is “discussing the possibility of changing the reserve structure.” Then in 2005, Russia put an end to its dollar peg, opting instead to move towards a euro alignment. They’ve discussed pricing oil in euros, a move that could provide a large shift away from the dollar and towards the euro, as Russia is the world’s second-largest oil exporter.


Source (http://www.currencytrading.net/2007/7-countries-considering-abandoning-the-us-dollar-and-what-it-means/).

The only countries not listed and who did abandon the dollar was North Korea & Iraq. Look where it got them.

You know the old tired excuses; Oil, Greed, Power etc....

We are privileged to be watching the fall of an empire (guess who). The bad news is there's going to be a lot of flailing around and damage to people outside the empire on the way down. It won't be pretty. Some of us (born before 1989) will even have seen two empires fall, not many generations can say that. Interesting times. :rolleyes:

[mojo2]

The question is, why did Saddam play WMD "Chicken" and what the result was.

You want to be led by fear again?

Come on, it's suicidally stupid not to take a possible threat seriously.

Many young posters would reply to my statement with, "oh, so we will attack every country because we think they are going to attack us?"

Nope.

Motive.

Gain.

Means.

Proof.

In the case of Iraq the only thing missing was proof.

And when proof could go either way you have to compute the possible results of either course of action.

If Iraq DID have WMD's, what would be the possible result if we did nothing?

If Iraq DIDN'T have WMD's, what would the results possibly be if we invaded?

Clearly many people here don't give a sh!t about Israel. To those people I say, you are frigging racist bigots.

[BRussell]

Motive.

Gain.

Means.

Proof.

In the case of Iraq the only thing missing was proof.

And Motive. And Gain. And Means. But you're right that proof was missing, abe. :D

[@_@ Artman]

Clearly many people here don't give a sh!t about Israel. To those people I say, you are frigging racist bigots.

HA! I don't give a shit about Israel's government, they have made a mess of the ME from the start (with our help of course). I can only give hope to the people of Israel, maybe they will wake up from their state-induced fear and hatred and take control again. Doubt it.

[mojo2]

Well, who do you think is more believable?

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/clarke.html

As this anecdote clearly shows, It was impossible for Cheney to be 100% sure that Iraq had no WMD's without complete, unhindered physical access to any and every suspected WMD site. How could you sleep soundly knowing that they are 80% certain that your sworn enemy who has tried to kill you and destroy your nation, has WMD's on an imminent launch sequence.

Hey, that's great!

Not. :no:

[mojo2]

HA! I don't give a shit about Israel's government, they have made a mess of the ME from the start (with our help of course). I can only give hope to the people of Israel, maybe they will wake up from their state-induced fear and hatred and take control again. Doubt it.

Sadly, the state of WMD development hasn't yet progressed to the point where Saddam's feared WMD's, nor the WMD's Ahmadinejad is strongly believed to be developing, are able to differentiate between government and people. :rolleyes:

As soon as the Israeli people realize that:

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

And that...

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

And just surrender all the land and then move elsewhere, then things will be alright, eh? :no:

[@_@ Artman]

A) your sworn enemy

B) who has tried to kill you

C) and destroy your nation,

D) has WMD's on an imminent launch sequence.



Proof? And WTF does "an imminent launch sequence" mean:???:

You sound like a delusional, paranoid nut-job.

[BRussell]

Something else Cheney said about Iraq, mojo, even after the events you quote above:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

[mojo2]

And Motive. And Gain. And Means. But you're right that proof was missing, abe. :D

Hey, BRussell!

Long time, no? :)

I'll tell abe I saw you.

The proof was less than 100%

When you are dying and need a risky operation and the doctor says there is a 50/50 chance you could die from it you take the chance so you can live.

[mojo2]

Proof? And WTF does "an imminent launch sequence" mean:???:

You sound like a delusional, paranoid nut-job.

It's shorthand for those many liberals who go through life seeing things at a superficial level.

The reality, of course, is that there is no way to detect "an imminent launch sequence" and that is exactly why Iran is such a threat. There would be no way to know when they were going to launch nuclear missiles before they were airborne. And even more, there is a period of time in the development of the nuclear devices when there would be no threat of radiation escaping into the environment if they were blown up in an attack. But bombing the production facility AFTER the nuclear materials have been created would release vast amounts of deadly radiation.

So, this also has to be taken into account, as well.

All I can say is that you might want to be careful or I might hurt your feelings.

:)

[mojo2]

Something else Cheney said about Iraq, mojo, even after the events you quote above:

You know better than to omit the linky.

:no:

[Mystic]

Did no one READ the article?
here are some excerpts...
IAEA inspectors determined that Iran failed to reveal that it had obtained blueprints for the P2, a centrifuge twice as efficient as the P1, from the Khan network in 1995.

AEA inspectors, however, discovered that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last year that research on the centrifuges continued.

The IAEA has been stymied in trying to discover the project's scope, fueling suspicions that the Iranian military may be secretly running a P2 development program parallel to the civilian-run P1 program at Natanz.

POLONIUM-210: Iran has failed since 2003 to satisfy IAEA inquiries about experiments it conducted from 1989 to 1993 that produced Polonium-210.
Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance that has limited civilian applications but is used in warheads to initiate the fission chain reaction that results in a nuclear blast.

NUCLEAR POWER VS. OIL AND GAS: Many U.S. and European officials dispute Iran's claim that it needs to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants.
They point out that the only Iranian nuclear power plant under construction is being built by Russia, which has an agreement to supply it with low-enriched uranium fuel for 10 years.
Moreover, they contend that Iran doesn't have enough uranium to provide fuel for the lifetimes of the seven to 10 civilian reactors it says it needs to meet the demands of its growing population.
It would be far cheaper for Iran to expand domestic consumption of natural gas, of which it has the world's second-largest reserves, and oil, of which it has the world's third-largest reserves, according to a study by the Los Alamos National Laboratory.



If it walks like a duck .....

[sammi jo]

Originally Posted by mojo2

A) your sworn enemy

Oh really now? Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 launching an 8 year war when Saddam Hussein was a US ally.. this alliance continued until the start of the Gulf War, ie through 3 successive US administrations.

B) who has tried to kill you

That's what is to be expected in a time of war, surely? If we had had a chance of killing Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War and in the intermediate period between then and the current occupation, would we have gone for it? You bet.

C) and destroy your nation,

Hang on, who has destroyed whose nation? From most peoples' perpective, BushCorp not content with destroying Iraq, have set their sights on destroying the US as well.. albeit not in a material sense.

D) has WMD's on an imminent launch sequence.

You mean... those imaginary biological and chemical weapons that could be "launched within 45 minutes notice" and delivered to a US city near you, via balsa-wood and baler-twine contraptions powered by lawn-mower engines? Remember the endless features delivered by FoxNews (and the rest of the weasel-media) causing the run on duct-tape, and all those lectures on how to protect your home against the ravages of Saddam Hussein's arsenal, using plastic sheeting?

And when 85% (of US troops in Iraq) said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks"..... if only our troops had been aware of the fake and illegal nature of the mission.... it is illegal to obey illegal orders (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm)

These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

[@_@ Artman]

The reality, of course, is that there is no way to detect "an imminent launch sequence" and that is exactly why [PAKISTAN] is such a threat. There would be no way to know when they were going to launch nuclear missiles before they were airborne.

Fixed that for you.

And even more, there is a period of time in the development of the nuclear devices when there would be no threat of radiation escaping into the environment if they were blown up in an attack. But bombing the production facility AFTER the nuclear materials have been created would release vast amounts of deadly radiation.

Mojo2, nuclear physicist/war nerd to the rescue. Citation and proof of either of these claims, please.

This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower), a conservative in his presidential farewell address, warned us of the military industrial complex that was emerging in our country and it's (economical, political and spiritual) ramifications.

Video I (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1831416824251414236)

Video II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6917336957576685617)

Transcript (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html).

This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Freedman) tried to warn Americans in 1961 about a Neo-Con takeover. Decades ago this man explained that the US was going to go to war against the Muslim world and become a pariah nation in the process.

Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=xINjWnrmbx4)

Transcript (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm)

All on deaf ears...

[segovius]

I think I've worked out what an "Imminent Launch Sequence" might be.

Surely it is the name for the period directly after a winger (such as SDW or this strangely familiar Mojo character) first encounters material that jams their analyzer - anything containing the word ''Iran" for example - and subsequently seethes and froths till such a head of pressure builds up that they are catapulted into virtual orbit.

[mojo2]

The reality, of course, is that there is no way to detect "an imminent launch sequence" and that is exactly why [PAKISTAN] is such a threat. There would be no way to know when they were going to launch nuclear missiles before they were airborne.

Fixed that for you.

If you see Iraq and Iran and Pakistan as interchangeably threatening to their neighbors I'll invite you to join the cute little Apple Sesame Seeds political forum where the mods are named Big Bird, Ernie and Bert.

Mojo2, nuclear physicist/war nerd to the rescue. Citation and proof of either of these claims, please.

Gee, I thought anyone would be able to figure this out. Try this experiment. Flush your clean toilet with your face a few inches above the seat and then wipe your face with a tissue and it will be clean.

Then, take a dump afterwards position your face similarly and then flush the toilet and dive in.

This man, a conservative in his presidential farewell address, warned us of the military industrial complex that was emerging in our country and it's (economical, political and spiritual) ramifications.

Video I (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1831416824251414236)

Video II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6917336957576685617)

Transcript (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html).

This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_H._Freedman) tried to warn Americans in 1961 about a Neo-Con takeover. Decades ago this man explained that the US was going to go to war against the Muslim world and become a pariah nation in the process.

Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=xINjWnrmbx4)

Transcript (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm)

All on deaf ears...

And, of course there is nothing but your insinuation to connect these statements to what is going on in regards to the Bush administration or the War. (BTW, I didn't bother to click on any of your links.)

What if I posted links about the abuses inflicted on the elderly and terminal care patients in some nursing homes and hospices and then posted this:

Artman Lutheran Home celebrates 90 years of service as a not-for-profit, faith-based organization and has recognized the unique physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of our residents.

Services include assisted living, skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and hospice care. Care is designed to meet a wide variety of individual needs while providing peace of mind for our residents and their family members.


* Assisted Living
* Skilled Nursing Care
* Short-term Rehabilitation Services
* Inpatient Hospice Unit
* 24-hour on-site professional nursing care
* Becoming Center—fitness and wellness center with heated therapeutic pool

http://www.artmanhome.com/


Would that mean this was YOUR facility and that this facility was connected to the abuses discussed?

Silly boy.

:lol:

[BRussell]

You know better than to omit the linky.

:no:

Haha, so you don't believe it? It's such a devastating quote that you're not going to believe it? Does this mean that if it is an actual quote that you'll change your views completely about the Iraq war? :p

Here's something else Dick Cheney may or may not have said in 1991 when he was allegedly Defense Secretary. Maybe you could ask for a link.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

And here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I) of Cheney allegedly calling the occupation of Iraq in 1991 a quagmire. But it may just have been done with iMovie or something, who knows about the technology that's out there.

[mojo2]

I think I've worked out what an "Imminent Launch Sequence" might be.

Surely it is the name for the period directly after a winger (such as SDW or this strangely familiar Mojo character) first encounters material that jams their analyzer - anything containing the word ''Iran" for example - and subsequently seethes and froths till such a head of pressure builds up that they are catapulted into virtual orbit.

Yes, I invite you to inspect the Klingons around Uranus.

:lol:

[segovius]

Hey, does any want a cheap laugh to pass the time while we're waiting for something sane to happen?

Just read any of Mojo's posts in this thread and then read the title. Do it again quickly for maximum effect....

[@_@ Artman]

(BTW, I didn't bother to click on any of your links.)

Then you are not worth my time. Welcome to my ignore list.

[mojo2]

Haha, so you don't believe it? It's such a devastating quote that you're not going to believe it? Does this mean that if it is an actual quote that you'll change your views completely about the Iraq war? :p

Here's something else Dick Cheney may or may not have said in 1991 when he was allegedly Defense Secretary. Maybe you could ask for a link.

No, I knew it was from 1994 but I want you to adhere to the same high standards of postage as I've been accustomed to expect from you.

The answer to both of your quotations is that that was then. March 2003 was now. Then.

Now then...in neither case did Cheney say that we would nor should never invade Iraq.

The question, to any intelligent observer, should be:

Under what conditions might Cheney's pronouncements be invalidated?

C?learly, an existential threat to Israel would warrant an invasion to negate that threat.

And i'll save you some time...

No, there weren't any WMD's found. But the threat was real because it couldn't be dispelled to a reasonable degree (100%) of certainty. And because Saddam had motive, means and something to gain.

[mojo2]

Then you are not worth my time. Welcome to my ignore list.

Smart move.

[mojo2]

Hey, does any want a cheap laugh to pass the time while we're waiting for something sane to happen?

Just read any of Mojo's posts in this thread and then read the title. Do it again quickly for maximum effect....

Yeah, like Rainman.

Raymond: 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll.
Charlie: Ray, enough already! Change the channel.
Raymond: 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll. 97X, bam! The future of rock 'n' roll.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by mojo2



Oh really now? Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 launching an 8 year war when Saddam Hussein was a US ally.. this alliance continued until the start of the Gulf War, ie through 3 successive US administrations.



That's what is to be expected in a time of war, surely? If we had had a chance of killing Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War and in the intermediate period between then and the current occupation, would we have gone for it? You bet.



Hang on, who has destroyed whose nation? From most peoples' perpective, BushCorp not content with destroying Iraq, have set their sights on destroying the US as well.. albeit not in a material sense.



You mean... those imaginary biological and chemical weapons that could be "launched within 45 minutes notice" and delivered to a US city near you, via balsa-wood and baler-twine contraptions powered by lawn-mower engines? Remember the endless features delivered by FoxNews (and the rest of the weasel-media) causing the run on duct-tape, and all those lectures on how to protect your home against the ravages of Saddam Hussein's arsenal, using plastic sheeting?

And when 85% (of US troops in Iraq) said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks"..... if only our troops had been aware of the fake and illegal nature of the mission.... it is illegal to obey illegal orders (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm)

If I could figure out what you were quoting and which post and all, maybe I'd reply to your fine post. But...

[sammi jo]

No, there weren't any WMD's found. But the threat was real because it couldn't be dispelled to a reasonable degree (100%) of certainty. And because Saddam had motive, means and something to gain.

Why does anyone keep making excuses for these crazies?

Iraq was going to be invaded and occupied, WMDs, or no WMDs; the agenda was FIXED. Nothing was going to stop them, least of all the inspectors finding nothing.

The inspectors were sent in to give an superficial air of "legitimacy" to the alleged threat. If there were WMDs to be found, then logic would dictate that the inspectors would have stayed the course, until they were sure, one way or the other. But no... they were ordered out of there after a few short weeks, having found no traces of WMDs, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, presumably because the known lack of such, after more thorough searching, would have rendered the publicly-given reason for the war an error.

Clearly, an existential threat to Israel would warrant an invasion to negate that threat.

Its a redundancy (as well as a joke) to apply the term "existential threat" towards Israel, when it is the only nation in the region with nukes (as well as a suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons: Israel has refused to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and has refused to sign the Biological Weapons Convention), and has the default military support of the US. Perhaps, if there are any "existential threats" to nations in the region, then the cause of such would be the aggressive use of Israel's nuclear weapons against one or more of her neighbors. Nobody knows for sure of the extent of Israel's nuclear capacity (international inspectors have never been permitted to look)... but the estimate is around 400 (fission and thermonuclear) bombs.

[mojo2]

Why does anyone keep making excuses for these crazies?

Iraq was going to be invaded and occupied, WMDs, or no WMDs; the agenda was FIXED. Nothing was going to stop them, least of all the inspectors finding nothing.

The inspectors were sent in to give an superficial air of "legitimacy" to the alleged threat. If there were WMDs to be found, then logic would dictate that the inspectors would have stayed the course, until they were sure, one way or the other. But no... they were ordered out of there after a few short weeks, having found no traces of WMDs, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, presumably because the known lack of such, after more thorough searching, would have rendered the publicly-given reason for the war an error.



Its a redundancy (as well as a joke) to apply the term "existential threat" towards Israel, when it is the only nation in the region with nukes (as well as a suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons: Israel has refused to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and has refused to sign the Biological Weapons Convention), and has the default military support of the US. Perhaps, if there are any "existential threats" to nations in the region, then the cause of such would be the aggressive use of Israel's nuclear weapons against one or more of her neighbors. Nobody knows for sure of the extent of Israel's nuclear capacity (international inspectors have never been permitted to look)... but the estimate is around 400 (fission and thermonuclear) bombs.


http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7692/ahhhku5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[SDW2001]

Why does anyone keep making excuses for these crazies?

Iraq was going to be invaded and occupied, WMDs, or no WMDs; the agenda was FIXED. Nothing was going to stop them, least of all the inspectors finding nothing.

The inspectors were sent in to give an superficial air of "legitimacy" to the alleged threat. If there were WMDs to be found, then logic would dictate that the inspectors would have stayed the course, until they were sure, one way or the other. But no... they were ordered out of there after a few short weeks, having found no traces of WMDs, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, presumably because the known lack of such, after more thorough searching, would have rendered the publicly-given reason for the war an error.



Its a redundancy (as well as a joke) to apply the term "existential threat" towards Israel, when it is the only nation in the region with nukes (as well as a suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons: Israel has refused to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and has refused to sign the Biological Weapons Convention), and has the default military support of the US. Perhaps, if there are any "existential threats" to nations in the region, then the cause of such would be the aggressive use of Israel's nuclear weapons against one or more of her neighbors. Nobody knows for sure of the extent of Israel's nuclear capacity (international inspectors have never been permitted to look)... but the estimate is around 400 (fission and thermonuclear) bombs.

sammi,

I don't know whether they have a program or not. That said, I certainly think they do. Don't give me the IAEA Seal of Approval™ crap. They don't have anything approaching full access. Iran has also announced its intentions to defy the UN on its program. I'm not about to take them at their word, are you?

[segovius]

sammi,

I don't know whether they have a program or not. That said, I certainly think they do. Don't give me the IAEA Seal of Approval™ crap. They don't have anything approaching full access. Iran has also announced its intentions to defy the UN on its program. I'm not about to take them at their word, are you?

I am.

Why not? If the option is taking Bush and co at their words, on established track records the bet must be very, very high odds-on that it is the Iranians who are more likely to be telling the truth.

[@_@ Artman]

Israel...with 300 nuclear bombs and not a member of the NPT or subject to IAEA inspections says UN nuclear chief should go for saying that there is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071108/wl_mideast_afp/israelirannuclearpolitics_071108152112;_ylt=AqXKJP Z4hJjDOqNprSjx1tEE1vAI).

And the ignorance continues...You know, there a lot of other races that have had genocides inflicted on them that don't get to do whatever they want on the world stage.

One must realize too if Israel were to sign onto the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty that they would have to dismantle all their nuclear weapons and invite intrusive inspectors to make sure she doesn't make anymore weapons.

Only 4 countries have not signed the treaty: Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel.

From an international law perspective, these countries are free to whatever they like vis-a-vis nuclear development or proliferation.

Iran, on the other hand, has signed the NPT, and if they get caught developing nuclear weapons they are in violation. All countries may withdraw from the treaty if they give 3 months notice.

Now where is the hypocrisy here?

[segovius]

All countries may withdraw from the treaty if they give 3 months notice.

And if that is the case - and whatever one thinks of him, I think we can all agree that 'President Tom' is not a stupid man and is an adept politician - then why would Iran NOT just give three months notice and pull out of the treaty LEGALLY were their intention to develop a bomb.

Ie; rather than expose themselves to sanctions from the world which are stipulated in the contract they agreed to and possibly worse from a proven belligerent and aggressive US which actually has (unlike the unsubstantiated and false claims it makes of Iran threatening Israel) threatened Iran with aggression and continues to do so.

Unless one is a supporter of the currently fashionable 'Muslims are backwards-savages and idiots' school of thought it does not make much sense.

[@_@ Artman]

It seems logical that since the IAEA found no wrong doing on Iran's part that they continue with their pursuit of nuclear energy. They have Russia and China as allies now. So they continue. It's only the ignorant (USA-Israel) who continue to beleaguer them for no apparent reason.

Senior Iranian cleric: Production of nuclear bomb is forbidden (http://albawaba.com/en/news/218608)

Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani said on Friday that production of nuclear bomb is religiously forbidden. "Islam bans shedding blood of nations; on the same ground, production of nuclear bomb and even thinking on its production are forbidden from Islamic point of view," said Ayatollah Kashani in his weekly Friday prayers sermon at Tehran University campus.

According to IRNA, Ayatollah Kashani said that in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as the highest authority having the power of issuing decrees and having the first say in decision makings and politics, has explicitly banned production and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. "The world of arrogance, however, is accusing Iran under vain pretexts that is after production of nuclear weapons," he stressed.

According to him, Iranians based on their religious ideology believe in security of whole the world people and of believers of different religions. "That's because Islam and country's Constitution believe in security in all countries," he conveyed.

[Mystic]

It seems logical that since the IAEA found no wrong doing on Iran's part that they continue with their pursuit of nuclear energy. They have Russia and China as allies now. So they continue. It's only the ignorant (USA-Israel) who continue to beleaguer them for no apparent reason.

Senior Iranian cleric: Production of nuclear bomb is forbidden (http://albawaba.com/en/news/218608)

the IAEA DID find wrong doing.

[mojo2]

Well, who do you think is more believable?

In one corner, we have the IAEA inspectorate. These folk know exactly what they are looking for, and have state of the art equipment to detect signatures of weapons research and manufacture. If Iran does have a weapons program, then the Iranians are so damned good at concealment that they've evaded all the experts, even with the eyes of the world trained on them. It is not easy to hide nuclear weapons manufacture, especially if you are a newbie at it and have to do everything from scratch.... it requires a large infrastructure and a host of support industries...

Or friends in high places.


Mofaz calls for ElBaradei's ouster


Published: 11/08/2007

Israel's top strategic negotiator called for the removal of the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector.

"Replacing him would be the right choice," Shaul Mofaz said of Mohammed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "The way he talks, his policies – these endanger the world."

Israel is furious with ElBaradei for saying he has no real evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Mofaz, Israel's transportation minister, was in Washington Thursday to lead Israel's side in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue.

Past IAEA reports charging Iran with a lack of transparency about its nuclear ambitions have been critical in getting the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions. Israel wants the Security Council to declare a third round of sanctions.

Mofaz said such sanctions would be Israel's focus in the strategic dialogue with the United States.

Israel wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options, Mofaz said, but added that "if we cannot stop progress" toward an Iranian nuclear bomb through diplomacy, "there are other options."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105186.html

[@_@ Artman]

the IAEA DID find wrong doing.

SHOW ME. SHOW EVERYBODY. LINK.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[mojo2]

The fear is real and thus the threat is real.

Iran does nothing to dispel the threat or calm the world's fears.

They seem willing to continue their unrestrained provocation under the guise of 'innocently' and 'rightfully' developing a (wink, wink) peaceful nuclear energy program that they know will result in war.

Lieberman, whose office is in charge of coordinating Israel's efforts against the Iranian threat, blasted International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei as a major obstacle to the West's efforts to impose further sanctions on Iran.

"He is part of the problem, not part of the solution," Lieberman said. "ElBaradei's behavior has not succeeded in solving anything like North Korea or Libya's nuclear programs. And instead of criticizing Iran, he finds it right to criticize Israel."

Lieberman said ElBaradei was delaying the UN Security Council's consideration of a new round of sanctions by not publishing the new IAEA report on the status of Iran's nuclear program.

"They [the IAEA and ElBaradei] are allowing Iran to stall for time and to launder its nuclear program," Lieberman said.

Referring to Ahmadinejad's 3,000-centrifuges announcement, Lieberman said that Israel was not surprised but that Iran still had a "way to go" before it would succeed in operating the centrifuges to the point that they could produce enriched uranium. On Tuesday, Military Intelligence said Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009.

Lieberman said Israel needed to ignore ElBaradei and to work on its own - together with other Western countries - to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic. He said the international community finally understood that Iran was not just a threat to Israel but to the entire Free World.

"We are trying to establish sanctions outside the UN," Lieberman said, adding that 70 percent of Iran's commerce was with Europe, the Gulf states and Canada. "If we can get these countries to cut their ties, this can have an effect."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380772105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[mojo2]

I am.

Why not? If the option is taking Bush and co at their words, on established track records the bet must be very, very high odds-on that it is the Iranians who are more likely to be telling the truth.

Bush & Co. aren't very skilled or practiced at lying. Maybe they could learn a few things from President 'Tom & Co.' Excuse me if I can't produce for you any examples of Ahmadinejad's lying.

Three reasons for that. I'm too lazy to search. A really good liar won't easily be caught. The very best liar only lies ONCE.

When all the chips are on the table.

That may be what Pres. Tom is doing. Saving the one big lie for the last hand to be played.

And that one big lie might be this.

Iran WAS developing a bomb.

[Mystic]

It seems logical that since the IAEA found no wrong doing on Iran's part that they continue with their pursuit of nuclear energy. They have Russia and China as allies now. So they continue. It's only the ignorant (USA-Israel) who continue to beleaguer them for no apparent reason.

Senior Iranian cleric: Production of nuclear bomb is forbidden (http://albawaba.com/en/news/218608)

SHOW ME. SHOW EVERYBODY. LINK.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Read the article......

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/294914.html
------------------------------
''There is no smoking-gun proof of work on a nuclear weapon, but there is enough evidence that points in that direction,'' said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls.
------------------------------
Iran asserts that it's working only with the P1, an older centrifuge that it admitted buying in 1987 from an international black-market network headed by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

But IAEA inspectors determined that Iran failed to reveal that it had obtained blueprints for the P2, a centrifuge twice as efficient as the P1, from the Khan network in 1995.

Iranian officials say they did nothing with the blueprints until 2002, when they were given to a private firm that produced and tested seven modified P2 parts, then abandoned the effort.

IAEA inspectors, however, discovered that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last year that research on the centrifuges continued.
-----------------------------
The IAEA has been stymied in trying to discover the project's scope, fueling suspicions that the Iranian military may be secretly running a P2 development program parallel to the civilian-run P1 program at Natanz.
---------------------------
POLONIUM-210: Iran has failed since 2003 to satisfy IAEA inquiries about experiments it conducted from 1989 to 1993 that produced Polonium-210.

Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance that has limited civilian applications but is used in warheads to initiate the fission chain reaction that results in a nuclear blast.
------------------------------

These ARE the actions of a government hiding something.

[SDW2001]

I am.

Why not? If the option is taking Bush and co at their words, on established track records the bet must be very, very high odds-on that it is the Iranians who are more likely to be telling the truth.

False dilemma.

[@_@ Artman]

These ARE the actions of a government hiding something.

Oh dear me. A government hiding something? Oh dear. Let's bomb them, ourselves and the rest of the world. Starting with Israel.

Thanks for supplying me a link that proves nothing.

[SDW2001]

Oh dear me. A government hiding something? Oh dear. Let's bomb them, ourselves and the rest of the world. Starting with Israel.

Thanks for supplying me a link that proves nothing.

You can't be serious. Iran has a nuclear program that it refuses to open to full inspection. It has a program that is in direct violation UNSC mandates. In fact, they only evidence we have that their program is peaceful is their word. This, while they sit on billions of barrels of oil, kill US soldiers in Iraq, sponsor terrorism, threaten Israel, etc. But yeah, let's trust 'em.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying we have evidence of a nuclear weapons program either. But, if one had to make a judgement about it? Which answer would you honestly choose?

[@_@ Artman]

You can't be serious. Iran has a nuclear program that it refuses to open to full inspection. It has a program that is in direct violation UNSC mandates. In fact, they only evidence we have that their program is peaceful is their word. This, while they sit on billions of barrels of oil, kill US soldiers in Iraq, sponsor terrorism, threaten Israel, etc. But yeah, let's trust 'em.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying we have evidence of a nuclear weapons program either. But, if one had to make a judgement about it? Which answer would you honestly choose?

This is finally the last straw. I leaving PoliticalOutsider. I'm tired of your cycle of bullshit.

I've realized something about you and many of your ilk. You won't listen you won't read and you won't accept another point of view on this subject and most others. It's not just you, there are the others here that won't accept that in many ways there is another side to the story.

Do I want to spend time here than actually spend with what I really should (need) be doing? I've thought it over this weekend and I decided. I'm out of here.

It's not all your fault and it's not just this forum. It's everywhere and other circumstances in my life right now.

To the others, fight the good fight. I don't think it's worth it in this forum though.

Peace (http://www.birdandmoon.com/birdandmoon/complete.html).

[dmz]

Maybe we could call Hans Brix;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn3JJJZJHWo

[tonton]

You can't be serious. Iran has a nuclear program that it refuses to open to full inspection. It has a program that is in direct violation UNSC mandates. In fact, they only evidence we have that their program is peaceful is their word. This, while they sit on billions of barrels of oil, kill US soldiers in Iraq, sponsor terrorism, threaten Israel, etc. But yeah, let's trust 'em.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying we have evidence of a nuclear weapons program either. But, if one had to make a judgement about it? Which answer would you honestly choose?

I would choose the option that would NOT be a repeat clusterfuck operation. I wouldn't put any faith in the Bush Administration to make a decision based on the facts, nor would I trust them to present all of the facts to the public when they make their argument.

Clinton said:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush kinda didn't get that one right. Maybe because he's COUNTING on the Americans continuing to be fooled.

Bush lied. Then he failed. No more chances for that asshole. He and his administration screwed up the country more than any other president in history.

[tonton]

Maybe we could call Hans Brix;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn3JJJZJHWo

Maybe we should. After all, he got it right about Iraq. Are you honestly saying we should trust someone who got it wrong to someone who got it right? Ooh... I see you a vewy good decision makah. :lol:

[tonton]

Bush & Co. aren't very skilled or practiced at lying.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Just thought I'd share that laugh with the rest of the members who have mojo on their ignore list.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Bergermeister]

Clinton said:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush kinda didn't get that one right.


You got that right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

It's at about 50 secs into the video.

This is great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

[sammi jo]

double post... oops

[sammi jo]

You can't be serious. Iran has a nuclear program that it refuses to open to full inspection. It has a program that is in direct violation UNSC mandates. In fact, they only evidence we have that their program is peaceful is their word. This, while they sit on billions of barrels of oil, kill US soldiers in Iraq, sponsor terrorism, threaten Israel, etc. But yeah, let's trust 'em.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying we have evidence of a nuclear weapons program either. But, if one had to make a judgement about it? Which answer would you honestly choose?

If you are so pissed about Iran for "defying the UNSC" regarding one issue, about which there are doubts anyway, what are your thoughts on Israel for doing the same thing, but on at least 50 occasions in as many years, and regarding many different issues? They have never allowed inspectors anywhere near, even to verify that their 300-400 nukes are secure, or in a safe condition.

Your attitude is duplicitous beyond all reason.

[sammi jo]

This, while they sit on billions of barrels of oil, kill US soldiers in Iraq, sponsor terrorism, threaten Israel, etc. But yeah, let's trust 'em.


Even the Bush White House publicity and propaganda machine expresses doubts about that. According to General Pace in this FOX News piece, there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is arming the insurgency in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251712,00.html). And in this article in the Asia Times.... (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA18Ak02.html)

C'mon now... admit that they are scratching around, manufacturing excuses to have their next planned war.

[dmz]

...And in this article in the Asia Times....
Not to argree specifically, but I've looking at the Asia Times -- there are some astute people over there. Check out a columnist there who goes by the name "Spengler."

[segovius]

Not argree specifically, but I've looking at the Asia Times -- there are some astute people over there. Check out a columnist there who goes by the name "Spengler."

I think by astute you mean "agrees with DMZ" ;)

As you know, I checked out that forum on your recommendation but all I found was a few brain-dead morons, more than a few racists and Nazis and a whole lot of gibbering lunatics.

Really, Spengler DOES look like a God in that company but come on DMZ, that place makes PO look like Pythagoras' Academy on Samos.

One thing it did do - and this is surely significant - was that I was so fed up with PO and the lack of debate, rampant idiocy etc that I never wanted to go back.

Two days there and I was weeping for SDW's political analysis and begging God for forgiveness...

Even you are still here rather than there!!!!

[dmz]

I think by astute you mean "agrees with DMZ" ;)

As you know, I checked out that forum on your recommendation but all I found was a few brain-dead morons, more than a few racists and Nazis and a whole lot of gibbering lunatics.

Really, Spengler DOES look like a God in that company but come on DMZ, that place makes PO look like Pythagoras' Academy on Samos.

One thing it did do - and this is surely significant - was that I was so fed up with PO and the lack of debate, rampant idiocy etc that I never wanted to go back.

Two days there and I was weeping for SDW's political analysis and begging God for forgiveness...

Even you are still here rather than there!!!!
I'd say the opposite on the contrast with PO. It's been easy to spank the average materialist there -- but good Lord, -- the core of those guys hold history, including the history of philosophy, in their heads. I quipped about Barth humping Kant's leg -- I could get away with that all day long here on PO -- but in the very next post Spengler was giving me back my testes, asking politely "Are these yours?" Yikes.


Those guys (the ones who aren't ranting and raving) are too erudite for me.

[segovius]

I'd say the opposite on the contrast with PO. It's been easy to spank the average materialist there -- but good Lord, -- the core of those guys hold history, including the history of philosophy, in their heads. I quipped about Barth humping Kant's leg -- I could get away with that all day long here on PO -- but in the very next post Spengler was giving me back my testes, asking politely "Are these yours?" Yikes.


Those guys (the ones who aren't ranting and raving) are too erudite for me.

You've got to be joking right?

The only reason that doesn't happen to you here is you keep running away when it gets too hot!

:lol:

[MarcUK]

:lol:

[dmz]

You've got to be joking right?

The only reason that doesn't happen to you here is you keep running away when it gets too hot!

:lol:
Hmmm.... It's one thing to riff here on PO freely, and it's another to see one thread after another on philosophy or history that I can't even touch. It's gets a little rarified.

[segovius]

Hmmm.... It's one thing to riff here on PO freely, and it's another to see one thread after another on philosophy or history that I can't even touch. It's gets a little rarified.

Well, read up a bit. You'll soon see that most of them are blowing it out of their rear ends....

All Spengler ever does as far as I can see is quote al Ghazzali (completely wrongly) and Tariq Ramadan. He's clearly a fundie of sorts too.

[dmz]

Well, read up a bit. You'll soon see that most of them are blowing it out of their rear ends....

All Spengler ever does as far as I can see is quote al Ghazzali (completely wrongly) and Tariq Ramadan. He's clearly a fundie of sorts too.
He can't be a fundie, the little devil thinks to highly of Barth, wont touch lilteralism with a ten-foot pole. (Which is why I can't get on the hidden, invitation only, forum. **sniff**)

It's gets pretty academic -- not as satisfying as a good forum bludgeoning!

[segovius]

He can't be a fundie, the little devil thinks to highly of Barth, wont touch lilteralism with a ten-foot pole. (Which is why I can't get on the hidden, invitation only, forum.

That's for Islamophobes only. It's where they rehearse their lines and receive the official cut and pastes.

Trust me, you aren't missing anything.

[dmz]

That's for Islamophobes only. It's where they rehearse their lines and receive the official cut and pastes.

Trust me, you aren't missing anything.
I dunno, I thought that other Sufi was a crackerjack. A real pleasure to read.



(And don't I get points for trashing Fallici?)

[segovius]

I dunno, I thought that other Sufi was a crackerjack. A real pleasure to read.

(And don't I get points for trashing Fallici?)

Definitely :D

[SDW2001]

This is finally the last straw. I leaving PoliticalOutsider. I'm tired of your cycle of bullshit.

I've realized something about you and many of your ilk. You won't listen you won't read and you won't accept another point of view on this subject and most others. It's not just you, there are the others here that won't accept that in many ways there is another side to the story.

Do I want to spend time here than actually spend with what I really should (need) be doing? I've thought it over this weekend and I decided. I'm out of here.

It's not all your fault and it's not just this forum. It's everywhere and other circumstances in my life right now.

To the others, fight the good fight. I don't think it's worth it in this forum though.

Peace (http://www.birdandmoon.com/birdandmoon/complete.html).

Sorry if things are busy or what not for you now, but that doesn't have anything to do with accepting other points of view on my part. Your arguing that Iran conclusively has no nuclear weapons program, and that's just batshit crazy. We don't know. But we at least better be worried given the circumstances.

I would choose the option that would NOT be a repeat clusterfuck operation. I wouldn't put any faith in the Bush Administration to make a decision based on the facts, nor would I trust them to present all of the facts to the public when they make their argument.

Clinton said:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush kinda didn't get that one right. Maybe because he's COUNTING on the Americans continuing to be fooled.

Bush lied. Then he failed. No more chances for that asshole. He and his administration screwed up the country more than any other president in history.

I understand all of that, but please answer the question: Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? I think they sure as hell are, but we can't prove it.



If you are so pissed about Iran for "defying the UNSC" regarding one issue, about which there are doubts anyway....

Doubts? Like when the UNSC passes a resolution and Iran announces 10 minutes later it won't abide by it?



What are your thoughts on Israel for doing the same thing, but on at least 50 occasions in as many years, and regarding many different issues? They have never allowed inspectors anywhere near, even to verify that their 300-400 nukes are secure, or in a safe condition.

Your attitude is duplicitous beyond all reason.

First, they are not doing the "same thing." They have done plenty wrong, and I don't deny that. But the UN is not exactly pro-Israel and never has been, so the list of resolutions is no surprise. Either way, that doesn't justify Iran's current actions.

[segovius]

The babble and frothing at Bedlam could be heard long into the night.

Meanwhile in the real world:

Experts: Iran threat hyped (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2263629)

[sammi jo]

Sorry if things are busy or what not for you now, but that doesn't have anything to do with accepting other points of view on my part. Your arguing that Iran conclusively has no nuclear weapons program, and that's just batshit crazy. We don't know. But we at least better be worried given the circumstances.

I understand all of that, but please answer the question: Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? I think they sure as hell are, but we can't prove it.



They told us all that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. They told us about a "reconstituted nuclear program...and the the "smoking gun that could become a mushroom cloud". They told us that Iraq could launch deadly chemical and biological weapons against the US in 45 minutes notice. They told the UN about the "mobile weapons labs" which were nothing more than weather balloon launch facilities. None of it was true, and they knew it.

If they can deceive the people just the once using false information, then we would all be stupid and naive to believe them again. Cases are thrown out of court every day in the US for far less than this degree of inreliability or honesty of testimony. Why are we giving these people "3000 miles of slack" regarding everything thats happened since BushCorp came to power, when one centimeter of slack is too much?

They planned the Iraq war, according to Paul O'Neill (former Bush Treasury Secretary) in January 2001. Bush and Cheney even demanded "find us a way of doing it" right after the Jan. 2001 inauguration.

As regards launching a war against Iran, its hard to imagine anything more stupid. Alienate the entire Muslim world, trash our economy (still over reliant on overseas oil) as international oil prices (based on the plummeting dollar) go through the roof... The world hates this government of ours for many good reasons, but not its people; America needs a chance to recover.

[SDW2001]

They told us all that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. They told us about a "reconstituted nuclear program...and the the "smoking gun that could become a mushroom cloud". They told us that Iraq could launch deadly chemical and biological weapons against the US in 45 minutes notice. They told the UN about the "mobile weapons labs" which were nothing more than weather balloon launch facilities. None of it was true, and they knew it.

It's not a provable assertion to say they knew it. It's just not.



If they can deceive the people just the once using false information, then we would all be stupid and naive to believe them again. Cases are thrown out of court every day in the US for far less than this degree of inreliability or honesty of testimony. Why are we giving these people "3000 miles of slack" regarding everything thats happened since BushCorp came to power, when one centimeter of slack is too much?

How about because Iran's actions speak for themselves? Fact is fact. Look at their actions and statements and tell me it's unlikely they have a nuclear weapons program.



They planned the Iraq war, according to Paul O'Neill (former Bush Treasury Secretary) in January 2001. Bush and Cheney even demanded "find us a way of doing it" right after the Jan. 2001 inauguration.

Blah. And 10 other people say something else. Then give more support the first assertion. Whatever. It's irrelevant at this point. See above.



As regards launching a war against Iran, its hard to imagine anything more stupid. Alienate the entire Muslim world,

That is a risk, but one that might have to be taken, depending.

trash our economy (still over reliant on overseas oil) as international oil prices (based on the plummeting dollar) go through the roof...

Another risk, but it might be something we have to tolerate if Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons.

The world hates this government of ours for many good reasons, but not its people; America needs a chance to recover.

Yes yes...Bush Sucks™, we know. Magically, if a Democrat is elected, everyone will love us. Of course, we'll be back to selling nuclear reactors to North Korea and treating terrorism like Keystone Cops, but hey...Go America!