It is looking more and more like Iran will be next... [Archive]

Steven Grant

08-12-2005, 09:37 AM

[Considering the administration's constant dropping in the polls, the NeoCons may see their window closing in the next few years. The more Bush drops in the polls, the more likely the NeoCons will lose out in 2008.]

I wouldn't jump to any predictions. It really depends who the Democrats and Republicans run in 2008. The whole country might be totally disgusted with the Republicans by then -- certainly all the new info about whopping gas company profits while gasoline prices are skyrocketing isn't helping them today -- but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily jump Democrat, esp. if the Democrats come up with another anti-candidate and no message. Which is very likely.

But who knows? Maybe a credible third party will erupt into a fad.

Inkthinker

08-12-2005, 11:43 AM

The whole country might be totally disgusted with the Republicans by then -- certainly all the new info about whopping gas company profits while gasoline prices are skyrocketing isn't helping them today -- but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily jump Democrat, esp. if the Democrats come up with another anti-candidate and no message. Which is very likely.

But who knows? Maybe a credible third party will erupt into a fad.

Not to mention corruption scandals and corporatism.

I'd like to see a real third party candidate, but I don't know how any third party can credibly compete with the financial and network power of the current two parties.

fumetti

08-15-2005, 07:05 PM

I wouldn't jump to any predictions. It really depends who the Democrats and Republicans run in 2008. The whole country might be totally disgusted with the Republicans by then -- certainly all the new info about whopping gas company profits while gasoline prices are skyrocketing isn't helping them today -- but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily jump Democrat, esp. if the Democrats come up with another anti-candidate and no message. Which is very likely.

But who knows? Maybe a credible third party will erupt into a fad.

I said it was "more likely," not that it was a certainty.

These Dems proved in '04 that they're capable of bungling any campaign, no matter how vulnerable their opponent.

fumetti

08-15-2005, 07:06 PM

Not to mention corruption scandals and corporatism.

I'd like to see a real third party candidate, but I don't know how any third party can credibly compete with the financial and network power of the current two parties.

Or brand loyalty.

I think brand loyalty is the biggest hurdle of all.

bartl

08-16-2005, 02:01 PM

I said it was "more likely," not that it was a certainty.

These Dems proved in '04 that they're capable of bungling any campaign, no matter how vulnerable their opponent.
Oh, they proved it in 2000. Even if you think that Gore won, he still should have won handily, not barely, and certainly not lost.

Arrjay

08-16-2005, 02:06 PM

Oh, they proved it in 2000. Even if you think that Gore won, he still should have won handily, not barely, and certainly not lost.

This is very true.
The best thing to come out of the fact that Bush is in the white house and the fact that he managed to stay there for a second term is that it'll hopefully completely destroy the Republican party. In which case I'll throw a party.

Drew Van T.

08-20-2005, 08:47 AM

I think it's safe to say (along with Gary Leupp (http://counterpunch.org/leupp08132005.html)) that at this point, what Iran represents for the Neocons is mainly a budding opportunity to test bunker-buster nukes. Whether or not the Iranian facilities to be targeted are actually developing a nuclear weapon is of course irrelevant to them, as long as a failure of the current diplomatic engagements with Iran creates some sort of opening for testing those bunker-buster nuclear weapons, weapons which in turn can be used elsewhere once the precedent is set. All this, in addition to other opportunities for "progress" - i.e. regime changes - which they doubtlessly imagine will flow from the massive chaos resulting of actually using nukes on Iran.

They still have to sell it to the American public if and when diplomatic talks do collapse, but they were able to sell them Iraq so they must be thinking they can sell this, too. They'll use the line that nukes do not require the sacrifice of American military personnel.

Hoss

08-22-2005, 10:12 AM

No way Bush gets the votes for an act of war. Even some fairly conclusive proof that Bin Laden is in Iran might not get him the votes. Because I'm not sure anyone would believe him. As it happens with any second term President, the majority of the party is realizing that Bush's sphere of influence is limited to the 2006 elections. And with an approval rating just coming out that puts him lower than Nixon during the summer of Watergate, Bush's influence over any swing voters is non-existent.

No way in heck even the idiots in Washington would approve another pre-emptive strike. They might do some downright silly things when it comes to policy, but they are geniuses when it comes to politics.

outlander78

08-22-2005, 10:21 AM

As I understood it, Bush doesn't need congress to launch attacks, just for a formal declaration of war. Am I wrong?

I wonder if the neocons, along with Bush, are falling out of favour, or if it is just him personally.

Hoss

08-22-2005, 10:29 AM

But who knows? Maybe a credible third party will erupt into a fad.

Actually, I think the country wants to be conservative. Really conservative. I think McCain will self explode but a Republican who has been extremely unsupportive of the war could do very well. Chuck Hagel is angling hard.

Of course, Hagel is a Vietnam war veteran and we know that doesn't play well with the American public when it comes to a POTUS. Even worse, Hagel go two purple hearts. So he might be screwed.

Hoss

08-22-2005, 10:31 AM

outlander78

08-22-2005, 10:54 AM

Hoss, were you joking about Kerry, or do Americans really not like Vietnam vets?

Hoss

08-22-2005, 11:22 AM

Hoss, were you joking about Kerry, or do Americans really not like Vietnam vets?

I really think that Americans are more than willing to believe or tolerate the worst lies about the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. Lies they would not believe or tolerate about soldiers who fought in more victorious wars. From McCain to Max Cleland to Al Gore to John McCain to John Kerry to Bob Kerrey to Collin Powell, the country has allowed these men to be smeared. McCain was accussed of betraying the country as a POW. Max Cleland was slandered because he was crippled during an accident with a grenade. Al Gore was belittled for being a combat journalist. Powell has been accused of covering up war crimes. Bob Kerrey has been accused of war crimes. And John Kerry was Swift Boated.

I'm not sure what other conclusion you can draw? It should be taboo to go after any member of our armed forces because of their service with out any concrete proog. Anyone who goes after them should be shunned as a public pariah. Yet the same gossip mongers who went after these men enjoy enormous popularity today.

WatsonGlenn

08-22-2005, 06:15 PM

It should be taboo to go after any member of our armed forces.

Would you include President Bush, whom I noticed you left off the list of vets who have been slandered?

Gingold

08-22-2005, 08:57 PM

Would you include President Bush, whom I noticed you left off the list of vets who have been slandered?

Nothing at all against Bush's Nat. Guard service, but being a veteran implies seeing combat. (Not to mention the fact that it's been Bush who's done the slandering by proxy).

Inkthinker

08-22-2005, 10:17 PM

Nothing at all against Bush's Nat. Guard service, but being a veteran implies seeing combat. (Not to mention the fact that it's been Bush who's done the slandering by proxy).

Technically, anyone who's served their time is a "veteran". But I notice that Bush (or his handlers, at least) has the taste not to try and play that card. When there's men coming home with their limbs blown off, or scarred in their minds by the things they've seen and done, I think calling Bush a veteran, however technically true that is, would be a disservice to the soldiers who are risking their lives in their service during a time of war here and now.

Did it ever really come about, finding out where our fearless leader was during those gaps in his record? Like, definitively, not just heresay?

Hoss

08-23-2005, 04:55 AM

Would you include President Bush, whom I noticed you left off the list of vets who have been slandered?

Um, I guess if he fits under the term vet, sure. I was using the term about combat soldiers, but why not. Heck, I was calling for Dan Rather's resignation on these boards last fall.

As long as by admitting this I don't have to pretend that it hasn't been Bush's teamdoing the most slandering of vet candidates. And there is a different between slander and proven fact. If a candidate was convicted of a crime or disciplined for serious offenses as a soldier, that is a different issue. I wouldn't want so guy from the Air Coast Academy who sexually assaulted half the women in his graduating class being an elected official.

But we all know what slander is - unproven allegations made for the sake of the public and not as part of a legitimate government inquiry. Such as Kerry with the Swiftboats (the Navy looked into their allegations and found no substance to them). Or claims that McCain was a Manchurian Candidate or slams on him for having written just one fairly impotent pro-North Vietnam letter during the five years that he was tortured as a POW.

outlander78

08-23-2005, 06:10 AM

I always thought that being a veteran implied that you had been involved in real combat operations. Otherwise, it should be qualified, or better yet not used at all.

Reminds me of Band of Brothers, where one of the veterans of D-Day is explaining to a replacement soldier the difference between "wounded" and "injured".

SoulOnIce

08-23-2005, 12:48 PM

Would you include President Bush, whom I noticed you left off the list of vets who have been slandered?

I just spewed coffee all over my work monitor.

bartl

08-23-2005, 01:44 PM

I really think that Americans are more than willing to believe or tolerate the worst lies about the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. Lies they would not believe or tolerate about soldiers who fought in more victorious wars.
Like the ones John Kerry told to Congress?

WatsonGlenn

08-23-2005, 02:56 PM

being a veteran implies seeing combat.

No it does'nt. Not one reputable source would agree with that statement.

WatsonGlenn

08-23-2005, 03:00 PM

But we all know what slander is - unproven allegations made for the sake of the public and not as part of a legitimate government inquiry. Such as Kerry with the Swiftboats (the Navy looked into their allegations and found no substance to them). Or claims that McCain was a Manchurian Candidate or slams on him for having written just one fairly impotent pro-North Vietnam letter during the five years that he was tortured as a POW.

What about the claims that Bush was AWOL? They are totally unsubstantiated yet they are repeated as if proven fact by many liberals with no shame at all.

Gingold

08-23-2005, 03:24 PM

No it does'nt. Not one reputable source would agree with that statement.

My mistake. Though in my experience that's how the word is typically used.

And yeah, I think it's a mistake to say that Bush was AWOL, though it would be nice if he could give a decent explanation for the gaps in his service record.

WatsonGlenn

08-23-2005, 06:04 PM

And yeah, I think it's a mistake to say that Bush was AWOL, though it would be nice if he could give a decent explanation for the gaps in his service record.

Nice backhand. I would like to see Kerry explain how the Swift Boar Veterans were wrong.

I'm suspicious when one side wants their war heroes to get a pass while denying that Bush is even veteran at all. It does not pass the smell test.

outlander78

08-23-2005, 06:26 PM

No it does'nt. Not one reputable source would agree with that statement.

I put an "I always thought" at the front of that sentence for a reason. Please quote whole sentences, at least.

You may well be right, but what do you mean by a reputable source?

bartl

08-24-2005, 05:58 AM

No it does'nt. Not one reputable source would agree with that statement.
Which is why there is the term, "combat veteran".

outlander78

08-24-2005, 11:47 AM

Which is why there is the term, "combat veteran".

Ah, there you go. Thanks.

DannoE

08-24-2005, 01:00 PM

Relevant to nothing, of course, is that if we have to nuke someone, at least the Iranians have it coming. Bastards. Next time don't screw with our Embassy!

Inkthinker

08-24-2005, 01:02 PM

Relevant to nothing, of course, is that if we have to nuke someone, at least the Iranians have it coming. Bastards. Next time don't screw with our Embassy!

Nuclear weapons are the height of indiscriminate destruction. Perhaps certain government leaders deserve a good kicking, but the children don't.

We don't HAVE to nuke anyone. But some of us sure would like to.

badMike

08-24-2005, 02:43 PM

Reminds me of the great Simpsons episode where Lisa falls in love with the school bully Nelson. She goes to his bedroom and sees a poster that reads: "Nuke the Whales."

Lisa: Nuke the whales?
Nelson: Gotta nuke somethin'.
Lisa: Touche.

WatsonGlenn

08-24-2005, 03:16 PM

I put an "I always thought" at the front of that sentence for a reason. </quote>

Then you "thought" wrong, if at all.

You may well be right, but what do you mean by a reputable source?

I may be right???? No sir. I am right! I'm completely right and you are completly wrong.

I'll tell you what, find me any source anywhere (other than you) that says a veteran is only someone who actually participated in a war or saw combat. Tell the hundreds of thousands of old soldiers, support personel and nurses who served in the military but outside of war or combat that they are not true veterans. This I want to see.

Its ok to be wrong but don't revel in it.

WatsonGlenn

08-24-2005, 03:18 PM

Relevant to nothing, of course, is that if we have to nuke someone, at least the Iranians have it coming. Bastards. Next time don't screw with our Embassy!

I can't stand Iran. But I don't want to nuke anyone. I also don't want them having nuclear weapons. Yes I know we have them and its not fair but I don't really care.

outlander78

08-24-2005, 06:21 PM

I may be right???? No sir. I am right! I'm completely right and you are completly wrong.

I'll tell you what, find me any source anywhere (other than you) that says a veteran is only someone who actually participated in a war or saw combat. Tell the hundreds of thousands of old soldiers, support personel and nurses who served in the military but outside of war or combat that they are not true veterans. This I want to see.

Its ok to be wrong but don't revel in it.

You amaze me. I asked a polite question, stated what my understanding was, while leaving room to be corrected, and then accepted when I was wrong. If someone steps on your foot and then apologizes, do you berate them for not standing their ground?

How does one revel in being wrong? I was merely attempting to be graceful rather than belligerent or mewling.

Hoss

08-25-2005, 07:42 AM

Like the ones John Kerry told to Congress?

Thanks for example, Bartl. Even though John Kerry was never brought up on perjury charges and even though John Kerry made sure to say that he was giving second had accounts, Bartl is still choosing to say Kerry lied to congress.

outlander78

08-25-2005, 08:07 AM

It's sad that such desperate attempts at sliming good men take hold. I guess people believe what they want to.

Out of curiosity, what was Kerry alleged to have lied about?

bartl

08-25-2005, 08:30 AM

It's sad that such desperate attempts at sliming good men take hold. I guess people believe what they want to.

Out of curiosity, what was Kerry alleged to have lied about?
Atrocities committed by American soldiers (or at least the frequency with which they happened). This is why so many Vietnam veterans were upset with him; the image of the out-of-control, insane Vietnam veteran made it extremely difficult for them to reintegrate with American society, and Kerry's testimony was at least part of the reason for this image. And please note that Kerry IS considered to be a hero by the Vietnamese government for his role in getting the United States to leave, and for getting the United States to ignore the treaty violations by the Communist govenrment, allowing them to commit atrocities that make even the worst of Kerry's accusations look mild by comparison.

If you don't believe me, ask any Vietnamese-American.

outlander78

08-25-2005, 11:44 AM

I believe you. Thanks for the information.

Is there still a stigma for Vietnam vets, or has it faded with time?

Inkthinker

08-25-2005, 01:23 PM

I believe you. Thanks for the information.

Is there still a stigma for Vietnam vets, or has it faded with time?

I think Vietnam is always going to be "America's Dirty Little War".

Considering that it was predicated on a lie (Tonkin) and the stereotyped image is of a man in a sweaty, steaming jungle being eaten alive by bugs and fungus fighting a guerilla war against an entrenched foe familiar with the landscape, it stands in sharp contrast to a war like WWII, which was also horrible but at least had some sense of nobility attached to it.

Iraq is very similar, but I think we're more supportive of our troops as people forced into a bad position by our administration... in Vietnam, people were angry with our soldiers... in Iraq, we're angry at our government. Which is probably more sensible.

WatsonGlenn

08-25-2005, 07:08 PM

You amaze me. I asked a polite question, stated what my understanding was, while leaving room to be corrected, and then accepted when I was wrong.

I don't see it that way at all but whatever.

DannoE

08-26-2005, 07:45 AM

You guys should read America's Longest War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072536187/qid=1125067319/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1919908-5633753?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and get some perspective on Vietnam. There was a lot going on, and you just can't sum it up with "it was good," or "it was bad." THAT kind of thinking is gonna make us nuke the whales, which at least has the virtue of being a winable war with a definable timeline for the re-deployment of forces home.

Inkthinker

08-26-2005, 10:43 AM

THAT kind of thinking is gonna make us nuke the whales, which at least has the virtue of being a winable war with a definable timeline for the re-deployment of forces home.

Nonsense. If you allow yourself that kind of thinking, then the whales win. We're nuking them there, so we don't have to nuke them here.

DannoE

08-26-2005, 10:52 AM

Very nice. :)

bartl

08-26-2005, 06:56 PM

Nonsense. If you allow yourself that kind of thinking, then the whales win. We're nuking them there, so we don't have to nuke them here.
He nukes them here,
He nukes them there,
George Bush is nuking everywhere,
Why can't anybody tell
That George Bush is the Lord of Hell?

fumetti

08-28-2005, 08:27 AM

Atrocities committed by American soldiers (or at least the frequency with which they happened). This is why so many Vietnam veterans were upset with him; the image of the out-of-control, insane Vietnam veteran made it extremely difficult for them to reintegrate with American society, and Kerry's testimony was at least part of the reason for this image.

Kerry only reiteraged an image that My Lia had already crystallized. If some people took the exception and applied it as a rule for every soldier, that's their own bad thinking. From what I heard of Kerry's testimony (on CSPAN), he never applied the "war criminal" designation to every soldier. Except when a whole platoon was ordered to carry out orders that were against the Geneva Convention, which did make them (unwittingly, technically) war criminals. That doesn't mean the soldiers who were following orders were bad, but that they were following bad orders and the end result was bad things done by our soldiers.

And please note that Kerry IS considered to be a hero by the Vietnamese government for his role in getting the United States to leave, and for getting the United States to ignore the treaty violations by the Communist govenrment, allowing them to commit atrocities that make even the worst of Kerry's accusations look mild by comparison.

If you don't believe me, ask any Vietnamese-American.

And I'm sure you can find a generation of North Koreans who were happy that Eisenhower bailed out of there in a six-month hurry in 1953. A decision that has led to that nation's own violations and atrocities...

But Kerry's role is overplayed. If there was no basis to his claims and no support for his goals, then he would have been one lone voice with no influence. Instead, a lot of Americans agreed with Kerry and it's that support that gave his words weight.

Whether any Vietnamese liked or disliked Kerry's speeches is pretty much irrelevant and incidental. Every day that Bush doesn't invade Iran can be spun into Bush embolding Iranian extremism by showing American weakness and cowardice. What matters is whether it's right or wrong, not whether we can silence the spin doctors (an impossibility, regardless). Enemies will make hay regardless of what we do.

bartl

08-28-2005, 09:07 AM

Except when a whole platoon was ordered to carry out orders that were against the Geneva Convention, which did make them (unwittingly, technically) war criminals. That doesn't mean the soldiers who were following orders were bad, but that they were following bad orders and the end result was bad things done by our soldiers.
My Lai was more than soldiers carrying out orders. Only the most radical believe that the soldiers were ordered, for example, to rape and torture the people there, or that babies were really enemy soldiers in disguise, or to kill surrendered people. And, of course, the newspapers were more silent about the soldiers who pointed their guns at their own people to stop the massacre. However, while this was an isolated incident, testimony like Kerry's made it appear that this was the rule rather than the exception.

fumetti

08-28-2005, 05:51 PM

My Lai was more than soldiers carrying out orders. Only the most radical believe that the soldiers were ordered, for example, to rape and torture the people there, or that babies were really enemy soldiers in disguise, or to kill surrendered people.

No, but soldiers were ordered to engage in "free fire" zones which were against the Geneva Convention. That technically makes all the participants guilty of war crimes. But our soldiers hated hearing that, because they believed they were doing (1) what was necessary to win and (2) what they were ordered to do. Kerry pointed out that these orders were making war criminals of otherwise honest soldiers. I thought that message was clear in Kerry's speech.

And, of course, the newspapers were more silent about the soldiers who pointed their guns at their own people to stop the massacre.

I don't think anybody would want to highlight that. It makes the crisis even worse by painting the soldiers so bloodthirsty that they had to be put down like dogs. I don't think emphasizing this part would have done anything good for our soldiers (a definite lose-lose).

However, while this was an isolated incident, testimony like Kerry's made it appear that this was the rule rather than the exception.

Even so, that testimony needed to be presented. Illegal and unethical behavior (as defined by our own government at the Neuremburg trials and Geneva conventions) was being done in America's name. If we're going to claim that we're the good guys of the world, we have to also act like it.

Drew Van T.

01-16-2006, 02:59 AM

At this potentially crucial moment (which makes it a topic worth reviving) with Iran being referred to the UN Security Council (with the intent of approving sanctions against it), it can't be emphasized enough that as with Iraq, this is more about oil than it is about anything else, including nukes.

Like Saddam's Iraq before it, Iran has made moves in recent years to challenge the dominance of the "petro-dollar". Until recently, every drop of oil in the world has been traded in US dollars - even the oil traded, say, from Iran to China. And arguably, the petrodollar is the main reason that the dollar has remained the world's most important currency until now.

Now, it's clear that the neocons in the administration wish to preserve dollar supremacy at any cost. When an important exporter like Iraq started trading its oil in Euros, some time before it was invaded, it was making an indirect assault on that supremacy. Two months after the invasion, occupied Iraq's oil trade was switched back into $$ and remains such to this day.

Iran, too, is approaching such a turning point. It is already demanding payments for oil exported to Europe and Asia in €€. Iran's reasons are political but also economical; politically, it aims to counter American foreign policy in the Middle East, of course. But it would also make economic sense: the European Union imports more oil from Iran than does the US, while the EU in turn provides 45% of Iran's imports. There are objective advantages from a Euro-denominated trade that have nothing to do with politics.

The turning point is that in March of this year, Iran will launch an Oil Bourse: an exchange that only accepts Euros, and therefore a direct competitor to New York's NYMEX and London's IPE, the exchanges which determine the petro-dollar. This would remove the only remaining obstacle to the Petro-euro's ascendancy and pave the way for other OPEC producers to adopt the same (Note that Iran is hardly the only one moving away from the dollar: Russia, China, Latin America and many other countries have been diversifying their financial reserves)

In my opinion, dollar supremacy being challenged is a natural development. The emergence of larger markets and other economic blocs inevitably brings with it the ascendancy of currencies like the Euro but perhaps also, in the future, the Chinese Renminbi. This is not a negative development, more of a neutral one, but it WILL reduce the economic influence of the US (the US banking sector, especially) and therefore constrain Bush's foreign policy by reducing one of its assets.

So the real question is: how far are the Neocons prepared to go to safeguard their cherished petro-dollar and Dollar supremacy? Are they crazy enough to militarily attack Iran because of it, even while tied down in Iraq? (the answer, IMO, is "you betcha").

Iran's new Oil Bourse should launch in March, so it's not unreasonable to expect it all to come to a head by that time. Referring Iran to the security council may just be the first step of a plan to prepare the American public for war with Iran.

Steven Grant

01-16-2006, 09:10 AM

bartl

01-16-2006, 01:46 PM

I don't think it's any coincidence that just at the moment when the Administration and the Neo-Cons are pushing toward war with Iran the Hand Puppet announces that he wants to legally limit anti-war speech...
It has been my contention that the U.S. should be putting AT LEAST as many resources towards ending our dependence on foreign oil as they are in fighting wars.

I haven't heard the quote to which you refer. On the other hand, I have never known you to make a statement you couldn't back up, so please take this as a request rather than a challenge: do you have a link to it, or can you give more detail about it if it isn't on the Internet?

Inkthinker

01-17-2006, 08:22 AM

I don't think it's any coincidence that just at the moment when the Administration and the Neo-Cons are pushing toward war with Iran the Hand Puppet announces that he wants to legally limit anti-war speech...

I hadn't heard that, though I did hear him implying that there's "good" and "bad" protesting, with what appeared to be the obvious suggestion that arguing against his foriegn policy was akin to providing succor to the "enemy".

Of course, any limits on our liberties and free speech would only be necessary during this time of war, of course...

:rolleyes:

ERoy

01-19-2006, 10:35 PM

I hadn't heard that, though I did hear him implying that there's "good" and "bad" protesting, with what appeared to be the obvious suggestion that arguing against his foriegn policy was akin to providing succor to the "enemy".

Of course, any limits on our liberties and free speech would only be necessary during this time of war, of course...

:rolleyes:

I love liberals, screaming about First Amendment rights while completely ignoring the Second Amendment.

I, for one, am tired of waiting for the enemy to strike. Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. They're know for harboring terrorists. Let's WAIT until they do have nukes, have a terrorist organization destroy an American city, and then attack? Nonsense. We strike first.

Steven Grant

01-20-2006, 11:15 AM

badMike

01-20-2006, 11:21 AM

I love liberalsThanks. We love you, too!

loki5

01-20-2006, 12:27 PM

Nonsense. We strike first.You know, cause that worked so well in Iraq.

(and for what it's worth, I say that as a guy who was born in Iran, hates the current regime there, and had no love lost for Saddam either)

Actually, these sorts of comments always remind me of a funny Non Sequitur comic (by Wiley Miller) from a few years ago where a guy is sitting in jail, lamenting to his cellmate 'Yeah, turns out the legal definition of 'preemptive strike' is just "assault and battery.'"

NatGertler

01-20-2006, 04:18 PM

ERoy

01-20-2006, 06:49 PM

Ya gotta love someone who, in the same message, criticizes a whole group for not supporting the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms... then suggest that we attack another group because they might get some arms.

Nit Pick: Iranians are not protected under our Constitution.

I'm against Iran getting "arms" (ie, Nuclear Weapons) because they will inevitably use them against us or one of our allies, and if you believe they won't, you are not living in the real world. The duty of our government is to protect our citizens. If a million Iranians need to die to save 1 American, I'm all for that.

NatGertler

01-20-2006, 07:29 PM

Nit Pick: Iranians are not protected under our Constitution.And heaven forbid we should have values and principles...
I'm against Iran getting "arms" (ie, Nuclear Weapons) because they will inevitably use them against us or one of our allies, and if you believe they won't, you are not living in the real world.Why yes. Now, given that the US is a country that has shown the historic willingness to use WMDs on civilian populations, what is the right thing for other countries to do to us?
If a million Iranians need to die to save 1 American, I'm all for that.Of course. You're free to hold ono to your bigotry. This is America. Me, I'm in favor of the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and don't see why those values should apply only to Americans.

bartl

01-20-2006, 08:33 PM

Of course. You're free to hold ono to your bigotry. This is America. Me, I'm in favor of the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and don't see why those values should apply only to Americans.
This is life and death, not share the toys time in pre-school.

sixstringguild

01-20-2006, 08:53 PM

I'm easily considered a Conservative and I am in favor of the war in Iraq, but just the talk of more war and killing just makes my heart ache. I am in favor of putting Iran's nuclear program down, but I am sick of reading about more wars and oil prices and the Iranian rhetoric...so on and so forth...

Jesus come quickly.

ERoy

01-20-2006, 09:07 PM

Iran is currently pursuing a nuclear power program. There's no evidence they're pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It's fairly easy for inspectors to tell the difference between the two, because they're different technologies that require different types of sophisticated and not readily available equipment.

I don't want them pursuing a nuclear power program, because I simply do not trust the country to stay legitimate in their research. Just because they're good at hiding their program does not mean they are not researching it.

I'm not saying Iran shouldn't be carefully watched, but there's no cause for war there.

You're saying that they should be watched, but they should be allowed to pursue a program that has the potential to harm Americans. I say they either put a stop to the program, or we should force them to put a stop to the program. No longer should the US being the punching bag for the rest of the world.

badMike

01-20-2006, 10:18 PM

If a million Iranians need to die to save 1 American, I'm all for that.Ahhh, forget it.

NatGertler

01-21-2006, 01:20 AM

This is life and death, not share the toys time in pre-school.Yes, it's life and death... and rooting for the killing of millions is taking the wrong side (and, far from making us safer, is apt to make us a more important and legitimate target.)

rogersuk

01-21-2006, 10:11 AM

Nit Pick: The duty of our government is to protect our citizens. If a million Iranians need to die to save 1 American, I'm all for that.

I don't usually comment on issues like this, because I fear I might end up in a slanging match with someone when all I really want to do is find out more about comics!

But I really have to take ERoy to task. Killing millions of another race to save one American is xenaphobia of the highest order. People are people and no nation or race has a right to be viewed as more worthy than another, no one life is more worthy than another. Living your life a certain way or in a certain place doesn't take away the fact that each and every one of us is part of the same race - the human race.

And if your government's duty is to protect it's citizens, then why were the black communities in New Orleans not rebuilt when planned. Or are some citizens less equal than others.

It's 2006, about time people treated each other as equals rather than seeing themselves as superior and able to dictate to the rest of the World purely because of their race or wealth.

Sabrinaset

01-21-2006, 04:38 PM

I don't usually comment on issues like this, because I fear I might end up in a slanging match with someone when all I really want to do is find out more about comics!

But I really have to take ERoy to task. Killing millions of another race to save one American is xenaphobia of the highest order. People are people and no nation or race has a right to be viewed as more worthy than another, no one life is more worthy than another. Living your life a certain way or in a certain place doesn't take away the fact that each and every one of us is part of the same race - the human race.

And if your government's duty is to protect it's citizens, then why were the black communities in New Orleans not rebuilt when planned. Or are some citizens less equal than others.

It's 2006, about time people treated each other as equals rather than seeing themselves as superior and able to dictate to the rest of the World purely because of their race or wealth.

How about if we put it in these terms: Do we kill millions of one country to save millions in another?

Which would we rather have? An Irridated Israel, or an Irridated Iran? Or both? Because if we let Iran go nuclear, we're gonna have the first. And then after we retaliate, we'll have the third. Maybe our only option IS the second one. At least the way Chirac is talking, we'll have France on our side this time.

Scary? Yeah. But what's the alternative? The Iranians aren't giving up their nuclear option.

The guy running Iran makes both Pat Robertson and Ray Nagin look sane by comparison, and you know he doesn't say anything that the Ayatollahs don't LET him say. The guys running Iran right now = scary.

Mabels Folly

01-21-2006, 07:02 PM

I love liberals, screaming about First Amendment rights while completely ignoring the Second Amendment.

I, for one, am tired of waiting for the enemy to strike. Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. They're know for harboring terrorists. Let's WAIT until they do have nukes, have a terrorist organization destroy an American city, and then attack? Nonsense. We strike first.

I love conservatives, 'cause you can be sure that they'll distort the facts, like you have to try and bludgeon their point across.

Iran is not, repeat, not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, as any 1/2 intelligent person could figure out from even a semi-close reading of the various docuemtns concerning the nuclear reactors in question, which aren't even outfitted for the production of weapons grade uranium or plutonium, nor does Iran have any plans to retrofit the existing reactors for such a purpose nor build new ones devoted to such a purpose. The reactors in question are used simply as an energy source.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sabrinaset

01-21-2006, 07:15 PM

Mabels Folly

01-21-2006, 09:02 PM

Mabels, the Iranians ARE trying to build a nuclear weapon and start a weapons program. They would like nothing more than to blow Israel and The Great Satan off the map. Considering these guys are sitting atop a huge resevoir of oil, the idea of them saying they need nuclear power for energy, when they have tons of it already is a pretty weak excuse coming from these guys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1677541,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4449860.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154244,00.html

The fact that you use FAUXNews as a cite automatically invalidates any claims you make in your posts in regards to the truth or any semblence of reality.

NatGertler,

...given that the US is a country that has shown the historic willingness to use WMD's on civilian populations...

Precisely what the hell are you talking about? Perhaps the atmic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

First of all, they were considered legitimate military targets as both had substantial numbers of Japanese troops stationed there.

More importantly, nuclear weapons have never been classified as WMD's.

Try again.

NatGertler

01-21-2006, 09:28 PM

First of all, they were considered legitimate military targets as both had substantial numbers of Japanese troops stationed there.Yes, and there were a ton of civilians there, many of whom were killed in the attack. Really. You may consider their slaughter "legitimate", but they were slaughtered nonetheless.
nuclear weapons have never been classified as WMD's.First off, I don't know of any definition of WMD that doesn't include nuclear weapons. Can you find any?

Second, if you're trying to claim atomic weapons have never been classified as WMDs, you're quite simply wrong. The atomic bombs were nuclear weapons. The term "weapons of mass destruction" actually predates the atomic bomb, going at least as far back as 1937, when it was used in describing the blanket bombing of Guernica. In the first resolution of the United Nations, they actually reference "...atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction". The FBI believes that "a weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders", a definition that atomic bombs clearly meet. 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332---a000-.html) on "Use of certain weapons of mass destruction" covers "Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces" as well as "Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life."

Most of these citations can be found in the Wikipedia entry on WMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD).

Sabrinaset

01-21-2006, 09:53 PM

The fact that you use FAUXNews as a cite automatically invalidates any claims you make in your posts in regards to the truth or any semblence of reality.

I think the fact that you didn't see, or care to comment upon the other three links says quite a bit as well. Are you going to consider the BBC a conservative source as well, now? The whole point of the multiple links was to provide a number of sources that all sides would find palatable. They all seem to agree that Iran is aiming towards something that you don't want to consider, and it seems as if you don't want to even read about it because FOX, among other sources, says so. If that's your philosophy, well okay, you're welcome to it, as long as I know where you're coming from. I'll try not to use the NYTimes or CBS as source material either, because all they do is make stuff up or forge their evidence.

Then again, if a nuclear weapon isn't considered a weapon of MASS destruction in your book, then I'm just not sure what else to say.

Paul McEnery

01-22-2006, 02:07 PM

Mabels, the Iranians ARE trying to build a nuclear weapon and start a weapons program. They would like nothing more than to blow Israel and The Great Satan off the map. Considering these guys are sitting atop a huge resevoir of oil, the idea of them saying they need nuclear power for energy, when they have tons of it already is a pretty weak excuse coming from these guys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1677541,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4449860.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154244,00.html
It's a little more subtle than that.

US intelligence is compromised at the moment. Absolutely nothing they came up with for Iraq was true; and in fact was spurred by political motivation by the White House.

Whether the British, Belgian, etc. intelligence agencies are equally compromised, I can't say; but I've got no reason to doubt them.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that we're ten years away from a bomb, at the earliest.

Nuclear energy programs do actually make sense, and many countries (the US and UK among them) are pursuing them. Me, I don't agree with that, but it's not beyond the bounds of plausibility. That's because the oil is running out. And not everyone thinks no further than the next ten years.

And I think we can safely say that, while Iran thinks Israel shouldn't be a state, and is righteously pissed off at American posturing (not to mention interference in the region), the idea that they'd pull a pre-emptive strike that would get them wiped off the planet is insane.

The idea that either Israel or the US would invade their country, OTOH, is not, as has been demonstrated.

Sabrinaset

01-22-2006, 02:39 PM

It's a little more subtle than that.US intelligence is compromised at the moment. Absolutely nothing they came up with for Iraq was true; and in fact was spurred by political motivation by the White House.
Whether the British, Belgian, etc. intelligence agencies are equally compromised, I can't say; but I've got no reason to doubt them.
Meanwhile, the BBC reports that we're ten years away from a bomb, at the earliest.Nuclear energy programs do actually make sense, and many countries (the US and UK among them) are pursuing them. Me, I don't agree with that, but it's not beyond the bounds of plausibility. That's because the oil is running out. And not everyone thinks no further than the next ten years.
And I think we can safely say that, while Iran thinks Israel shouldn't be a state, and is righteously pissed off at American posturing (not to mention interference in the region), the idea that they'd pull a pre-emptive strike that would get them wiped off the planet is insane.

The idea that either Israel or the US would invade their country, OTOH, is not, as has been demonstrated.

But these same intelligence agencies were saying the same thing during the Clinton Administration. Where was their political motivation, when Bill did essentially nothing with it? IIRC, Putin was telling Bush the same thing, what was his political motivation for telling W about the WMD? It's all pretty screwed up, but there is a heck of a lot more going on here than we know. I read abot this last year, but I'm too lazy to look it up ATM, that everyone was telling Saddam that he did have WMD but he really didn't because they were afraid they would look foolish (and then get killed), and there was the other theorey that Saddam wanted everyone to know that he had WMD because otherwise he would look weak in front of Iran...either way, he got caught up in a web of lies because the West believed he had WMD when he didn't.

The thing is, even Newsweek, hardly a bastion of right-wing thought, had a story about it this week, and seems fairly sure that Iran is up to something.

Israel darn sure will bomb Iran if it gets too close. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have spies in place to sabotage whatever gets built. But let me ask you something, Paul. If Iran gets too close, do you think Israel is justified in bombing the plant? Do you think they were justified in taking care of Saddams plans when he wanted to try his hand at nuclear weapons?

The idea that the Iranians may do what you suggest is insane, but then again, listen to the Iranian President. I wouldn't call him sane. And you know that whatever he says, the Mullahs and Ayatollahs have already approved of that message beforehand. These guys are true believers, Paul. I think you've spoken about what people who believe they talk to God, or Allah in this case, and who believe God talks back to them, are like. These are these same kind of guys. Applying rules of sanity to insane people usually doesn't work.

Ugoff

01-22-2006, 05:54 PM

I don't want them pursuing a nuclear power program, because I simply do not trust the country to stay legitimate in their research. Just because they're good at hiding their program does not mean they are not researching it.

You're saying that they should be watched, but they should be allowed to pursue a program that has the potential to harm Americans. I say they either put a stop to the program, or we should force them to put a stop to the program. No longer should the US being the punching bag for the rest of the world.

That's still not a reason to go to war. We can continue to monitor and inspect their power plants. Another war means more money for big business/friends of the Administration, thousands of dead US/Iranian civilans/soliders, more anti-American fervor in the Middle East which will fuel terrorism. It's time to stop provoking people around the world and take care of US citizens. It's not like they need nuclear weapons, we have so many here in the US. All they would have to do is send some terrorist(<is that spelled wrong,lol)to activate one of ours here. Concerning your "the US is being used as a punching bag" statement, that's not entirely true. I love America and I love living here and I would fight to protect my country if push came to shove but America isnt perfect. We've fucked up countries left and right. I cant remember who wrote the article concerning Iran cuz I usually dont read Permanent Damage but it was one of the best articles I've ever read. Every word is true. I dont think the Republicans or the Democrats are worthy to serve in our governtment right now. I do feel thought that some newspapers and news shows are trying to tell people how it is and what's going on but so many people are already so brainwashed. I think alot of it has to do with the whole morals/values/religion thing but that's not the only thing going on. There's also the huge gap between the haves and the have nots. From what I've read nuclear power plants arent as harmful to the environment as oil but I would have to do more research. Also there are fewer nuclear power plant explosions/accidents than oil/coal. That oil company cant remember which one that spilled lots of oil off the coast of Alaska still hasnt fully cleaned the place. I will definitely start reading Permanent Damage more. Thanks for the article whoever wrote it(I'll gonna go see what your name is,sorry i didnt remember it).

Adam Crocker

01-23-2006, 08:22 AM

Considering these guys are sitting atop a huge resevoir of oil, the idea of them saying they need nuclear power for energy, when they have tons of it already is a pretty weak excuse coming from these guys.

This whole argument strikes me as pretty disingenious since it pretty much is made while ignoring that Iran still has to import for it's energy needs and oil is only in finite supply.

If Iran gets too close, do you think Israel is justified in bombing the plant?

Maybe. Though whether it's necessarily a good idea is another matter.

Mabels, the Iranians ARE trying to build a nuclear weapon and start a weapons program. They would like nothing more than to blow Israel and The Great Satan off the map.

The idea that the Iranians may do what you suggest is insane, but then again, listen to the Iranian President. I wouldn't call him sane. And you know that whatever he says, the Mullahs and Ayatollahs have already approved of that message beforehand. These guys are true believers, Paul. I think you've spoken about what people who believe they talk to God, or Allah in this case, and who believe God talks back to them, are like. These are these same kind of guys. Applying rules of sanity to insane people usually doesn't work.

Well I guess it's time to re-state some arguments I have made earlier...

Whether the Ayatollahs and the Guardian Council approve Ahaminejad's remarks ahead of time is debatable. In another thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2488240&postcount=32) I pointed out how Ahaminejad's statements were at odds with the Foreign Ministry's responses and he ended up backtracking, which suggets someone at top made him take back his comments.

Also the logic you're going by suggests that Iranian foreign policy remains unchanged since the early years of the regime when it was trying to export an Islamic Revolution across the Middle East, which meant Iran was threatening even the theocratic government of Saudi Arabia. Yet foreign policy has significantly reoriented towards establishing relations with mid East governments because Iran realizes that it's long running isolation is unsustainable. It's even been establishing relations with Russia and the EU for similar reasons and to provide a diplomatic buffer against American military intervention. So standards of rational foreign policy do seem to apply here, as they do for Iran's reasons for wanting Nukes, namely as a deterrent against the U.S. given Bush's sabre rattling since the "Axis of Evil Speech."

Not that Iran getting nukes isn't a cause for concern, since the Iranian government is apparently divided (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2491019&postcount=65) between foreign policy hardliners and foriegn policy pragmatists, but I don't think that favours a military option since that would play into the hands of hardliners' who want nukes in any case. As near as I can tell only offering the Iranians dependence on Russia won't do much negotiation-wise when what they are looking for is insurance against U.S. invasion. It's questionable if an air strike can produce the same results the eighties when Iran has dispersed it's locations and put many of them underground, and that's about the most feasible military option that exists, but tell that to the administration.

No longer should the US being the punching bag for the rest of the world.

The U.S. is the punching bag for the rest of the world? News to me.

Michael P

01-23-2006, 09:47 AM

Jesus come quickly.
That's George's plan.

Nick Soapdish

01-23-2006, 09:52 AM

But these same intelligence agencies were saying the same thing during the Clinton Administration. Where was their political motivation, when Bill did essentially nothing with it? IIRC, Putin was telling Bush the same thing, what was his political motivation for telling W about the WMD? It's all pretty screwed up, but there is a heck of a lot more going on here than we know. I read about this last year, but I'm too lazy to look it up ATM, that everyone was telling Saddam that he did have WMD but he really didn't because they were afraid they would look foolish (and then get killed), and there was the other theorey that Saddam wanted everyone to know that he had WMD because otherwise he would look weak in front of Iran...either way, he got caught up in a web of lies because the West believed he had WMD when he didn't.

Essentially nothing ... except bomb (with the British) nearly 500 sites (including the famed aspirin factory). Ironically, the conservatives didn't seem to believe those reports at the time and claimed Clinton was just pulling a wag-the-dog.

If everybody says that Saddam had WMDs before 1998 and only the Brits and Americans are convinced that he still has them afterwards, I'm inclined to at least admit the possibility that maybe Clinton did take care of his WMDs and did so resoundingly enough to convince Saddam to stop wasting his time building them and start just posturing.

(I know the French had said conflicting things - including telling Bush that some of his evidence looked forged to them - which suggest that they weren't exactly convinced and the Germans didn't sound all that convinced by the evidence either.)

Drew Van T.

01-24-2006, 03:38 AM

(I know the French had said conflicting things - including telling Bush that some of his evidence looked forged to them - which suggest that they weren't exactly convinced and the Germans didn't sound all that convinced by the evidence either.)

It must be said that other intelligence agencies shouldn't be taken at face-value, either. They play their own games, and it's difficult to tell whether they're contradicting/undercutting the CIA or are actually cooperating with it, or even attempting to do both simultaneously.

For instance, it is becoming increasingly clear that some have helped the CIA to abduct and/or transport terror suspects across Europe - in violation of several treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights - while the agencies' governments either keep claiming that this isn't so, or in some cases seem genuinely unaware of the actions of their own intelligence operatives.

Similarly, it's not a straightforward case of Britain, France and Germany all "being on the same side this time, unlike with Iraq". Much of what they're doing seems with an eye towards preventing US aggression against Iran, not facilitating it (whether they're also succeeding in this is, of course, debatable). Even though Iran is being referred to the UN security council by the "Allies" right now, B/F/G are moving more slowly (by sending the case to the IAEA and Baradei first for more review) than many in the US Senate, among others, would want.

Steven Grant

01-24-2006, 08:23 AM

I don't want them pursuing a nuclear power program, because I simply do not trust the country to stay legitimate in their research. Just because they're good at hiding their program does not mean they are not researching it.

Which is the exact same logic we used to justify declaring war on Iraq. Just because we can't find any evidence they have or are creating weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they're better at hiding it than inspectors are at finding it.

You're saying that they should be watched, but they should be allowed to pursue a program that has the potential to harm Americans. I say they either put a stop to the program, or we should force them to put a stop to the program. No longer should the US being the punching bag for the rest of the world.

Pretty much any program any foreign government undertakes can in some way be construed to have the potential to "harm" Americans. It's not like Iran's nuclear power program hasn't been undergoing tons of scrutiny or they've been operating in a vacuum.

And if you look at the history of the last 60 years or so, traditionally the rest of the world has been the US's punching bag, not the other way around...

Steven Grant

01-24-2006, 08:42 AM

First off, I don't know of any definition of WMD that doesn't include nuclear weapons. Can you find any?

On a smaller scale, the USA is the current primary employer of depleted uranium weapons by a very, very wide margin...

Anyway, if WMDs don't include nuclear weapons, then in no way can Iran be said to be pursuing WMDs...

People also tend to forget that Israel has its own nuclear weapons, and has for several decades. Even if Iran were to develop nukes and lob them at Israel - which, believe me, I don't wish to see - there's that mutually assured destruction thing at work. There's no way Iran's major cities don't get hit in retaliation - you can bet Israel has them perpetually targeted the way we had Russian cities perma-targeted - and there's no way chunks of Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and most if not all of Lebanon and Syria don't get clipped by fallout and other effects. It's possible Iran wouldn't care about any of that, but it's an awfully big leap to make on sheer supposition...

NatGertler

01-24-2006, 09:54 AM

And unlike some of the other upcoming nuclear powers, Israel likely has delivery systems.

Drew Van T.

01-24-2006, 10:39 AM

People also tend to forget that Israel has its own nuclear weapons, and has for several decades. Even if Iran were to develop nukes and lob them at Israel - which, believe me, I don't wish to see - there's that mutually assured destruction thing at work. There's no way Iran's major cities don't get hit in retaliation - you can bet Israel has them perpetually targeted the way we had Russian cities perma-targeted - and there's no way chunks of Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and most if not all of Lebanon and Syria don't get clipped by fallout and other effects. It's possible Iran wouldn't care about any of that, but it's an awfully big leap to make on sheer supposition...

And whoever strikes first is going to become the pariah of the world, in a way that has never been seen before. Regardless of whether it's Iran or Israel, the actual, on-the-ground reality of the strike is going to be so mindbogglingly horrible that nobody will care whether it was a "preventive" strike or not. (You can get away with that sort of thing only once, and that one time was Hiroshima/Nagasaki, when nuclear weapons were untested and unknown.)

Whoever launched first will be condemned and vilified by the entire world ad infinitum. In purely military terms, the one who strikes first will be swiftly "ganged up" on by any number of countries, starting with their immediate neighbours.

Whatever their ideological convictions may be, I am convinced that both Iran and Israel can see this. Israel may be unpopular in many ways, but these days, it still manages to sell its oranges everywhere. Iran needs buyers for its oil. Et cetera.

bartl

01-24-2006, 08:27 PM

Which is the exact same logic we used to justify declaring war on Iraq. Just because we can't find any evidence they have or are creating weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they're better at hiding it than inspectors are at finding it.
You don't need fission or fusion bombs to create a nuclear weapon. Just put nuclear waste in a conventional bomb.

NatGertler

01-24-2006, 10:14 PM

If you don't have fission, you might have a radioactive weapon (as in the dirty bomb you describe), but you don't have a nuclear weapon as it is standardly defined.

SoulOnIce

01-25-2006, 09:32 AM

DannoE

02-02-2006, 10:29 AM

My only question is: How will we get the oil out from under their irradiated soil?

It's really a cost/benefit question. I mean, you want cheap oil, but drilling for it in full-on hazmat suits is gonna be expensive.

Steven Grant

02-03-2006, 02:46 PM

Not to mention hot as hell...

Origami

02-05-2006, 02:24 AM

I love conservatives, 'cause you can be sure that they'll distort the facts, like you have to try and bludgeon their point across.

Iran is not, repeat, not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, as any 1/2 intelligent person could figure out from even a semi-close reading of the various docuemtns concerning the nuclear reactors in question, which aren't even outfitted for the production of weapons grade uranium or plutonium, nor does Iran have any plans to retrofit the existing reactors for such a purpose nor build new ones devoted to such a purpose. The reactors in question are used simply as an energy source.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I thought this was a joke...

I'm late on this board, but, I'm just curious, are Liberals on this board this delusional? If you're a Liberal, do you actually believe Iran is not persuing a nuclear bomb?

If you do, just one retorical question:

Ever wonder why you guys can't win elections anymore, when you sound this insane??

:rolleyes:

Actually, right now, I believe Israeli's are doing exercises to hit targets in Iran.
Israeli's will never allow Iran to develope nuclear bombs, if they haven't developed them already.

Can't say Bush's Administration is entirely against it.

Also, got to love all the Libs making nothing but excuses for all the Nazi remarks by the so called Iranian President. If there are any Democaratic Jews here, aren't you disappointed by these "Neville Chamberlain's"?? Don't you think it's about time to join the Republican Party, if you haven't already? Were they ever your friends??
:cool: :cool:

badMike

02-05-2006, 10:50 AM

are Liberals on this board this delusional?Ever notice how "conservatives" like to stop by on this board screaming insults at "liberals" like they forgot to take their meds in the morning?

Grow up.

Origami

02-05-2006, 12:55 PM

Ever notice how "conservatives" like to stop by on this board screaming insults at "liberals" like they forgot to take their meds in the morning?

Grow up.

It's funny how Liberals never listening to what you're saying when they don't wanna have anything to do with the truth.

I just asked a very simple question: "Do You Believe Iran is NOT Persuing a Nuclear Project to Produce a Bomb?"

Very simple, very direct. Mind answering rather than avoiding the truth?

NatGertler

02-05-2006, 01:03 PM

bartl

02-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Funny, I remember hearing some similar attacks on this very discussion board against the "liberals" who were so "delusional" that they didn't believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It's a shame that tens of thousands of people had to die to prove those "delusional" folks right.
I have a friend who was a radio talk show host who got fired from a well-rated show (he had recently received a performance bonus for surpassing ratings goals) largely for expressing his belief that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Actually, to be more specific, we failed to find any weapons of mass destruction that weren't already documented by the U.N. inspectors, and, more surprisingly, failed to find several that WERE documented.

Currently, we have the 27th or so report that we now know what happened to the weapons. I'll await some confirmation until I believe it (or, to be more precise, I'll believe it when Hillary Clinton believes it).

badMike

02-05-2006, 01:41 PM

Very simple, very direct. Mind answering rather than avoiding the truth?Why don't you answer my question first? Nyah, nyah.

It's funny how conservatives refuse to answer simple, direct questions about themselves?

f. chong rutherford

02-09-2006, 08:07 PM

The fact that you use FAUXNews as a cite automatically invalidates any claims you make in your posts in regards to the truth or any semblence of reality.

NatGertler,

Precisely what the hell are you talking about? Perhaps the atmic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

First of all, they were considered legitimate military targets as both had substantial numbers of Japanese troops stationed there.

More importantly, nuclear weapons have never been classified as WMD's.

Try again.

This is a bizarre argument. The term 'weapons of mass destruction' has been in use since before World War II. After WWII, the first UN Resolution by the General Assembly was adopted on January 24, 1946. This resolution created the 'Atomic Energy Commission'. This agency was the predecessor to the International Atomic Energey Agency.

The charter very cleary defines atomic bombs and nuclear devices as 'weapons of mass destruction.' Here's a quote from it, which relates to the specific purposes of the AEC.

"5. Terms of Reference of the Commission
... the Commission shall make specific proposals:
... (c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction."

You can read the document yourself at the UN website.

Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/032/52/IMG/NR003252.pdf)

Drew Van T.

02-18-2006, 01:12 PM

Based on the fact that the Federal Reserve plans to stop publishing how many dollars are circulating in the world on March 23 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm), coupled with the fact that the Iranian oil bourse is scheduled to launch on March 20th...I put it to you that hostilities will open between March 20th and 26th (with the understanding that "hostilities" can mean anything from a minor Clinton-era-like bombing run on Iranian facilities, to a massive military enterprise).

Any takers? (All bets must needs be Euro-denominated :D ).

plainbrownwraper

02-19-2006, 07:06 AM

Atrocities committed by American soldiers (or at least the frequency with which they happened). This is why so many Vietnam veterans were upset with him; the image of the out-of-control, insane Vietnam veteran made it extremely difficult for them to reintegrate with American society, and Kerry's testimony was at least part of the reason for this image. And please note that Kerry IS considered to be a hero by the Vietnamese government for his role in getting the United States to leave, and for getting the United States to ignore the treaty violations by the Communist govenrment, allowing them to commit atrocities that make even the worst of Kerry's accusations look mild by comparison.Please, war is a bunch of kids with guns, it's always ugly, and atrocities happen all the time, on both sides, whoever they are - any war, all wars.

WWII was filled with atrocities, from bombing the French to fool the Germans into thinking the invasion of the continent would happen elsewhere, to Dresden to Mormon mountain troops crucifying and burning German captives during the battle of the bulge (from eyewitness accounts) - motivated by equally heinous atrocities perpetrated by these same Germans.

The current policy of rotating entire units rather than replacing losses one soldier at a time evolved during WWII when, guess who always got to take point? Replacement losses approached 100%.

Don't even start with the WWI, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, etc., and the whole world pretty much watched snipers shooting unarmed people and torturing prisoners in Iraq, otherwise you'd be denying that too.

War is a bunch of 18 year old kids with guns trying to kill each other: under unthinkable stress, and no other law than themselves - always has been, and it's never been "glorious", except to politicians and others who have never witnessed it first hand - it's basically one big atrocity after another: which is why you don't start one unless you have a very good reason.

plainbrownwraper

02-19-2006, 07:29 AM

I just asked a very simple question: "Do You Believe Iran is NOT Persuing a Nuclear Project to Produce a Bomb?"Pretty much everybody wants a nuclar weapon, this isn't a "simple questions", it's an egregious and transparent oversimplification: do they have the capabiity to produce both the weapons and the delivery system to be a threat now? No. Will they have such capability in the future? Possibly but no you're out the arena of hard fact, and into the "what if" realm of fantasy.

I'm sure they'd love to nuke Isreal someday, or at least a couple of them would, but invading them because of that isn't going to happen, we don't have the resources or the strategic positioning to do that - it's just more talk so that after you lose the next election you can accuse democrats of being soft for persung the same rational processes that we can persue, that republicans are forced to persue.

Why haven't you guys invaded Korea yet? Are ya soft or what? These guys can talk sh|t because they know with all our troops tied up in in a defensive posture in Iraq we're in no position to invade anybody.