- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Irans Nukes.
Irans Nukes.Follow
Not to belabor the obvious, but all of the Ivy League degrees on the planet can't help a liberal make a correct policy decision.
And all the pretention can't make a conservative realize they've bedded with a goddamn moron.
Good thing I'm not pretentious then. I happen to think Shrub presents himself as a ****** most of the time. Given the options available in the last 2 elections I certainly won't apologize, though.
Yeah, I can empathize with that. ******* Democrat scrubs.
#56REDACTED,
Posted: Dec 07 2007 at 6:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh boy. Another blind neocon. Good ol' US is doomed... You rather mess with worlds affairs than fix our country. So sad... Its like David Koresh just on larger scale. Go ahead drink that, it will make you feel good... i]
Quote:
notears
1 post
1 post
Suck it, c'ock snot. Sack up and show me who you are.
Actually, with Paul Wolfowitz now the chairman of the International Security Advisory Board (An 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, that advises Condy Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters) it really isn't any wonder that our policy towards Iran hasn't changed even with "new" information.
I mean, come on, with a record as superb as his (Chief Architect of the War in Iraq & the disgraced former President of the World Bank") we're lucky to have him in such a position (& one that requires no Senate Confirmation!)
Hell, one senior official is even credited as saying “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job.â€
Edited, Dec 7th 2007 7:11pm by Omegavegeta
I mean, come on, with a record as superb as his (Chief Architect of the War in Iraq & the disgraced former President of the World Bank") we're lucky to have him in such a position (& one that requires no Senate Confirmation!)
Hell, one senior official is even credited as saying “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job.â€
Edited, Dec 7th 2007 7:11pm by Omegavegeta
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Gonna respond to your questions Palpitus.
I think the key issue here is that it's about "nuclear non-proliferation". The objective is to try to prevent nations that do not already possess nuclear weapons from building them. The reasoning is simple. The more nations who possess them, the greater the odds that one will be used.
We don't go after Pakistan, Israel, India, or China on this issue specifically because they've already built them. Can't really stop proliferation if it's already proliferated, right? You have to stop it *before* said nation builds a bomb. Seems inherent in the word "non-proliferation", but just in case that's not clear I figured I'd clarify it a bit.
This isn't just something the US cooked up. All the nations of the world agreed that this was a good idea and a good goal when they signed the NPT. Perhaps the biggest difference is that (as usual) the US is one of the few nations in the world actually willing to do something to enforce it. So that means that we have to take some sort of action against nations like North Korea and Iran on this issue.
I think it's a bit unfair to condemn that basic policy. Questioning *how* the policy is being enforced is valid, but simply arguing that it's somehow "wrong" for us to try to prevent Iran from building nukes is (IMO) an invalid argument.
I think the key issue here is that it's about "nuclear non-proliferation". The objective is to try to prevent nations that do not already possess nuclear weapons from building them. The reasoning is simple. The more nations who possess them, the greater the odds that one will be used.
We don't go after Pakistan, Israel, India, or China on this issue specifically because they've already built them. Can't really stop proliferation if it's already proliferated, right? You have to stop it *before* said nation builds a bomb. Seems inherent in the word "non-proliferation", but just in case that's not clear I figured I'd clarify it a bit.
This isn't just something the US cooked up. All the nations of the world agreed that this was a good idea and a good goal when they signed the NPT. Perhaps the biggest difference is that (as usual) the US is one of the few nations in the world actually willing to do something to enforce it. So that means that we have to take some sort of action against nations like North Korea and Iran on this issue.
I think it's a bit unfair to condemn that basic policy. Questioning *how* the policy is being enforced is valid, but simply arguing that it's somehow "wrong" for us to try to prevent Iran from building nukes is (IMO) an invalid argument.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Perhaps the biggest difference is that (as usual) the US is one of the few nations in the world actually willing to do something to enforce it.
Did you even look at this?
As long as your military is participating in this sort of behaviour, you have no right whatsoever to push the "us freedom loving civilised nations are more responsible than the rest of the world" opinion.
Nuclear weapons arn't just of the type that make great big mushroom clouds. In fact if you were more honest you would accept that DU munitions are at least as harmful to civilians as a full power nuclear bomb.
The US has one of the worst records of anyone when it comes to so called non-proliferation.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
This isn't just something the US cooked up. All the nations of the world agreed that this was a good idea and a good goal when they signed the NPT. Perhaps the biggest difference is that (as usual) the US is one of the few nations in the world actually willing to do something to enforce it. So that means that we have to take some sort of action against nations like North Korea and Iran on this issue.
I think it's a bit unfair to condemn that basic policy. Questioning *how* the policy is being enforced is valid, but simply arguing that it's somehow "wrong" for us to try to prevent Iran from building nukes is (IMO) an invalid argument.
I think it's a bit unfair to condemn that basic policy. Questioning *how* the policy is being enforced is valid, but simply arguing that it's somehow "wrong" for us to try to prevent Iran from building nukes is (IMO) an invalid argument.
Well not all nations agreed, Israel and India never signed (?), and Pakistan and North Korea pulled out. The principle of the Treaty is indeed to limit the possibilty of nuclear war, and of proliferating nukes. But then Bush decides maybe the most powerful country in it should make tactical nukes, to be used against Non-nuclear countries in routine warfare. Even if that fell apart, or he changed his mind, that's the kind of thinking that destroys the treaty. That it's principles are ignored and are only enforced to gain a stratgeic advantage. A principle of subjective interests rather than blind care for the world.
It's not wrong to try to prevent Iran from building nukes, but it wasn't for Pakistan either, and their development occurred well after India and Israel. Luckily for them they a) weren't a party to the treaty and more importantly b) at various points over the last 20 years the US wanted something from them so eased sanctions, ignored them, etc. And I doubt if Iran had withdrawn 10 years ago the US would be doing anything different today. We ignore allies with regards to nukes, while using non-proliferation as a lever against enemies. If they're in the NPT great, more leverage. If they're part of a UN treaty such as Iraq was, even better. But make no mistake--doesn't matter what international agreements or laws they're violating or not even party too--the US will use its muscle to protect our interests and that of our allies foremost. NOT to fight proliferation for its own sake, blind to the particular bents of individual countries.
The NPT and non-proliferation principles are of interest equally to the entire world. Not just important to a clique or certain kind of people, to be ignored with allies and enforced against enemies. Not wrong to try to prevent Iran from getting nukes, however it was wrong to not do so with the same vehemence against Pakistan, or others before it.
Lol. I don't tend to get my information from obvious propaganda sites. The format alone, combined with the hyperbole-laden statistics is the first hint that I'm nog going to get realistic and non-biased information from the site (apparently every single case of cancer worldwide is caused by DU devices? Seriously?...).
It also has *nothing* to do with nuclear proliferation, nor with nuclear weapons, or even with nuclear power. Just because all of those things can be built using the same element does not mean that they have anything at all to do with each other. It's as silly as the nutjobs who march in front of nuclear power plants with signs reading "No Nukes!".
But, if we were to address the issue it's still pretty questionable. I'd be looking at the chemicals used in the explosives and not the depleted uranium shells themselves for the source of cancer and birth defects. On a side note, you did notice that virtually all the pictures of stricken kids showed kids with obvious burn or poison damage, not actual birth or cancer defects, right? You'd think that if the site was about cancer and birth defects caused by DU weapons, they'd actually restrict their "horror show" pictures to those showing birth defects and cancer victims. It's the first of many hints that it's about hype and not fact.
If the depleted uranium itself was that harmful then how is it that marines who train regularly using those weapons aren't suffering negative effects? Oddly, those who served in the first gulf war did (the original "gulf war syndrome"), and there's obviously signs that similar problems are occurring after the more recent conflict. But isn't it interesting that it's only when those weapons are used "in the field" that we're seeing such dramatic negative effects? They're the exact same weapons that an old friend of mine used to load and fire from his tank at Pendelton. They handle massive amounts of them all the time. They inspect the impact sites all the time. They're literally walking over piles of dust left from decades of firing those weapons at the same target locations over and over, yet we're not seeing any significant rates of those symptoms among those soldiers.
If a few big battles in scattered locations were causing so much toxicity from the UD alone to make people that sick, everyone stationed on any military base with a firing range that uses them should be completely polluted and unihabitable from the toxins. Yet that's not the case. Clearly, it's something other then the depleted uranium in the rounds themselves. Simple logic really.
It also has *nothing* to do with nuclear proliferation, nor with nuclear weapons, or even with nuclear power. Just because all of those things can be built using the same element does not mean that they have anything at all to do with each other. It's as silly as the nutjobs who march in front of nuclear power plants with signs reading "No Nukes!".
But, if we were to address the issue it's still pretty questionable. I'd be looking at the chemicals used in the explosives and not the depleted uranium shells themselves for the source of cancer and birth defects. On a side note, you did notice that virtually all the pictures of stricken kids showed kids with obvious burn or poison damage, not actual birth or cancer defects, right? You'd think that if the site was about cancer and birth defects caused by DU weapons, they'd actually restrict their "horror show" pictures to those showing birth defects and cancer victims. It's the first of many hints that it's about hype and not fact.
If the depleted uranium itself was that harmful then how is it that marines who train regularly using those weapons aren't suffering negative effects? Oddly, those who served in the first gulf war did (the original "gulf war syndrome"), and there's obviously signs that similar problems are occurring after the more recent conflict. But isn't it interesting that it's only when those weapons are used "in the field" that we're seeing such dramatic negative effects? They're the exact same weapons that an old friend of mine used to load and fire from his tank at Pendelton. They handle massive amounts of them all the time. They inspect the impact sites all the time. They're literally walking over piles of dust left from decades of firing those weapons at the same target locations over and over, yet we're not seeing any significant rates of those symptoms among those soldiers.
If a few big battles in scattered locations were causing so much toxicity from the UD alone to make people that sick, everyone stationed on any military base with a firing range that uses them should be completely polluted and unihabitable from the toxins. Yet that's not the case. Clearly, it's something other then the depleted uranium in the rounds themselves. Simple logic really.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji wrote:
If a few big battles in scattered locations were causing so much toxicity from the UD alone to make people that sick, everyone stationed on any military base with a firing range that uses them should be completely polluted and unihabitable from the toxins. Yet that's not the case. Clearly, it's something other then the depleted uranium in the rounds themselves. Simple logic really.
So you're saying the sand in the desert mixed with the DU is what is making them sick, not just the DU by itself? Or perhaps it's the blood of muslims on them that cause the sickness?
Just more reasons to get out of the Middle East then. Simple logic, really.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
What I find hilarious is all the piling-on you Bush haters do despite who it is the NIE was discussing-- as if Iran is this lilly white, purer-than-driven-snow country like Luxemburg or Sweden or something. Never mind that Bush & Co. has publically admitted to having incorrect information (unlike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who continues to claim things like the Holocaust never happened, for instance), but no, somehow Iran is just as each of you had so loudly proclaimed for the past several years: that they are innocent little lambs in a US-led slaughterfest out there in the Middle East.
Oh yeah, that right. None of you actually defended Iran until this last week-- until your favorite target of derision- Bush -held a press conference about Iran's nuclear capability.
Totem
Oh yeah, that right. None of you actually defended Iran until this last week-- until your favorite target of derision- Bush -held a press conference about Iran's nuclear capability.
Totem
Not to belabor the obvious, but all of the Ivy League degrees on the planet can't help a liberal make a correct policy decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
its true.
for instance, i dont think a liberal could have decided to invade iraq instead of the people who attacked us.
i dont think a liberal would have passed the california wild fire bill that allowed individual states to take private property under immenant domain and sell it to for profit developers.
i dont think a liberal would have given the oil industry a record breaking tax break at a time when they were reaping more profits than any industry in the world.
i dont think a liberal would have passed an education bill without making at least some attempt to fund it.
i dont think a liberal would have fought so hard to squash a bill designed to give more children health care..
you are absolutly correct, if you take into account what is "correct" to the right wingers, no ivey league liberal would have made a "correct" decision on any type of policy.
they might, however, have made much better decisions for the wellfare, health and prosparity for the people living in THIS country. infact, i dont think anyone could have done much worse than the idiots running this country right now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
its true.
for instance, i dont think a liberal could have decided to invade iraq instead of the people who attacked us.
i dont think a liberal would have passed the california wild fire bill that allowed individual states to take private property under immenant domain and sell it to for profit developers.
i dont think a liberal would have given the oil industry a record breaking tax break at a time when they were reaping more profits than any industry in the world.
i dont think a liberal would have passed an education bill without making at least some attempt to fund it.
i dont think a liberal would have fought so hard to squash a bill designed to give more children health care..
you are absolutly correct, if you take into account what is "correct" to the right wingers, no ivey league liberal would have made a "correct" decision on any type of policy.
they might, however, have made much better decisions for the wellfare, health and prosparity for the people living in THIS country. infact, i dont think anyone could have done much worse than the idiots running this country right now.
You're so cute when you get all up in your communist rhetoric.
Lol. I don't tend to get my information
Indeed.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Meh, we just get annoyed when we're lied too. "WMDs...Slam Dunk...Mission Accomplished" et al. Then we usually get the back peddling, the justifications change, and the Administration finds new excuses while continueing to "stay the course".
Bush found out about "new intelligence" last summer, but didn't bother to find out what it was until after he went and mentioned Iran & WWIII in a speech that justified the two because of Iran's attempt at making WMDs (which they stopped about 3 years ago.)
If it wasn't Bush, the "I was too stupid to ask about the new intel." excuse wouldn't fly. But it is, so the war posturing will continue unabted.
Bush found out about "new intelligence" last summer, but didn't bother to find out what it was until after he went and mentioned Iran & WWIII in a speech that justified the two because of Iran's attempt at making WMDs (which they stopped about 3 years ago.)
If it wasn't Bush, the "I was too stupid to ask about the new intel." excuse wouldn't fly. But it is, so the war posturing will continue unabted.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Quote:
somehow Iran is just as each of you had so loudly proclaimed for the past several years: that they are innocent little lambs in a US-led slaughterfest out there in the Middle East.
Explain to me why I should be more afraid of Iran having nukes then say the U.S or Israel or Pakistan?
Why should I trust a country who already used nuclear weapons on civilian population Twice or a country with a history of aggression against it's neighbor and no respect for any international convention over one with no history of aggression whatsoever?
And don't tell me it's because Ahmadinejad said so and so... the guy is a puppet with no decisional power on state matters.It's like making up my opinion of U.S foreign policy based on what Ann Coulter thinks.
in my countries defense...we wanted to show the world how badass or new toys were...now they all lyke ZOMG teh uber bombs...and now...america thinks it can do what it wants as proven by out 4 trillion deficit
Totem wrote:
What I find hilarious is all the piling-on you Bush haters do despite who it is the NIE was discussing-- as if Iran is this lilly white, purer-than-driven-snow country like Luxemburg or Sweden or something. Never mind that Bush & Co. has publically admitted to having incorrect information (unlike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who continues to claim things like the Holocaust never happened, for instance), but no, somehow Iran is just as each of you had so loudly proclaimed for the past several years: that they are innocent little lambs in a US-led slaughterfest out there in the Middle East.
Oh yeah, that right. None of you actually defended Iran until this last week-- until your favorite target of derision- Bush -held a press conference about Iran's nuclear capability.
Totem
Oh yeah, that right. None of you actually defended Iran until this last week-- until your favorite target of derision- Bush -held a press conference about Iran's nuclear capability.
Totem
I started "defending" Iran about three months into the Iraq War as soon as Rumsfeld and others began their pre-invasion rhetoric to it as well. I started "defending" Iraq from invasion about eight months before when Rumsfeld and others flat lied about the Czech Iraq-9/11 meeting.
Hell if I was alive at the time I would've defended Iran from US interference in 1953. Yeah, hard to stay an innocent little country if US ***** are overthrowing your rulers and implanting dictators.
Feelz, to answer your question with a serious answer would simply give your naivete' more gravitas than such foolishness is worthy of or deserves. The fact that you would make such comparisons is prima facie of the utter silliness of your line of reasoning. Henceforth, refrain from participating in the discussion when the adults are speaking, please.
Palpitus, note that around the time when we took some Iranian operatives/diplomats/terrorists in for questioning and we began to make noises about invading Iran the improved IEDs slowed or stopped coming into Iraq. Saber rattling had a definite purpose: to keep Iran on the sidelines while we engaged in our work. Marginalizing Iran is a priority for every adminstration ever since the Shah was overthrown. It was one of the reasons Syria, but not Iran was invited last week to the conference at Annapolis to discuss peace between Palestine and Israel. Doing so left Iran on the outside looking in, wishing they could gain international prestige by partcipating in the talks. As it was, it was if they were excluded from the Oscar's A-listers party and had to go to the People's Choice award party instead. It humiliated them-- a very good thing in my eyes.
Totem
Palpitus, note that around the time when we took some Iranian operatives/diplomats/terrorists in for questioning and we began to make noises about invading Iran the improved IEDs slowed or stopped coming into Iraq. Saber rattling had a definite purpose: to keep Iran on the sidelines while we engaged in our work. Marginalizing Iran is a priority for every adminstration ever since the Shah was overthrown. It was one of the reasons Syria, but not Iran was invited last week to the conference at Annapolis to discuss peace between Palestine and Israel. Doing so left Iran on the outside looking in, wishing they could gain international prestige by partcipating in the talks. As it was, it was if they were excluded from the Oscar's A-listers party and had to go to the People's Choice award party instead. It humiliated them-- a very good thing in my eyes.
Totem
Doing so left Iran on the outside looking in, wishing they could gain international prestige by partcipating in the talks. As it was, it was if they were excluded from the Oscar's A-listers party and had to go to the People's Choice award party instead. It humiliated them-- a very good thing in my eyes.
Right, because in that region, being seen as an enemy to the US plays SO poorly. Iran's statue globally increases every time the US does something so petty. If they had been left out of a meeting in Damascus, that would mean something. This plays perfectly for them, bringing them closer to Arab groups who have a natural distrust for Persians. Unsubtle and ineffective, as was declaring their intelligence paramilitary apparatus a "terrorist group" while ours is participating in wholesale torture while being stupid enough to videotape it.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Feelz, to answer your question with a serious answer would simply give your naivete' more gravitas than such foolishness is worthy of or deserves. The fact that you would make such comparisons is prima facie of the utter silliness of your line of reasoning. Henceforth, refrain from participating in the discussion when the adults are speaking, please.
Way to dodge the question but I'll leave it at that.
Smash, by including them in the discussions in Maryland, it lends to the Iranians an importance we should not easily confer-- at least until they demonstrate more moderate stances on things like, oh, wiping Israel from the face of the earth and things of that nature.
I agree that ultimately Iran needs to be included in the process of peace in the Middle East, but until the final vestiges of radical Ayatollah-ism is gone Iran will continue to be marginalized by its stance on many many issues regarding its role in that region. As it is, the next generation to hold power-- the university students, the intelligensia, the educated professionals --are chafing under the old ideas of Islamic revolution. In a few years country hicks like Ahmadinejad and the know-nothings of the old guard will pass and perhaps a new Iran will emerge. We'll see.
Feelz, if you can ask with a straight face for reasons as to why certain countries are capable of handling nuclear weapons and others are not, then you are incapable of understanding my answer. Use of atomic materials and weapons is not an automatic black mark against the United States-- it's the indiscriminate use that makes various countries ineligble for admittance to the Nuclear Club. An analogy: Your father may own and drive a car. Assuming he is responsible and has good judgement, we can take for granted he will not recklessly endanger others while using it. You, on the other hand, will be 9 years old for the purposes of this argument. While your legs are long enough to reach the pedals and you have a rudimentary knowledge of how a vehicle works, it goes without saying that you should not have the keys to the family automobile. Boiled down this is the reason:
United States = your dad
9 year old snot nosed kid = Iran, North Korea, Chechnyans, etc etc
Please tell me you understand this on a cellular level, and that you don't believe wielding strategic weapons is something that everyone should participate in. Please. If not, you and your ilk are the very reason I despair for our future.
Totem
I agree that ultimately Iran needs to be included in the process of peace in the Middle East, but until the final vestiges of radical Ayatollah-ism is gone Iran will continue to be marginalized by its stance on many many issues regarding its role in that region. As it is, the next generation to hold power-- the university students, the intelligensia, the educated professionals --are chafing under the old ideas of Islamic revolution. In a few years country hicks like Ahmadinejad and the know-nothings of the old guard will pass and perhaps a new Iran will emerge. We'll see.
Feelz, if you can ask with a straight face for reasons as to why certain countries are capable of handling nuclear weapons and others are not, then you are incapable of understanding my answer. Use of atomic materials and weapons is not an automatic black mark against the United States-- it's the indiscriminate use that makes various countries ineligble for admittance to the Nuclear Club. An analogy: Your father may own and drive a car. Assuming he is responsible and has good judgement, we can take for granted he will not recklessly endanger others while using it. You, on the other hand, will be 9 years old for the purposes of this argument. While your legs are long enough to reach the pedals and you have a rudimentary knowledge of how a vehicle works, it goes without saying that you should not have the keys to the family automobile. Boiled down this is the reason:
United States = your dad
9 year old snot nosed kid = Iran, North Korea, Chechnyans, etc etc
Please tell me you understand this on a cellular level, and that you don't believe wielding strategic weapons is something that everyone should participate in. Please. If not, you and your ilk are the very reason I despair for our future.
Totem
Recent Visitors: 182
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (182)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Irans Nukes.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC