Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Or stop lying.
I have consistently said, over and over, that we have every right to be suspicious of iran, and work aggresively to make their nuclear program more transparent.
I object to those, like you, beating the war drums AGAIN, based on guesses and allegations. Another trillion dollar war requires more than just your guesses and allegations.
Please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Or stop lying.
I have consistently said, over and over, that we have every right to be suspicious of iran, and work aggresively to make their nuclear program more transparent.
I object to those, like you, beating the war drums AGAIN, based on guesses and allegations. Another trillion dollar war requires more than just your guesses and allegations.
No one is starting a war. last I checked. Your constant attempt to equate any talk of nuclear weapons and Iran with an attack by us is stupid. Your the one that needs to learn to read and to stop lying.
You have though claimed no one but Bush thinks Iran is after the bomb.
So, now you've backtracked to THINKING iran might be building a bomb.
Let me remind you of the title of your thread:
"Remind us again how Iran is NOT...working on the bomb
You have repeatedly asserted with absolute certainty the Iran IS building a bomb. Without offering a shred of evidence to support it. The people in the best position to know - the inspectors on the ground - have found no evidence for your assertion.
Its fine with me, if you or bush want to think iran is building a bomb. Just don't try to sell another war based on assertions of absolute certainty. That's how you blundered us into the Iraq war.
Iran is problematic. Its possible there's some covert activity going on. The way to deal with that is aggresive diplomacy and inspections. Believe me, if Bush had ANY concrete evidence of a nuclear weapons program, he would share it with IAEA inspectors. Because that would be a coup de gras, to have IAEA inspectors bust Iran.
IMO, a nation controlled by Islamic extremists who are willing to kill themselves to murder those who will not cowtow to their beliefs should not be allowed to get anywhere near such a weapon of mass destruction.
There you go again with your lies. Iran is working on the bomb. The evidence is so convincing that the Security Council has passed two sets of sanctions on them for it and is working on a third set. And it is not just because Bush says so. Europe is VERY active in trying to stop Iran. And Bush has left them to their attempts.
There is aggressive diplomacy but not from all players. China, Russia and a few others are playing a game of one upmanship. It will bite them in the ass.
Last I checked not removing military action IS A FORM OF AGGRESSIVE DIPLOMACY. Making a blanket statement no military action will ever be taken would negate any power of any diplomacy. I will remind you even the Europeans have refused to take the military option off the table.
Your insistance that we are going to war is more unproven then my insistance Iran is building a bomb. Bush would need for Congress to approve any real action he tried to take. Remind us again, which party controls both houses of congress? Or are you claiming the Democrats are chomping at the bit to invade Iran?
The Security Council has adopted two resolutions, one last year and another this year, calling on a freeze of assets in Iran deemed to be linked to its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The aim of the resolutions is to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which Western experts say are part of a secret program to make a nuclear bomb.
There you go again with your lies. Iran is working on the bomb. The evidence is so convincing that the Security Council has passed two sets of sanctions on them for it and is working on a third set. And it is not just because Bush says so. Europe is VERY active in trying to stop Iran. And Bush has left them to their attempts.
There is aggressive diplomacy but not from all players. China, Russia and a few others are playing a game of one upmanship. It will bite them in the ass.
Last I checked not removing military action IS A FORM OF AGGRESSIVE DIPLOMACY. Making a blanket statement no military action will ever be taken would negate any power of any diplomacy. I will remind you even the Europeans have refused to take the military option off the table.
Your insistance that we are going to war is more unproven then my insistance Iran is building a bomb. Bush would need for Congress to approve any real action he tried to take. Remind us again, which party controls both houses of congress? Or are you claiming the Democrats are chomping at the bit to invade Iran?
Maybe YOU need to brush up on yours. WHO specifically in this thread is "beating a war drum?" Name names please. You've accused me, and I certainly am not.
Not agreeing with your head in the sand approach does not automatically mean one is ready for armed invasion.
Your arguments are completely irrelevant. The fact is Saddam produced, posessed and used WMDs, period.
Please produce factual evidence that Saddam gassing Iranians was with the approval of the Reagan administration. Good luck, because it wasn't. Just more smoke.
The fact is, you're trying to run a bluff with Monday morning quarterbacking and it's been called.
Now, if you would be so kind as to provide the aforementioned proof that Saddam used WMDs with Reagan's approval, we can move on from your blustering, and irrelevant defense, or rewording to "turned a blind eye."
Maybe I'm missing something, but are you responding to other posts you are quoting, in ways that zip to do with them? If so, shouldn't you do so on a new thread?Nearly every nation on earth with any significant military at all has weapons that destroy on a massive scale. That's what a modern military is all about. But so what? We don't go invading some country in asia because they have a C4 factory. We didn't attack the USSR, even though they had far more nuclear weapons than Iran is allegedly going to have in however many years. Constructing a massively destructive weapon is totally unremarkable, Tim McVeigh did it pretty easily. No, the existence of WMD doesn't mean anything, you have to prove that they're going to hand it off to some nut who wants to enter america.
On the other hand, we've buddied up with the military dictator of an Islamic nation, which does in fact have nukes. That would be Pakistan. Our aid to Musharif has cost him whatever support he might have had, so there's a chance he could be toppled. Then nukes really might fall into the hands of nutball Islamists.
1) Iraq fought Iran in the 1980's. [T/F]
2) The US supported Iraq in this war. [T/F]
3) The Iraqis used gas on Iranians. [T/F]
4) The gas attacks were in the mainstream press, on television, etc. [T/F]
5) The CIA is competent enough to know what was going on from inside sources, or at least turn on a television. [T/F]
6) This would seem to indicate that the gas attacks were probably known about, and not cared about, in the highest levels of US government. Assuming of course that the CIA passed the information along. [T/F]
6) The funding went on as the war dragged on, after the gas attacks were publicized in western media. [T/F]
Uhh...what? It's quite obvious what I'm responding to. Gunny said that there's no evidence that we supported Saddam even though he used gas attacks. I was pointing out that there's almost no way we couldn't have known about them. Granted, there is no smoking-gun memo, but I'm just going through a step-by-step exercise in logic, in order to show that it's very likely that we did know about it.
It was on the cover of Newsweek and on television, but our government didn't know about it?
