Remind us again how Iran is not...

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Shogun]

im a little disappointed in the "alternative to invasion and nuking the shit out of iran" tangent....

 

[mattskramer]

I hope that Bush holds back on his itchy trigger finger. Let our spies confirm that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Then supply information to other nations and call on them to support strong sanctions and demand inspections. Be cautious but let’s not rush to judgment. Our military is stretched pretty thin. If we go blasting into Iran too soon, won’t that further encourage moderate Muslim groups to put aside their differences and oppose America? I don’t propose that we hid with our heads in the sand. We should stay alert, see what is going on (even if we must rely on our CIA and intelligence (errr)) and be cautious.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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?

 

[eots]

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.

IMO, a nation controlled by right wing extremists who are not willing to kill themselves but send your children to murder those who will not kowtow to their beliefs should not be allowed to get anywhere near such a weapon of mass destruction.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
kow·tow /ˈkaʊˈtaʊ, -ˌtaʊ, ˈkoʊ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kou-tou, -tou, koh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object) 1. to act in an obsequious manner; show servile deference.
2. to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling, as an act of worship, reverence, apology, etc., esp. in former Chinese custom.
–noun 3. the act of kowtowing.

Also, kotow.


[Origin: 1795–1805; < Chin kòutóu lit., knock (one's) head]

 

[DeadCanDance]

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?

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.

False.

Iran has been subjected to sanctions because they haven't made their nuclear program transparent enough to satisfy international observers.

If you have proof they are current building a bomb, please provide it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/w...a24b13255b3ef3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Now I wonder why if only the US believes this the term Western Experts was chosen? And by the NY Times.

Further I wonder why in this article it is clear that Europe supports the sanctions and even supports US "unilateral" actions. I guess Bush and his mystical mind control ray have been in hard use lately.

 

[doniston]

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?

I would chime in about here, but you are doing just fine without me. Goody-goody.

 

[eots]

VIENNA, Austria — U.N. nuclear agency tests have concluded that traces of highly enriched uranium on centrifuge parts were from imported equipment — rather than from any enrichment activities by Iran, a senior Western diplomat said Saturday.

The findings support Iran's claims that the material entered the country together with centrifuge parts provided by Pakistan (search). The diplomat who confirmed the results spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

"The source of contamination was not related to Iran," said Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi (search). "We are sure the source is not internal."

The United States has alleged the material was produced by Tehran (search) and the particles were evidence that Iran was experimenting with producing highly enriched uranium, which is only used in nuclear weapons.

The traces were found on centrifuges in the city of Natanz in 2003 and raised concerns about the motives behind Iran's nuclear activities. Iran has insisted it is only interested in processing low-enriched uranium to generate electricity.


The International Atomic Energy Agency has been testing centrifuge parts provided by Pakistan as well as uranium found on centrifuges bought by Iran on the nuclear black market. Pakistan provided the components earlier this year to compare the traces and assess Iran's claims of innocence.

Both the agency and the White House declined to comment on the findings.

On Friday, Iran's supreme ruler said his country does not intend to build nuclear weapons, but it will continue to enrich uranium because it does not want to be dependent on others for its nuclear fuel needs.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also said Western claims Iran is secretly trying to make weapons are "a propaganda trick to deceive their own public opinion."

.

 

[eots]

(AFP) Hillary Clinton is jumping out ahead of Bush in urging a more hostile policy toward Iran.



Hillary Clinton is demanding that Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.


By Robert Parry

So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.

In her view – and that of 75 other members of the U.S. Senate – President Bush hasn’t been aggressive or hasty enough in designating a large part of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guards, as an international terrorist organization.

The Senate resolution, approved on Sept. 26, recounts allegations that elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have supplied Iraqi Shia fighters with “explosively formed penetrator” bombs that have shattered U.S. armored vehicles and killed American troops.

In response, the Senate resolution calls on President Bush to list the Revolutionary Guards as “specially designated global terrorists.” In opposing the resolution, Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned that the move could be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Despite Webb’s protest, 29 Democrats joined Republicans and neoconservative Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to pass the “sense of the Senate” resolution. The Democrats egging Bush on included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, California’s Dianne Feinstein and Michigan’s Carl Levin.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana were the only Republicans voting no. Democratic presidential hopefuls Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also opposed the measure. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was absent but said he would have voted against it.

But Hillary Clinton, who also voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in 2002 and staunchly supported the war for the next three years before reinventing herself as an Iraq War critic, now has reverted to her old hawkish self, jumping out ahead of Bush in urging a more hostile policy toward Iran.

Besides the extraordinary notion that Bush needs prodding into greater belligerence, there is the dangerous definitional problem of throwing the broad cloak of “terrorism” over Iraqis, who are resisting a U.S. military invasion force, and their alleged Iranian allies.

The classic definition of terrorism is violence directed against civilians to make a political point. The term shouldn't be applied to an indigenous population fighting an irregular war against a foreign occupying army, since that would have made everyone from George Washington to the French Resistance to the Afghanis confronting the Soviet occupation "terrorists."

Though Americans understandably detest anyone killing U.S. soldiers – whatever the circumstances – it is not "terrorism." In effect, the Senate resolution is choosing to use “terrorist” as a geopolitical curse word against any combatant who challenges U.S. military might.

While that "tough-guy/gal" stance might make political sense domestically – condemning anyone who dares take up arms against U.S. soldiers – the risk is that once the word “terrorist” is attached, it effectively dictates a course of action: negotiations with "terrorists" are prohibited and a host of draconian actions become unavoidable, even if they are counterproductive.

With a peaceful solution off the table, violence is almost guaranteed to escalate; more U.S. soldiers are likely to die; and American interests may be damaged. One might have thought that the lesson of loosely applying the epithet “terrorist” to an adversary would have been learned from the debacle that followed Bush falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

That is a lesson now measured by the blood of some 3,800 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. But it is a lesson that Hillary Clinton and those other senators – with their fingers to the political winds – apparently still haven’t learned.

-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now reminds us again how we have no reason to worry cause the UN says so....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/2...rannuclear_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

Your buddies the UN do not know and have made that information classified so that they cn continue to lie about what they know about.

Now remind us how it is all our fault the Iranians are lying to the world and the UN.

 

[Lookout]

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.

Thump, Thump, Thump...I am...Put me on the list of war drum beaters.
By the way, just what does a war drum look like? I have a snare drum, will that work?
Look... Crap is going to hit the fan sooner or later anyway, I don't believe there is a way around it. Planet earth is only so big and there is only so much oil, water etc...So why not now? You gotta admit, It will be one hell of a show and what a way to go...No one gets out of here alive anyway and what kind of a life does the next couple generations have to look foreward to? What...Learning how to exist underground in 150 degree heat with no water?...The end is Mad Max anyway so lets quit prolonging the suffering and get it over with!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

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.

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.

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."

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]

 

[Annie]

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]

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?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

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.

 

[manu1959]

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 is also just as likely we didn't.....

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It was on the cover of Newsweek and on television, but our government didn't know about it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It was on the cover of Newsweek and on television, but our government didn't know about it?

There is no evidence we supplied them with materials to make such weapons.