Home› A Moving Train

Obama in office = ok to admit Iran has a nuclear plant

bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
edited September 2009 in A Moving Train
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns ... stn_africa

Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Personally, I certainly never was foolish enough to "trust" Amadinejad (sp?). Of course they have always being seeking nuclear technology... and of course it is for the purpose of eventual development of a bomb.

    Why shouldn't they? Some close neighbors that they aren't too friendly with have nuclear bombs. Seems like any sovereign nation would want to develop some nuclear weapons to defend themselves from those nations.

    Unless of course Israel and ALL others let the UN inspect their COMPLETE disarmament... then yeah... Iran shouldn't have access to nuclear technology.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    I don't think anyone questioned what Iran was doing? I know I think it would have been dumb for the US to show how big of balls we had and just bomb the shit out of them instead of trying the diplomatic approach.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • theoceansmademetheoceansmademe Posts: 1,132
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?ns=world_news-mideastn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.

    I am a liberal and I don't recall "us" spouting off there was no nuclear threat.

    Let's look back in history and see what nation is the biggest nuclear threat...hint it is the country that used 2 bombs in WWII.

    And like the previous poster, if all their neighbors have bombs why can't they?

    "Drilling for fear it makes the job simple"
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    I just said it was a bad idea to invade Iran and I don't give a fuck how many nukes they build.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?ns=world_news-mideastn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.
    The story I read said that the US knew about this facility for a year; Obama is now publicizing it to put 'maximum pressure' on Iran. BOTH the dems and rep's hid knowledge of it. So why are you making it a partisan issue? You guys are so quick to point fingers at the other side....
    There is something fishy about the way this is happening, but not because it's the Dems announcing it or libs not denouncing it...it's fishy that they'd wait a year, period.

    I think you'll find that most of the people that complain about the way this is handled are complaining about hypocrisy, not that there is nothing to worry about. The US has more nukes than anyone, has allegedly broken the non-proliferation treaty in the past, and supports other nations that have....
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    obama has already said there will be sanctions and maybe more if iran proceeds. what the hell do you want him to to, invade immediately????

    i say we let every country over there have the bomb and we will have mutually assured destruction in the region. is it fair for the countries that have the bomb, including us, to say "we have the bomb but you can't have one and if you do we will bomb you!!"? if iran and the other non nuclear nations get the bomb it is a definite game changer in that we will no longer be able to bully and impose our will on those countries.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?ns=world_news-mideastn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.
    ...
    Examples, please.
    Where are some examples of "Libs spouting off that there was no nuclear threat"? Surely, there must exist an IAEA report or some 'liberal' columist stating that Iran was not a nuclear threat a year ago... that's where you got you opinion from, right? I mean, you aren't stupid enough to think that people would take your word at face value, right? So... where are the articles... reports... news reports?
    I'm neither Liberal nor Conservative... i just hate the idiotic lies that the dumbest from both sides fling at each other. I'm asking for something I can read for myself because some of us have been following this Iran thing for the past 6 or so years, now. No one i know ever thought that. The only people we knew of were the dim-witted morons who pulled facts out of their asses and said we were thinking these things.
    i believe that maybe those people would be better off and fully within their comfort zone if they just went back to the Porch and participated in the 'Pictures Where Eddie Looks HOT' threads.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Anyway, who's saying that this uranium enrichment plant was being used to create weapons? Iran still maintains that it's only seeking atomic power for the production of electricity, and there's no evidence to prove otherwise.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    bootlegger10 wrote:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns ... stn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.


    you want to know where i am?? im right here. hi.


    you think just cause obama admits iran has a nuclear plant that we should retrospectively give credence to a statement bush made that they are a threat?? how does that logic work??

    the fact that a country has a nuclear facility doesnt automatically make them a nuclear threat. if iran were a nuclear threat israel would have done what it did with iraq and bombed the fuck out of it.

    rules?? you speak of rules?? do israel and all the other countries that are actually nuclear armed follow the rules??? and whose rules are they?? their own?? yes i always thought putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was a stellar idea.

    the united states and friends invaded a sovereign nation based on the extremely faulty premise that the country in question had weapons of mass destruction. i imagine theyll come up with some equally paltry excuse to punish iran too.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    catefrances wrote:
    bootlegger10 wrote:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns ... stn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.


    you want to know where i am?? im right here. hi.


    you think just cause obama admits iran has a nuclear plant that we should retrospectively give credence to a statement bush made that they are a threat?? how does that logic work??

    the fact that a country has a nuclear facility doesnt automatically make them a nuclear threat. if iran were a nuclear threat israel would have done what it did with iraq and bombed the fuck out of it.

    rules?? you speak of rules?? do israel and all the other countries that are actually nuclear armed follow the rules??? and whose rules are they?? their own?? yes i always thought putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was a stellar idea.

    the united states and friends invaded a sovereign nation based on the extremely faulty premise that the country in question had weapons of mass destruction. i imagine theyll come up with some equally paltry excuse to punish iran too.
    i think "punish" has such a negative connotation. were you maybe thinking that the US would "liberate" or "give freedom" to iran?

    rules are easy, whomever has the nukes makes the rules....its messed up i know, but the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon is the one making rules and judging moral conduct.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    catefrances wrote:
    you want to know where i am?? im right here. hi.


    you think just cause obama admits iran has a nuclear plant that we should retrospectively give credence to a statement bush made that they are a threat?? how does that logic work??

    the fact that a country has a nuclear facility doesnt automatically make them a nuclear threat. if iran were a nuclear threat israel would have done what it did with iraq and bombed the fuck out of it.

    rules?? you speak of rules?? do israel and all the other countries that are actually nuclear armed follow the rules??? and whose rules are they?? their own?? yes i always thought putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was a stellar idea.

    the united states and friends invaded a sovereign nation based on the extremely faulty premise that the country in question had weapons of mass destruction. i imagine theyll come up with some equally paltry excuse to punish iran too.
    ...
    The Great Irony here... Saddam Hussein's secular regime served to work as a buffer against the fundamentalist Iran. With the emergence of the new, Maliki (Shi'ia) Iraq, the opening now exists between the Shi'ia Iranians and the Shi'ia Iraqi majority. The quotas of Hussein's Iranian Shi'ite immigration from Iran no longer exists. This will allow the Shi'ites to gain a greater majority in Iraq.
    If i were a Shi'ite... an minority in the Sunni majority of the greater region... I would want to form a bloc with the like minded sect in the region to strengthen my bargaining power. Bush unwittingly opened the door for an Iraq/Iran Shi'ia bloc in the region.
    There was a reason why the Sunni Arab states of Saudi Arabia and Egypt didn't join the 'Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed'... they liked the Sunni Hussein buffer against the fundamentalist Shi'ia Persians of Iran.
    ...
    I know the detractors here will ask why I feel this way... I would suggest that they read up on the 8 year stalemate between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. A brief analysis can be found here:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... n-iraq.htm
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    bootlegger10 wrote:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns ... stn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.


    you want to know where i am?? im right here. hi.


    you think just cause obama admits iran has a nuclear plant that we should retrospectively give credence to a statement bush made that they are a threat?? how does that logic work??

    the fact that a country has a nuclear facility doesnt automatically make them a nuclear threat. if iran were a nuclear threat israel would have done what it did with iraq and bombed the fuck out of it.

    rules?? you speak of rules?? do israel and all the other countries that are actually nuclear armed follow the rules??? and whose rules are they?? their own?? yes i always thought putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was a stellar idea.

    the united states and friends invaded a sovereign nation based on the extremely faulty premise that the country in question had weapons of mass destruction. i imagine theyll come up with some equally paltry excuse to punish iran too.
    i think "punish" has such a negative connotation. were you maybe thinking that the US would "liberate" or "give freedom" to iran?
    rules are easy, whomever has the nukes makes the rules....its messed up i know, but the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon is the one making rules and judging moral conduct.

    yes of course... thats exactly what i was thinking. ;)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Prince Of DorknessPrince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    In our defense, the previous time Bush had cried WMD Wolf, we looked REALLY silly once we went in there. :lol:
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,499
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Anyway, who's saying that this uranium enrichment plant was being used to create weapons? Iran still maintains that it's only seeking atomic power for the production of electricity, and there's no evidence to prove otherwise.


    C'mon...sniff test it...hidding this plant because it's being used to make energy? Really?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,499
    theoceansmademe wrote:
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?ns=world_news-mideastn_africa

    Yeah, when Bush talked tough about Iran the IAEA and all the libs were spouting off that there was no nuclear threat. Bush leaves office and all of sudden Iran does have nuclear ambitions and when the IAEA a year ago stated that there was no nuclear threat, they were wrong.

    What a joke. Where are all the libs now saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions and is following the rules? Where are you? Oh yeah, Obama is in office. All is well. Just listen to Backspacer.

    I am a liberal and I don't recall "us" spouting off there was no nuclear threat.

    Let's look back in history and see what nation is the biggest nuclear threat...hint it is the country that used 2 bombs in WWII.

    And like the previous poster, if all their neighbors have bombs why can't they?

    "Drilling for fear it makes the job simple"


    I just love when people throw out stupid talking points and follow it up with a cheesy lyric of no significance.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • DB41DB41 Posts: 539
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Really?
    I can't believe you would think a nuclear-armed Iran is a good thing. Their president is an instigating psychopath who is inviting more conflict in the region. I'm not scared of a nuclear-armed Israel bc I believe they only have it to deter attacks and not to actually use... Who knows with Iran?
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Deebs41 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Really?
    I can't believe you would think a nuclear-armed Iran is a good thing. Their president is an instigating psychopath who is inviting more conflict in the region. I'm not scared of a nuclear-armed Israel bc I believe they only have it to deter attacks and not to actually use... Who knows with Iran?

    really?? why are you of that opinion? what in israels foreign and domestic relations history has led you to that belief??
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Deebs41 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Really?
    I can't believe you would think a nuclear-armed Iran is a good thing. Their president is an instigating psychopath who is inviting more conflict in the region. I'm not scared of a nuclear-armed Israel bc I believe they only have it to deter attacks and not to actually use... Who knows with Iran?

    How many times has Israel attacked one of it's neighbours in the past 50+ years?

    How many times has Iran attacked one of it's neighbours in the past 50+ years?

    Israel:

    * 1948 War of Independence (November 1947 - July 1949)

    * The Sinai War (October 1956)

    * Six-Day War (June 1967)

    * War of Attrition (1968-1970)

    * Yom Kippur War (October 1973)

    * First Lebanon War (1982)

    * Second Lebanon War (summer 2006)

    * Operation Litani (March 1978)

    * The fighting in Southern Lebanon (1985 - 2000)

    *2006 Lebanon War

    * Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)


    Iran:

    None
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Deebs41 wrote:
    Really?
    I can't believe you would think a nuclear-armed Iran is a good thing. Their president is an instigating psychopath who is inviting more conflict in the region. I'm not scared of a nuclear-armed Israel bc I believe they only have it to deter attacks and not to actually use... Who knows with Iran?

    Also, have you forgotten that just last year Israel asked permission from the U.S to attack Iran?

    And yet you accuse Iran of instigating conflict? This looks decidedly like a case of turning reality on it's head.

    Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... estinians1
  • DB41DB41 Posts: 539
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Also, have you forgotten that just last year Israel asked permission from the U.S to attack Iran?

    And yet you accuse Iran of instigating conflict? This looks decidedly like a case of turning reality on it's head.

    Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... estinians1

    I don't mean to come across as downplaying Israel's actions in recent years, but it seems as if you're blaming Israel for its entire war history (correct me if I'm wrong), which is unfair.
    I don't think violence should ever be the first, second, third or hundredth option, but if I was an Israeli citizen I'd be concerned that Iran has demanded that my country be wiped off the map and then begins developing nuclear weapons. That's all I'm saying.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Deebs41 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    Also, have you forgotten that just last year Israel asked permission from the U.S to attack Iran?

    And yet you accuse Iran of instigating conflict? This looks decidedly like a case of turning reality on it's head.

    Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... estinians1

    I don't mean to come across as downplaying Israel's actions in recent years, but it seems as if you're blaming Israel for its entire war history (correct me if I'm wrong), which is unfair.
    I don't think violence should ever be the first, second, third or hundredth option, but if I was an Israeli citizen I'd be concerned that Iran has demanded that my country be wiped off the map and then begins developing nuclear weapons. That's all I'm saying.

    Give me one instance where Israel was attacked first, other than in 1973 when Egypt and Syria attacked in order to reclaim land stolen by Israel in the war of 1967? They attacked first in 1948 - despite the story that the Israeli's like to tell - and they attacked first in 1967, again, despite the lies they've concocted about this event over the years.
    Israel is an aggressive militaristic state as has been shown time and time again. They massacred 1600 Gazans just this year. They massacred over 2000 Lebanese in 2006. This is recent history. How does Iran compare? It doesn't. There's no comparison. I can't find even one instance of any hostile action by Iran against it's neighbours. If you can find me any example of Iranian aggression then I'll be only too pleased to hear about it.


    And the Iranian leader didn't say that he wanted Israel wiped off the map. He said that he wanted to see the present Israeli leadership disappear in the sands of time.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Personally, I'd like to see Iran have nuclear weapons. It would act as a buffer of sorts to Israel's nuclear arsenal and it's continuous aggression in the region.

    Anyway, who's saying that this uranium enrichment plant was being used to create weapons? Iran still maintains that it's only seeking atomic power for the production of electricity, and there's no evidence to prove otherwise.


    C'mon...sniff test it...hidding this plant because it's being used to make energy? Really?

    I was under the impression that we'd laid the smack down on any nuclear plant in Iran, whether it was for energy or weapons. If that's the case, they'd have to hide it regardless of what purpose it was intended to serve.
Sign In or Register to comment.