So, you admit that you're a war monger? Truth be told.
How so?
You rely on the warmongering rag Weekly Standard to "confirm" your beliefs. You know, the same publication that has been beating the war drums to bomb Iran. The same warmongering rag that beat the war drums for the war in Iraq. The same warmongering rag that has Neo-cons and Neo-con think tanks as contributors who also beat the war drums the loudest and incessantly for both the war in Iraq and now for a war with Iran. The same warmongering rag that probably gave George the term "Axis of Evil" and Condi, "we can't allow the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
What's the reason this week?
By reporting on Hezbollah's perceptions of "the deal" the article confirms my belief that this will likely be seen as a sign of american capitulation and weakness. Hezbollah recognizes as much as I do that sanctions will pretty much be lifted without any changes in Iranian behaviour. They will use this as reason to be more aggressive in the region. Does this mean it is time for war? No. But it does mean "the deal" might not be as fantastic as you hope.
Wow, you really are taken with propaganda. What was Hezbollah supposed to say? "Ah shit fuck, those Zionist, socialist, communist, Kenyan Americans and their western lackeys really beat us up bad, rubbed our noses in it and told us who's boss. Guess we're gonna have to comply with every western demand now an roll over because we really suck." Of course they're going to couch the outcome as one of "winning" and it benefitting them at home and in the region. Hezbollah has it's own separate agenda and has the most to loose with Iran working toward a nuclear agreement, eventual peace and joining the "western, 'civilized' world."
To what end does "being more aggressive in the region" benefit Iran and to what end. Spare me the destruction of Israel mantra. Please.
Canada can also pick up the tab of the $3 billion a year the US sends to Israel anytime, please, we have budget deficits and a huge debt crisis over here south of your border.
We send a lot to Israel. Harper and Bibi are tight.
A lot like $3 billion or a lot like 70 advisors to Iraq? Or a lot like one ship?
. They are without a doubt sponsors of terror and they without a doubt do seek regional hegemony. Allowing this to proceed poses great risk.
You have ZERO risk. Where is your fear derived? You have Canada, the US protecting your cushy little existence.
In the history of man you BS are probably the least threatened by anything. Lowest risk ever by any human group. Opposing forces, disease, famine, country taking you out with a bomb. You fucking have it made.
This is not the case for those in IRAN BTW.
You are being threatened by NOBODY other than YOUR own fear.
Get real.
I don't feel scared so not really understanding this line of attack either.
BS, I'm not attacking just trying to put some perspective in your personal safety, myself included. Interested in human history and look how fkn lucky we are and when I read posts on Iranian threat or risk I'm blown away at our lack of understanding that we have the best weapons, we have the money, we have the powerful friends. We are more Secure than any humans in history. Not The case for those in Middle East that are perceived to be the threat as pounded into our brains by the media. Imagine how you would feel if you were an Iranian ordinary citizen and had the threat of the US beat over your head.
So, you admit that you're a war monger? Truth be told.
How so?
You rely on the warmongering rag Weekly Standard to "confirm" your beliefs. You know, the same publication that has been beating the war drums to bomb Iran. The same warmongering rag that beat the war drums for the war in Iraq. The same warmongering rag that has Neo-cons and Neo-con think tanks as contributors who also beat the war drums the loudest and incessantly for both the war in Iraq and now for a war with Iran. The same warmongering rag that probably gave George the term "Axis of Evil" and Condi, "we can't allow the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud."
What's the reason this week?
By reporting on Hezbollah's perceptions of "the deal" the article confirms my belief that this will likely be seen as a sign of american capitulation and weakness. Hezbollah recognizes as much as I do that sanctions will pretty much be lifted without any changes in Iranian behaviour. They will use this as reason to be more aggressive in the region. Does this mean it is time for war? No. But it does mean "the deal" might not be as fantastic as you hope.
"American Weakness" boy wish I had a dollar for every time I heard this used to drum up the sheep. We have the bombs. We have the money we have the aircraft carriers. We have the special ops. We have the little remote control airplanes that can reach anywhere in the world and kill anyone. We have EVERYTHING. FUCK.
No worries once Bush back in White House the power circle will be back in place and we'll want to again bomb Iran and walk through the garden hand in hand.
No worries once Bush back in White House the power circle will be back in place and we'll want to again bomb Iran and walk through the garden hand in hand.
And he'll be cheering with his hard on all the way up in Canada.
"All in all it's no one's fault Excuses turn to carbon walls Blame it all on chemical intercourse The swallowed seeds of arrogance Breeding in the thoughts of ten Thousand fools that fight irrelevance
The full moon is dead skin The one down here's wearing thin So set up the ten pins As the human tide rolls in Like a ball that's spinning
Bombs dropping down Overhead, on the ground It's instilled To want to live Bombs dropping down Please forgive our hometown In our insignificance
"Turn the jukebox up," he said Dancing in irreverance Play C-3 Let the song protest
The plates began to shift Pefect lefts come rolling in I was alone and far away Hey When I heard the band start playing On the lip they take off
Bombs dropping down Overhead, underground It's instilled To want to live Bombs dropping down Please forgive our hometown In our insignificance
Feeling like resonance of distance In the blood the iron lies
It's instilled To want to live Bombs dropping down Please forgive our hometown In our insignificance"
No, because his untested 29 year old son as defense minister is going along with another appointee. Plus, the guy is 82 years old. Can't imagine he enjoys flying and the buggy woods. It's all about the future.
Tom Cotton wouldn't have the balls to go to the White House, never mind Saudi Arabia. He's going to play it safe.
No, because his untested 29 year old son as defense minister is going along with another appointee. Plus, the guy is 82 years old. Can't imagine he enjoys flying and the buggy woods. It's all about the future.
Tom Cotton wouldn't have the balls to go to the White House, never mind Saudi Arabia. He's going to play it safe.
Except he had the balls to serve in Afganistan and Iraq.
No, because his untested 29 year old son as defense minister is going along with another appointee. Plus, the guy is 82 years old. Can't imagine he enjoys flying and the buggy woods. It's all about the future.
Tom Cotton wouldn't have the balls to go to the White House, never mind Saudi Arabia. He's going to play it safe.
Except he had the balls to serve in Afganistan and Iraq.
I am a warrior, hear me roar. Can we view Tom Cotton's service record?
No, because his untested 29 year old son as defense minister is going along with another appointee. Plus, the guy is 82 years old. Can't imagine he enjoys flying and the buggy woods. It's all about the future.
Tom Cotton wouldn't have the balls to go to the White House, never mind Saudi Arabia. He's going to play it safe.
Except he had the balls to serve in Afganistan and Iraq.
Are the Saudi's going through the UN? The same UN that John Bolton is quoted as saying that you could level the top 10 stories of the Headquarters and it would make it better? As the US Ambassador to the UN? That UN? Or the UN that Cheney and Bush discounted and ridiculed when they were in Iraq looking for WMDs? Or the UN that the current crop of republican presidential candidates want to defund?
So the administration has clearly pissed off our allied Arab nations, as evidenced by 4 out of 6 of them snubbing him on his Camp David summit invite (including the new "King" of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), and we is pissing off a country, Iran, that we are trying to seduce (for reasons that are unclear).
This administration has no idea how to maintain a power position in foreign diplomacy. We are getting played by a bunch of kings and supreme leaders.
Are the Saudi's going through the UN? The same UN that John Bolton is quoted as saying that you could level the top 10 stories of the Headquarters and it would make it better? As the US Ambassador to the UN? That UN? Or the UN that Cheney and Bush discounted and ridiculed when they were in Iraq looking for WMDs? Or the UN that the current crop of republican presidential candidates want to defund?
Yes...that UN. Thank you for proving my point yet again. It is the same UN that you are relying on to conduct inspections once "the deal" is reached. If they can't go through this UN now you shouldn't expect them to abide by this UN later.
How exactly did I prove your point "once again?" You really are a hoot. You expect any of us to believe that you have faith in the UN and that if Iran went "through them" in delivering aid, you would accept it as legitimate? I might be an idiot in your view but I'm not that much of an idiot to believe that. I'll ask again, did the Saudi's go to the UN prior to bombing Yemen? Why should the Iranians and why are you now espousing their involvement? Should the Israelis go through the UN in addressing issues with Gaza or the West Bank?
I don't really expect you to answer though I do expect a pithy comeback about how you're the teacher and you "schooled" me.
How exactly did I prove your point "once again?" You really are a hoot. You expect any of us to believe that you have faith in the UN and that if Iran went "through them" in delivering aid, you would accept it as legitimate? I might be an idiot in your view but I'm not that much of an idiot to believe that. I'll ask again, did the Saudi's go to the UN prior to bombing Yemen? Why should the Iranians and why are you now espousing their involvement? Should the Israelis go through the UN in addressing issues with Gaza or the West Bank?
I don't really expect you to answer though I do expect a pithy comeback about how you're the teacher and you "schooled" me.
By now you should know that I always answer young padawan...
You are pushing for a deal that ultimately requires UN verification of non-proliferation. Now personally I have zero faith in the UN...you know that...however the inspection of this vessel is a small test of whether UN inspection of non-proliferation is even possible. Iran is currently under sanctions endorsed by the UN to both not buy and/or sell certain armements. As per my suggestion a small blockade has been put in place to enforce this. Iran has a choice to make...prove it wishes to comply or don't. Clearly you find this test and any scrutiny of Iranian actions to be offensive. Again some of us on here are interested in non-proliferation...you already created a "Help Iran Go Nuclear Thread" to cheer them on from.
If you believe that vessel is carrying banned nuclear arms, components, missile technology or anything else related to Iran's nuclear program, you would be correct. However, I seriously doubt the Iranians are exporting nuclear related material of any kind to Yemen. Please cite the specific UN resolution "or sanctions endorsed by the UN" that prohibit their "buying or selling of certain armaments." A small blockade of Canadian ships or is the US Navy enforcing the will of its commander in chief? Per your suggestion? What? Do you have a direct line to the commander of the sixth fleet or are you wearing your LBC attire tonight, having seized control, a la Al Haig style, and are in control? Non-proliferation? You're the one blindly supporting a state that exported nuclear technology and know how and still hasn't become a signatory to the NPF, not to mention to have committed war crimes on multiple occasions.
Yes, I'm not concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and here's why: they're not a doomsday cult or death cult as much as the end of days folks (Sarah Palin, Tom Cotton) and doomsday preppers would like them to be; NK, Pakistan and India have the bomb and nothing's happened yet; Soviet Union/Russia and US have a 70 year "Cold War" and it's been managed; the idea that Iran would nuke Israel, ensuring it's immediate and total destruction by the West, is immature thinking and fear mongering; Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would give them a seat at the table and ensure that they are dealt with from a position of mutual respect rather than weak lorded over by the powerful. The US and the West have been fucking with them since 1954, if not before, and I don't blame them for saying enough is enough. Plus, they saw what happened next door in Iraq. The illusion of strength sure has you quaking, though, doesn't it?
Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and the UN inspection teams got it right in Iraq. They reported that it was highly doubtful Iraq had WMDs or had reconstituted their nuclear, biological or chemical programs in violation of UN sanctions. Rove/Cheney slimed them repeatedly in the court of public opinion and wouldn't allow Iraq more time to comply with weapons inspections, all because the UN was not going along with the pre-determined and planned outcome, hatched prior to Bush taking office, by the Neocons as early as 1998. I believe the UN and the rigorous inspection process criteria being demanded in the negotiations can and will be effective as we can always fall back to our sanctions/military options.
EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: On March 7, ten years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNMOVIC) reported to the UN Security Council on the latest results of their inspections in Iraq, monitoring enforcement of the Council’s demand that Saddam Hussein eliminate his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and related programs.
The IAEA’s Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, and UNMOVIC’s Executive Chairman, Hans Blix, both reported progress, following the return of UN inspectors to Iraq in November 2002, in resolving critical questions about the current status of Iraq’s WMD programs.
Based on more than a hundred visits to suspect sites and private interviews with a number of individual scientists known to have been involved with WMD programs in the past, ElBaradei stated that the IAEA had “to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq” and predicted that the agency should be able to provide that Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq’s nuclear related capabilities “in the near future.”
Blix reported that destruction of Iraq’s al Samoud ballistic missiles, which had exhibited ranges beyond that allowed by the UN, was underway. Concerning the status of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs, Blix was less categorical. No stockpiles or active programs had been found, but it had not yet been possible to document destruction of all the weapons known to have been produced prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Blitz predicted that months but not years, would be needed to complete the job.
Washington Dismisses the Inspectors’ Findings
The Bush administration’s response to the inspectors’ reports was swift and negative, because their conclusions contradicted the allegations previously made by the U.S. government – for example, with regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD. The next day, President George W. Bush delivered a radio address to the American people, arguing that the inspection teams did not need any more time, because Saddam was “still refusing to disarm.”
Given Saddam Hussein’s “long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes,” the United States needed to be willing to use military force rather than waiting “to see what [he] would do with weapons of mass destruction.”
The administration was meanwhile seeking to win UN Security Council authorization to use military force against Iraq to achieve WMD disarmament. Prospects for receiving even a simple majority were uncertain, and three of the other four permanent (veto-wielding) members were opposed, so the issue was never put to a vote.
So, keep spouting from your morally superior pulpit and when it comes to a war with Iran, make sure Canada takes the lead while the US sits this one out.
Oh, I found these tidbits regarding your sanctimonious sacrilegeous sanctions:
Canada imposed a ban on dealing in the property of designated Iranian nationals, a complete arms embargo, oil-refining equipment, items that could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program, the establishment of an Iranian financial institution, branch, subsidiary, or office in Canada or a Canadian one in Iran, investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector, relationships with Iranian banks, purchasing debt from the Iranian government, or providing a ship or services to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, but allows the Foreign Minister to issue a permit to carry out a specified prohibited activity or transaction.[21]
Just in case you might want to make a deal that benefits your nation or campaign contributor(s), I suppose?
Israel banned business with or unauthorized travel to Iran under a law banning ties with enemy states.[28] Israel has also enacted legislation that penalizes any companies that violate international sanctions.[29] Following reports of covert Israeli-Iranian trade and after the US sanctioned an Israeli company for ties with Iran, Israel imposed a series of administrative and regulatory measures to prevent Israeli companies from trading with Iran, and announced the establishment of a national directorate to implement the sanctions.[30]
Don't let some silly sanctions get in the way of making a buck.
Hey I got to know, do you get a hard on and drool at the mouth whenever you come across anything against Iran? I have this weird image of you sitting on your computer just like I described.
Obama met with the #2, and #3 Saudi Arabian dudes and he fucked their names up. And he fucked up the name of the first king that met with FDR in 1945. Is he being passive aggressive or is his staff unable to use Google correctly?
Whatever the reason, these guys are already sketchy on Obama's partnering. Not knowing the names of your guests isn't going to help smooth out an already wishy-washy partnership.
Comments
To what end does "being more aggressive in the region" benefit Iran and to what end. Spare me the destruction of Israel mantra. Please.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/us-iran-tensions-appear-to-ease-in-strait-of-hormuz.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
only dissenter is....
tom cotton.
dimbulb of the senate.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
then again he is from arkansas, so he might be there for a few terms.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-wont-attend-camp-david-meeting.html?referrer=
"All in all it's no one's fault
Excuses turn to carbon walls
Blame it all on chemical intercourse
The swallowed seeds of arrogance
Breeding in the thoughts of ten
Thousand fools that fight irrelevance
The full moon is dead skin
The one down here's wearing thin
So set up the ten pins
As the human tide rolls in
Like a ball that's spinning
Bombs dropping down
Overhead, on the ground
It's instilled
To want to live
Bombs dropping down
Please forgive our hometown
In our insignificance
"Turn the jukebox up," he said
Dancing in irreverance
Play C-3
Let the song protest
The plates began to shift
Pefect lefts come rolling in
I was alone and far away
Hey
When I heard the band start playing
On the lip they take off
Bombs dropping down
Overhead, underground
It's instilled
To want to live
Bombs dropping down
Please forgive our hometown
In our insignificance
Feeling like resonance of distance
In the blood the iron lies
It's instilled
To want to live
Bombs dropping down
Please forgive our hometown
In our insignificance"
Tom Cotton wouldn't have the balls to go to the White House, never mind Saudi Arabia. He's going to play it safe.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-warns-us-against-stopping-yemen-bound-aid-110906555.html
No reason for them not to go through the UN.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So the administration has clearly pissed off our allied Arab nations, as evidenced by 4 out of 6 of them snubbing him on his Camp David summit invite (including the new "King" of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), and we is pissing off a country, Iran, that we are trying to seduce (for reasons that are unclear).
This administration has no idea how to maintain a power position in foreign diplomacy. We are getting played by a bunch of kings and supreme leaders.
I don't really expect you to answer though I do expect a pithy comeback about how you're the teacher and you "schooled" me.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You are pushing for a deal that ultimately requires UN verification of non-proliferation. Now personally I have zero faith in the UN...you know that...however the inspection of this vessel is a small test of whether UN inspection of non-proliferation is even possible. Iran is currently under sanctions endorsed by the UN to both not buy and/or sell certain armements. As per my suggestion a small blockade has been put in place to enforce this. Iran has a choice to make...prove it wishes to comply or don't. Clearly you find this test and any scrutiny of Iranian actions to be offensive. Again some of us on here are interested in non-proliferation...you already created a "Help Iran Go Nuclear Thread" to cheer them on from.
Yes, I'm not concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and here's why: they're not a doomsday cult or death cult as much as the end of days folks (Sarah Palin, Tom Cotton) and doomsday preppers would like them to be; NK, Pakistan and India have the bomb and nothing's happened yet; Soviet Union/Russia and US have a 70 year "Cold War" and it's been managed; the idea that Iran would nuke Israel, ensuring it's immediate and total destruction by the West, is immature thinking and fear mongering; Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would give them a seat at the table and ensure that they are dealt with from a position of mutual respect rather than weak lorded over by the powerful. The US and the West have been fucking with them since 1954, if not before, and I don't blame them for saying enough is enough. Plus, they saw what happened next door in Iraq. The illusion of strength sure has you quaking, though, doesn't it?
Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and the UN inspection teams got it right in Iraq. They reported that it was highly doubtful Iraq had WMDs or had reconstituted their nuclear, biological or chemical programs in violation of UN sanctions. Rove/Cheney slimed them repeatedly in the court of public opinion and wouldn't allow Iraq more time to comply with weapons inspections, all because the UN was not going along with the pre-determined and planned outcome, hatched prior to Bush taking office, by the Neocons as early as 1998. I believe the UN and the rigorous inspection process criteria being demanded in the negotiations can and will be effective as we can always fall back to our sanctions/military options.
EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: On March 7, ten years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNMOVIC) reported to the UN Security Council on the latest results of their inspections in Iraq, monitoring enforcement of the Council’s demand that Saddam Hussein eliminate his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and related programs.
The IAEA’s Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, and UNMOVIC’s Executive Chairman, Hans Blix, both reported progress, following the return of UN inspectors to Iraq in November 2002, in resolving critical questions about the current status of Iraq’s WMD programs.
Based on more than a hundred visits to suspect sites and private interviews with a number of individual scientists known to have been involved with WMD programs in the past, ElBaradei stated that the IAEA had “to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq” and predicted that the agency should be able to provide that Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq’s nuclear related capabilities “in the near future.”
Blix reported that destruction of Iraq’s al Samoud ballistic missiles, which had exhibited ranges beyond that allowed by the UN, was underway. Concerning the status of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs, Blix was less categorical. No stockpiles or active programs had been found, but it had not yet been possible to document destruction of all the weapons known to have been produced prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Blitz predicted that months but not years, would be needed to complete the job.
Washington Dismisses the Inspectors’ Findings
The Bush administration’s response to the inspectors’ reports was swift and negative, because their conclusions contradicted the allegations previously made by the U.S. government – for example, with regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD. The next day, President George W. Bush delivered a radio address to the American people, arguing that the inspection teams did not need any more time, because Saddam was “still refusing to disarm.”
Given Saddam Hussein’s “long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes,” the United States needed to be willing to use military force rather than waiting “to see what [he] would do with weapons of mass destruction.”
The administration was meanwhile seeking to win UN Security Council authorization to use military force against Iraq to achieve WMD disarmament. Prospects for receiving even a simple majority were uncertain, and three of the other four permanent (veto-wielding) members were opposed, so the issue was never put to a vote.
http://armscontrolnow.org/2013/03/05/the-cost-of-ignoring-un-inspectors-an-unnecessary-war-with-iraq/
So, keep spouting from your morally superior pulpit and when it comes to a war with Iran, make sure Canada takes the lead while the US sits this one out.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Canada imposed a ban on dealing in the property of designated Iranian nationals, a complete arms embargo, oil-refining equipment, items that could contribute to the Iranian nuclear program, the establishment of an Iranian financial institution, branch, subsidiary, or office in Canada or a Canadian one in Iran, investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector, relationships with Iranian banks, purchasing debt from the Iranian government, or providing a ship or services to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, but allows the Foreign Minister to issue a permit to carry out a specified prohibited activity or transaction.[21]
Just in case you might want to make a deal that benefits your nation or campaign contributor(s), I suppose?
Israel banned business with or unauthorized travel to Iran under a law banning ties with enemy states.[28] Israel has also enacted legislation that penalizes any companies that violate international sanctions.[29] Following reports of covert Israeli-Iranian trade and after the US sanctioned an Israeli company for ties with Iran, Israel imposed a series of administrative and regulatory measures to prevent Israeli companies from trading with Iran, and announced the establishment of a national directorate to implement the sanctions.[30]
Don't let some silly sanctions get in the way of making a buck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran
Sleep tight Cap'n
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Firing on a Singapore ship headed for the UAE now
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/persian-gulf-iranian-boats-shots-fired/index.html
Whatever the reason, these guys are already sketchy on Obama's partnering. Not knowing the names of your guests isn't going to help smooth out an already wishy-washy partnership.
businessinsider.com/obama-committed-gaffe-with-saudi-leaders-2015-5