yea I agree. and its nice we havent been attacked since 9/11 but until we leave Iraq and the Israel issue is worked out, the threat will remain. maybe more now then before 9/11
Head up backside.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
yea I agree. and its nice we havent been attacked since 9/11 but until we leave Iraq and the Israel issue is worked out, the threat will remain. maybe more now then before 9/11
Do you live in fear every day that you will be shot by a murderer or robber?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
2/27/03
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
In the run-up to war, President Bush and other US officials had demanded that Iraqi scientists be removed from their country and interrogated by UN officials in secret, claiming that otherwise they would be too frightened of retaliation by Saddam Hussein to speak freely. Now that the Hussein regime is gone, however, these scientists have continued to declare that the US claims of weapons of mass destruction are lies.
The top science adviser to Saddam Hussein, Lt. Gen. Amir Saadi, turned himself over to US forces in Baghdad April 12, after negotiating his own surrender through the German television network ZDF, which filmed the event. Saadi was the principal liaison with UN weapons inspectors after the resumption of inspections last November. He told ZDF that Iraq no longer possessed any weapons of mass destruction, declaring, “I was telling the truth, always telling the truth, never told anything but the truth, and time will bear me out, you will see.”
Saadi made no attempt to flee Baghdad after US military forces occupied the Iraqi capital. He turned himself in as soon as the US Central Command announced publicly that he had been placed on a detention list. A US intelligence official crowed over Saadi’s surrender, telling the Los Angeles Times April 14, “He knows where the stuff is, and he knows the names of the major players connected with the program.” But Saadi has apparently maintained his denials despite being a US prisoner.
Shortly after Saadi’s detention, the principal architect of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, Jafar Jafar, surrendered to the government of a Mideast country which made him available to US officials. Press reports again cited US intelligence sources declaring that Jafar would have detailed knowledge of the location of stockpiles of banned weapons, as well as how they had been produced.
Former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Washington Post that Saadi and Jafar “know, between the two of them, everything about the country’s nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs.” But no such revelations emerged, and Albright himself told the press that he was now skeptical of US claims of a huge Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. “I will feel taken,” he said, “because they asserted these things with such assurance.”
A third top scientist, Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani, formerly in charge of Iraqi efforts to manufacture VX nerve gas, turned himself in to American authorities on April 18. Again, there have been no revelations of secret programs or huge stockpiles.
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
2/27/03
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
In the run-up to war, President Bush and other US officials had demanded that Iraqi scientists be removed from their country and interrogated by UN officials in secret, claiming that otherwise they would be too frightened of retaliation by Saddam Hussein to speak freely. Now that the Hussein regime is gone, however, these scientists have continued to declare that the US claims of weapons of mass destruction are lies.
The top science adviser to Saddam Hussein, Lt. Gen. Amir Saadi, turned himself over to US forces in Baghdad April 12, after negotiating his own surrender through the German television network ZDF, which filmed the event. Saadi was the principal liaison with UN weapons inspectors after the resumption of inspections last November. He told ZDF that Iraq no longer possessed any weapons of mass destruction, declaring, “I was telling the truth, always telling the truth, never told anything but the truth, and time will bear me out, you will see.”
Saadi made no attempt to flee Baghdad after US military forces occupied the Iraqi capital. He turned himself in as soon as the US Central Command announced publicly that he had been placed on a detention list. A US intelligence official crowed over Saadi’s surrender, telling the Los Angeles Times April 14, “He knows where the stuff is, and he knows the names of the major players connected with the program.” But Saadi has apparently maintained his denials despite being a US prisoner.
Shortly after Saadi’s detention, the principal architect of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, Jafar Jafar, surrendered to the government of a Mideast country which made him available to US officials. Press reports again cited US intelligence sources declaring that Jafar would have detailed knowledge of the location of stockpiles of banned weapons, as well as how they had been produced.
Former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Washington Post that Saadi and Jafar “know, between the two of them, everything about the country’s nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs.” But no such revelations emerged, and Albright himself told the press that he was now skeptical of US claims of a huge Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. “I will feel taken,” he said, “because they asserted these things with such assurance.”
A third top scientist, Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani, formerly in charge of Iraqi efforts to manufacture VX nerve gas, turned himself in to American authorities on April 18. Again, there have been no revelations of secret programs or huge stockpiles.
i bet if they waterboarded them, they would....wait for it......cough up the info!
There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the U.N. departed from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq asserted that they would never be invited back.[43] In addition, Saddam had issued a secret order that Iraq did not have to abide by any U.N. Resolution since in his view the U.S. had broken international law.[44]
In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation".[45] The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.[46] However, it concluded that without such foreign sources, it would take years at a bare minimum. The numbers were viewed as overly optimistic by many critics (such as the Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
Nuclear power generation is not beneficial? We should shut all ours down then and go back to burning coal...
Don't be stupid. I'm not talking about nuclear energy, I'm talking about nuclear weapons. If Iran's nuclear program was solely intended for civilian purposes why would they be stonewalling the IAEA.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
That's interesting How so? What specifically is making it obvious?
Are you that fucking blind. I have been one of the support voices on this board for Iran nuclear program as long as they where cooperating with the IEAE. As of the latest report they are not. They are not abiding by the laws and guidelines the govern the treaty that they signed. No amount of resentment towards my own government is going to make me naive about Iran's intentions now. It may not be undisputable proof of their intentions but it does not shed a good light on them.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Are you that fucking blind. I have been one of the support voices on this board for Iran nuclear program as long as they where cooperating with the IEAE. As of the latest report they are not. They are not abiding by the laws and guidelines the govern the treaty that they signed. No amount of resentment towards my own government is going to make me naive about Iran's intentions now. It may not be undisputable proof of their intentions but it does not shed a good light on them.
I just find it interesting that somehow you go from reporting issues straight to them firing nukes at people.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
depends on what each person wants to get out of it i suppose ...
anyways - the IAEA aren't worried about IRAN and nukes ... but i suppose people will still believe anything these days cuz obviously Iran is part of the axis of evil ... :rolleyes:
depends on what each person wants to get out of it i suppose ...
anyways - the IAEA aren't worried about IRAN and nukes ... but i suppose people will still believe anything these days cuz obviously Iran is part of the axis of evil ... :rolleyes:
"....But the Vienna-based U.N. body also said key questions remained unresolved and that Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a process to make fuel for power plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs."
if they want it for electricity, they should be able to. if not, there are consequences.
I just find it interesting that somehow you go from reporting issues straight to them firing nukes at people.
I never said they where firing nukes or that they even possess or are attempting to possess them. Reread what I wrote and if you still don't understand I recommend a remedial course is reading and comprehension.
Iran's lack of cooperation is a direct violation of the NPT. I have nothing against Iran developing a nuclear program for the purpose of providing energy to it's people. I doi have a problem with any state in the Middle East, that includes Israel, having or attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons I don't believe that they will use them or even allow them to fall into Hezbollah's or Hamas' hands. The problem is that it will cause an escalation in an already volitile region of the world. Do you really think that a Sunni controlled Saudi Arabia and Egypt will sit by while a Shia controlled Iran created a nuclear weapons arsenal. What if Iran shares their technology with a Shia controlled Iraq? How will Turkey who has issues with the Kurds react to that. This is far greater than the US vs. Iran and I don't believe all the fucking hype that Iran will launch a massive assault on Israel the minute they obtain nuclear weapons. I do believe that if they do obtain them the Middle East is going to get even fucking uglier than it is now and that is something the world cannot afford.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I never said they where firing nukes or that they even possess or are attempting to possess them. Reread what I wrote and if you still don't understand I recommend a remedial course is reading and comprehension.
Iran's lack of cooperation is a direct violation of the NPT. I have nothing against Iran developing a nuclear program for the purpose of providing energy to it's people. I doi have a problem with any state in the Middle East, that includes Israel, having or attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons I don't believe that they will use them or even allow them to fall into Hezbollah's or Hamas' hands. The problem is that it will cause an escalation in an already volitile region of the world. Do you really think that a Sunni controlled Saudi Arabia and Egypt will sit by while a Shia controlled Iran created a nuclear weapons arsenal. What if Iran shares their technology with a Shia controlled Iraq? How will Turkey who has issues with the Kurds react to that. This is far greater than the US vs. Iran and I don't believe all the fucking hype that Iran will launch a massive assault on Israel the minute they obtain nuclear weapons. I do believe that if they do obtain them the Middle East is going to get even fucking uglier than it is now and that is something the world cannot afford.
One could also say this is political move because the Iran has the US over a barrel literally. Iran is illuminating the root cause of what the US is really about. If it's attacked, some are predicting oil will go through the roof in around the $200 a barrel range. Your opinion is great and all but Iran really could care less what people across the Atlantic think is going to happen at this point. They want people that think like you to get aggressive and do something about it, because they know you can't, and you won't. It's going to hurt too much in the pocketbook. Either way Iran wins..they have the oil.
I'll skip your suggestions on remedial reading if you don't mind.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
what did I make up? everytime you get backed into a corner you run and hide. and least roland will post a picture or something.
Sorry i had to leave jlew but i had to go home, as my work time was up.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
"....But the Vienna-based U.N. body also said key questions remained unresolved and that Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a process to make fuel for power plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs."
if they want it for electricity, they should be able to. if not, there are consequences.
like i said - whatever each person wants to get out of it ...
bottom line ... it would take decades to enrich enough nuclear crap to make one bomb based on the worst case scenarios - the fact we are even talking about this crap just goes to show that we haven't learnt a thing from iraq ...
One could also say this is political move because the Iran has the US over a barrel literally. Iran is illuminating the root cause of what the US is really about. If it's attacked, some are predicting oil will go through the roof in around the $200 a barrel range. Your opinion is great and all but Iran really could care less what people across the Atlantic think is going to happen at this point. They want people that think like you to get aggressive and do something about it, because they know you can't, and you won't. It's going to hurt too much in the pocketbook. Either way Iran wins..they have the oil.
I'll skip your suggestions on remedial reading if you don't mind.
Again you assume that I believe aggression is the only remedy to the possible problem. Iran's goals are to included in all Middle eastern affaisr, which they ahve largely been excluded from because of the US. If Iran truely wants to be a leader in that region creating nuclear weapons is not the way to go about it. It will only further isolate them and well as spread chaos through out the region. The best way, again this is just my opinion, for the US to handle the situation is through direct talks with Iran. Offer them a slice of the pie in return for transparency. Of course this administration will not do that because their heads are too far up their asses.
As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
like i said - whatever each person wants to get out of it ...
bottom line ... it would take decades to enrich enough nuclear crap to make one bomb based on the worst case scenarios - the fact we are even talking about this crap just goes to show that we haven't learnt a thing from iraq ...
As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.
where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...
where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...
where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...
From early reports, the latest IEAE reports will state that the level of cooperation from the Iranian government has decreased since the last report in August. Under NPT guideline and rules, countries have to fully cooperate with the IEAE. I hate to sound so black and white but when it comes to nuclear programs there is full cooperation or no cooperation, not this half assed attempt of showing you a little just to keep the dogs at bay.
Again I'm not stating that this is proof positive that Iran is in the process of weaponizing their program. We don't know that for sure but we should move forward with trying to intice Iran with being fully compliant with the IEAE.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
i'm talking about us agreeing on the actions US should have taken before the war.
unfortunately thats not true in many of the countries I mentioned earlier.
not sure I see the purpose of sanctions either.
To be honest your posts make you come off as someone who supported the war and the sanctions so I'm surprised to see you don't.
As for the other countries, you do realise that persecution of the public for holding different beliefs comes from the governments of these countries. Governments which have either been placed or supported by the West.
Comments
Perhaps read above and below the lines? No wait that is also in between.
Ah don't ask just felt like saying it.
Head up backside.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Do you live in fear every day that you will be shot by a murderer or robber?
no and I dont live in fear of terrorism either.
now all you have is insults? guess who looks like the asshole now? it aint me
Yeah here's one
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I love that website
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
2/27/03
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/wmd-a22.shtml
In the run-up to war, President Bush and other US officials had demanded that Iraqi scientists be removed from their country and interrogated by UN officials in secret, claiming that otherwise they would be too frightened of retaliation by Saddam Hussein to speak freely. Now that the Hussein regime is gone, however, these scientists have continued to declare that the US claims of weapons of mass destruction are lies.
The top science adviser to Saddam Hussein, Lt. Gen. Amir Saadi, turned himself over to US forces in Baghdad April 12, after negotiating his own surrender through the German television network ZDF, which filmed the event. Saadi was the principal liaison with UN weapons inspectors after the resumption of inspections last November. He told ZDF that Iraq no longer possessed any weapons of mass destruction, declaring, “I was telling the truth, always telling the truth, never told anything but the truth, and time will bear me out, you will see.”
Saadi made no attempt to flee Baghdad after US military forces occupied the Iraqi capital. He turned himself in as soon as the US Central Command announced publicly that he had been placed on a detention list. A US intelligence official crowed over Saadi’s surrender, telling the Los Angeles Times April 14, “He knows where the stuff is, and he knows the names of the major players connected with the program.” But Saadi has apparently maintained his denials despite being a US prisoner.
Shortly after Saadi’s detention, the principal architect of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, Jafar Jafar, surrendered to the government of a Mideast country which made him available to US officials. Press reports again cited US intelligence sources declaring that Jafar would have detailed knowledge of the location of stockpiles of banned weapons, as well as how they had been produced.
Former UN weapons inspector David Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Washington Post that Saadi and Jafar “know, between the two of them, everything about the country’s nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs.” But no such revelations emerged, and Albright himself told the press that he was now skeptical of US claims of a huge Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. “I will feel taken,” he said, “because they asserted these things with such assurance.”
A third top scientist, Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani, formerly in charge of Iraqi efforts to manufacture VX nerve gas, turned himself in to American authorities on April 18. Again, there have been no revelations of secret programs or huge stockpiles.
i bet if they waterboarded them, they would....wait for it......cough up the info!
thank you, i'll be here all week, try the veal
I'm not justifying the invasion. but inspectors were kicked out in 1998 and not allowed to return leading up the invasion in 03.
we probably agree on what the US should have done. personally, I feel he was isolated and not a threat. I'm just showing all sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_development_1960s_-_1980s
There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the U.N. departed from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq asserted that they would never be invited back.[43] In addition, Saddam had issued a secret order that Iraq did not have to abide by any U.N. Resolution since in his view the U.S. had broken international law.[44]
In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation".[45] The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.[46] However, it concluded that without such foreign sources, it would take years at a bare minimum. The numbers were viewed as overly optimistic by many critics (such as the Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
Don't be stupid. I'm not talking about nuclear energy, I'm talking about nuclear weapons. If Iran's nuclear program was solely intended for civilian purposes why would they be stonewalling the IAEA.
Are you that fucking blind. I have been one of the support voices on this board for Iran nuclear program as long as they where cooperating with the IEAE. As of the latest report they are not. They are not abiding by the laws and guidelines the govern the treaty that they signed. No amount of resentment towards my own government is going to make me naive about Iran's intentions now. It may not be undisputable proof of their intentions but it does not shed a good light on them.
I just find it interesting that somehow you go from reporting issues straight to them firing nukes at people.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
depends on what each person wants to get out of it i suppose ...
anyways - the IAEA aren't worried about IRAN and nukes ... but i suppose people will still believe anything these days cuz obviously Iran is part of the axis of evil ... :rolleyes:
"....But the Vienna-based U.N. body also said key questions remained unresolved and that Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a process to make fuel for power plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs."
if they want it for electricity, they should be able to. if not, there are consequences.
I never said they where firing nukes or that they even possess or are attempting to possess them. Reread what I wrote and if you still don't understand I recommend a remedial course is reading and comprehension.
Iran's lack of cooperation is a direct violation of the NPT. I have nothing against Iran developing a nuclear program for the purpose of providing energy to it's people. I doi have a problem with any state in the Middle East, that includes Israel, having or attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons I don't believe that they will use them or even allow them to fall into Hezbollah's or Hamas' hands. The problem is that it will cause an escalation in an already volitile region of the world. Do you really think that a Sunni controlled Saudi Arabia and Egypt will sit by while a Shia controlled Iran created a nuclear weapons arsenal. What if Iran shares their technology with a Shia controlled Iraq? How will Turkey who has issues with the Kurds react to that. This is far greater than the US vs. Iran and I don't believe all the fucking hype that Iran will launch a massive assault on Israel the minute they obtain nuclear weapons. I do believe that if they do obtain them the Middle East is going to get even fucking uglier than it is now and that is something the world cannot afford.
You'll be here all week cause you have no life?
One could also say this is political move because the Iran has the US over a barrel literally. Iran is illuminating the root cause of what the US is really about. If it's attacked, some are predicting oil will go through the roof in around the $200 a barrel range. Your opinion is great and all but Iran really could care less what people across the Atlantic think is going to happen at this point. They want people that think like you to get aggressive and do something about it, because they know you can't, and you won't. It's going to hurt too much in the pocketbook. Either way Iran wins..they have the oil.
I'll skip your suggestions on remedial reading if you don't mind.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yes that is correct
you got a problem with that?
Sorry i had to leave jlew but i had to go home, as my work time was up.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Did you support the war before it started? If you did then we don't agree.
Do you believe George W. Bush and his band members have committed war crimes and should be persecuted? If you don't then we don't agree.
But everyone is entitled to their own view.
Edit: I was also against the UN sanctions as they were responsible for starving children and innocent civilians.
No problem just pity.
like i said - whatever each person wants to get out of it ...
bottom line ... it would take decades to enrich enough nuclear crap to make one bomb based on the worst case scenarios - the fact we are even talking about this crap just goes to show that we haven't learnt a thing from iraq ...
i'm talking about us agreeing on the actions US should have taken before the war.
unfortunately thats not true in many of the countries I mentioned earlier.
not sure I see the purpose of sanctions either.
Again you assume that I believe aggression is the only remedy to the possible problem. Iran's goals are to included in all Middle eastern affaisr, which they ahve largely been excluded from because of the US. If Iran truely wants to be a leader in that region creating nuclear weapons is not the way to go about it. It will only further isolate them and well as spread chaos through out the region. The best way, again this is just my opinion, for the US to handle the situation is through direct talks with Iran. Offer them a slice of the pie in return for transparency. Of course this administration will not do that because their heads are too far up their asses.
As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.
decades? meaning 20 years or more?
IAEA seems to think its about 3
http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/iran_needs_38_yrs_to_make_a_nuke_iaea_133352
where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...
holy fuck, do you people not read?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071115/wl_mcclatchy/20071115bcusirannuclear_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop
but hasn't provided "full transparency" about its current activities and continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council .
From early reports, the latest IEAE reports will state that the level of cooperation from the Iranian government has decreased since the last report in August. Under NPT guideline and rules, countries have to fully cooperate with the IEAE. I hate to sound so black and white but when it comes to nuclear programs there is full cooperation or no cooperation, not this half assed attempt of showing you a little just to keep the dogs at bay.
Again I'm not stating that this is proof positive that Iran is in the process of weaponizing their program. We don't know that for sure but we should move forward with trying to intice Iran with being fully compliant with the IEAE.
To be honest your posts make you come off as someone who supported the war and the sanctions so I'm surprised to see you don't.
As for the other countries, you do realise that persecution of the public for holding different beliefs comes from the governments of these countries. Governments which have either been placed or supported by the West.