Obama determined to pursue an 'aggressive diplomacy' with the Islamic Republic

DOSW

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You should hear YOUR self.

Like I said, what the fuck do you THINK the man is talking about?

Have you even been reading my posts? Or did you just read one line, roll your eyes, and type a long-winded response?

No wonder people hate debating with you. You ignore reasonable arguments so you can continue thinking that you're being screwed in every way imaginable by the government. Ron Paul 2008! :rolleyes:

Now please, tell me how I'm a simple-minded sheep who believes everything I hear because I don't make a giant assumption based on trying to read between the lines of a completely vague statement.

DriftingByTheStorm

DOSW wrote:

Have you even been reading my posts? Or did you just read one line, roll your eyes, and type a long-winded response?

No wonder people hate debating with you. You ignore reasonable arguments so you can continue thinking that you're being screwed in every way imaginable by the government. Ron Paul 2008! :rolleyes:

Now please, tell me how I'm a simple-minded sheep who believes everything I hear because I don't make a giant assumption based on trying to read between the lines of a completely vague statement.

Nukes huh?

:rolleyes:

[how is that for not "long-winded"?]

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

IT MAKES ME NERVOUS!

.

Yeah, but the snap, crackle, popping in your Rice Krispies makes YOU nervous.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

Yeah, but the snap, crackle, popping in your Rice Krispies makes YOU nervous.

Actually,
there is some pretty convincing evidence that Crackle is a hardline communist. His grandfather has some pretty damning Marxist connections, and his stepfather was actualy a speechwriter for Lenin.

I've actualy even heard some rumors about Pop having a bit of a checkered history with Eugenics himself, though i tend to discount those theories based on some of his comments in recent years. He seems like a really nice guy.

Now that Snap guy. He is an enimga. A mystery wrapped in an enigma tucked in a riddle.

fuck

DOSW wrote:

Have you even been reading my posts? Or did you just read one line, roll your eyes, and type a long-winded response?

No wonder people hate debating with you. You ignore reasonable arguments so you can continue thinking that you're being screwed in every way imaginable by the government. Ron Paul 2008! :rolleyes:

Now please, tell me how I'm a simple-minded sheep who believes everything I hear because I don't make a giant assumption based on trying to read between the lines of a completely vague statement.

I'm sorry, but I just have to say something. what the fuck are you talking about? You are the one who has been completely ignoring everything the posts have been saying. In fact, this post here has nothing to do with the discussion at all. All your posts have had nothing to do with what Drifting is even saying.

Allow me to simplify it for you, since you don't seem to be understanding, though I'm sure you'll just ignore this post like you do all the others:
You keep arguing that having troops doesn't necessarily mean we will go to war, and that's fine and all, but we all understand that. No one here is a fucking moron. We know that. The point is however that:
WHY IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Why are we even thinking about having aggressive talks in the first place?
What's there to talk about? The fact of the matter is, that we shouldn't even be talking about Iran like it's a threat right now. There are many more important issues Obama should be focusing on, NOT IRAN. You keep saying people are jumping to conclusions, when it's you who is jumping in the first place. You're jumping over to "we have to do something about Iran" before stopping and thinking "What the fuck are we worried about anyway?"
Iran has not violated anything yet, so we should just leave them alone.

Do you understand now? Or are you just going to type another post saying absolutely nothing useful?

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Actually,
there is some pretty convincing evidence that Crackle is a hardline communist. His grandfather has some pretty damning Marxist connections, and his stepfather was actualy a speechwriter for Lenin.

i knew there was something about that Crackle that i really liked.

macgyver06

two words.

and you can arrange them however you want


one is WAR

the other is NUCLEAR



you win cockroaches!

DOSW

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

I'm sorry, but I just have to say something. what the fuck are you talking about? You are the one who has been completely ignoring everything the posts have been saying. In fact, this post here has nothing to do with the discussion at all. All your posts have had nothing to do with what Drifting is even saying.

Allow me to simplify it for you, since you don't seem to be understanding, though I'm sure you'll just ignore this post like you do all the others:
You keep arguing that having troops doesn't necessarily mean we will go to war, and that's fine and all, but we all understand that. No one here is a fucking moron. We know that. The point is however that:
WHY IS THAT EVEN NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Why are we even thinking about having aggressive talks in the first place?
What's there to talk about? The fact of the matter is, that we shouldn't even be talking about Iran like it's a threat right now. There are many more important issues Obama should be focusing on, NOT IRAN. You keep saying people are jumping to conclusions, when it's you who is jumping in the first place. You're jumping over to "we have to do something about Iran" before stopping and thinking "What the fuck are we worried about anyway?"
Iran has not violated anything yet, so we should just leave them alone.

Do you understand now? Or are you just going to type another post saying absolutely nothing useful?

Nothing useful, right. Excuse me for trying to defend myself against the glaring condescension of Mr. Drifting. The point originally was what Obama meant by his statement about Iran. So I responded to it.

I responded to why we're concerned about Iran as well. But that was brief, so I'll elaborate. The powers that be here in America are concerned about Iran's nuclear program. We don't want them to gain nuclear power because we're worried what Mahmoud and co. will do with them. We believe him to be helping insurgents in Iraq, which he denies.

That's the story anyway. But oil is probably a major part of it as well, I don't doubt that. It could all be a ruse to secure oil, much like how it was probably the reason we went into Iraq. We'll never know.

But Drifting's point was that Obama was going to take us to war with Iran. Which I had a major problem with. It was only after that that he started asking about the reason we're focusing on Iran.

DOSW

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

You keep arguing that having troops doesn't necessarily mean we will go to war, and that's fine and all, but we all understand that. No one here is a fucking moron. We know that.

Drifting doesn't, apparently.

DriftingByTheStorm

DOSW wrote:

Drifting doesn't, apparently.

No.
Again what you are failing to recognize, even after 5v1 has stepped up and clarified is that even talking about getting tough with Iran is indication of intention to "get nasty" with them.

I can't clarify this any more than what i already have.
Talking about tough diplomacy with Iran is indication of Imperialist Intentions, plain and simple.

America has NO business bullying that country around.
Our concerns with their intent to go nuclear has never been justified by the International Atomic Energy Agency ... which has made is repeatedly clear that the levels of enrichment being attained by Iran are like 5% ... which is a full NINETY percent away from what one would need to make weapons.

I can pull the documents up on this thread if i have too. I've done it in others.

There is nothing in this nuclear bomb talk except just that ... TALK ... taking it one step further, we can call it FEARMONGERING ...

and why would one do that?

TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC.

And why?

TO HAVE GROUNDS FOR INTERVENTION.

And why?

Restructuring the power balance in the middle east in favor of western culture.

What are we afraid of REALLY?

Iran is going off the dollar for oil.
They are attacking our Achiles heel.
They also control alot of oil we would like more secure access to, which i think you are well aware.

BTW, Iran was authorized under international law to proceed with nuclear POWER development.

So we have the authority as a country to violate their soverign right to peaceful acquisition of fuel, huh?

Based on what again?
FEARMONGERING?

Again,
i don't care wether Obama is starting war with Iran tomorrow or not ... the point is EVEN HIS TALK about any sort of political discussions with Iran are indicative of an imperialist intent which is not consistent with his constitutional mandate as president.

I'm not really sure what you fail to grasp.

If it doesn't come down to war, it is only because Obama may achieve (if elected, duh) his aim of twisting Iran's arm through coercive contractual force ... and most likely very oblique threats of physical force if compliance is not achieved.

So what is the difference?
Either we are imposing our will on another country through implied force, or we are actualy using applied force.

And if we get our way through tough talk, chances our we actualy provoke and aggravate Iran so seriously that they actualy DO attack us.

And then what.
Then Obama is justified in going to war, right?

Its fucking no win for Iran.
I guess thats the way it goes when the big bully on the playground comes over and grabs your toy and says its his. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

:rolleyes:

DOSW

I agree that the reasons we're interfering with Iran are shady. Very shady.

But I'm going to have to disagree with you about Obama's "imperialistic intent." I wouldn't say that having talks with Iran, supposedly about ceasing their nuclear program and so-called support of Iraqi insurgents, necessarily constitutes an imperialistic intent. Seems more like an attempt at stabilization to me.

ledvedderman

Roland,

You are against political discussions with Iran because you think it shows imperialistic views? So we can't even talk to them about getting rid of their weapons program?

I would be for disarming every nuclear weapon on the planet, and I wish the US would take the lead. I don't see anything good coming out of Iran having nuclear weapons. I'd like to see diplomacy come to the front on this issue. How can we be diplomatic if you don't even want us to talk to them?

I'm not trying to come down on you, I'm just wanting to see where you're coming from.

DriftingByTheStorm

ledvedderman wrote:

Roland,

You are against political discussions with Iran because you think it shows imperialistic views? So we can't even talk to them about getting rid of their weapons program?

You're talking to ME, not Roland.

And IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A WEAPONS PROGRAM.

They have a Nuclear POWER program.

See how warped you people are from the news media and the fucking government propaganda?

IRAN IS MAKING NUCLEAR FUEL. POWER. NUCLEAR POWER

IRAN IS PURSUING NUCLEAR POWER FOLKS!

The whole "weapons program" bullshit is nothing more than unbacked US Allegations that serve a not-so-well concealed political agenda.


Even the allegations that Iran is helping insurgents is nothing more than that, ALLEGATIONS.

And remember who is engaged in the ILLEGAL (international law) and Unconstitutional (domestic law) war ... before you start jumping to that argument as a worth one. WE are in the wrong here. 100%.

I love America, and I'm a patriot, but this bullshit will not stand with me. I will not swallow it.

So yes, attempting to FORCE Iran off of a policy of pursuing PEACEFUL ENERGY in the face of international law that says they can do it (not to mention their own domestic soverignty) IS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION.

:(

Hollyweird

Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for? Further, if you need power then why do the "power stations" need to be buried in military bunkers surrounded by state of the art Russian anti aircraft systems? I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program. The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible. But you just don't have facts...

DriftingByTheStorm

Hollyweird wrote:

Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for?

I'm no great scientist either, but straight from howstuffworks.com ...

"What's a uranium centrifuge?
[... lots of talk about a centrifuge and then...]
With this highly concentrated U-235 metal, you can either make a nuclear bomb or power a nuclear reactor."

So what's the problem?
Apparently a centrifuge is nothing more than a device necessary for enriching uranium, be it to 5% or 95%.

Hollyweird wrote:

Further, if you need power then why do the "power stations" need to be buried in military bunkers surrounded by state of the art Russian anti aircraft systems?

If you know the United States may consider bombing your extremely expensive and sensitive nuclear program to bits, you may need some AA guns. Right? Case in point, don't you remember bush talking about "tactical nukes" repeatedly last year? Not that AA guns could shoot those down, but they are protecting an investment. Whether for power or bombs, this is no proof.

Hollyweird wrote:

I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program. The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible.

Here is the latest IAEA report i could find. You can skip straight to the conclusion which states in summary:

IAEA Report wrote:

The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran
has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required
nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.

Now, to be fair, it also says that their transparency has diminished since 2006, but it seems pretty clear.

Regarding the centrifuges specificaly:

IAEA again wrote:

There are two remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear
programme: Iran’s past and current centrifuge enrichment programme and the alleged studies. The
Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge
programmes are consistent with its findings.

Hmm. No problems there.

And then to conclude:

IAEA Once More wrote:

Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to
questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work
plan.

All they could complain about was that Iran was being "reactive" rather than "proactive". Oh well. Oh, and they need to adopt "additional protocol" so that they can prove yet again that they are aiming for power, not bombs.

I can also dig up the previous report which was very explicit in Iran's current activities being peaceful, if you want.

Here is an older Washington Post that is horribly damning to the US, not Iran: "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"

WP Article wrote:

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Huh. Interesting.

Hollyweird wrote:

But you just don't have facts...

Huh. I could have sworn I just ...
oh wait ... could you clarify for me please?

:sigh:

fuck

Hollyweird wrote:

Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for?

You don't have to have to have a degree in Physics to know that having centrifuges is necessary for nuclear energy. That little detail means nothing.

I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts

Oh, don't worry about it. So far, I've seen nothing worth being nervous about.

but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program.

Everyone in the world except Russia? Haha, I'm gonna need some proof on this. the EU and the US have been against Iran from the beginning, but it doesn't mean anything. Oh, and not to mention the fact that France has flipflopped so many times that it's hard to keep count.

The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible. But you just don't have facts...

Actually, if you're the one who's accusing them of going after nuclear arms, you're supposed to present the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, and so far you've proven..............umm.............. nothing.

my2hands

DOSW wrote:

Now please, tell me how I'm a simple-minded sheep who believes everything I hear because I don't make a giant assumption based on trying to read between the lines of a completely vague statement.

when obama shoots hoops awaiting election results he is really meeting with the CFR plotting the NWO and the coming invasion of China...


:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The blind patriotism "cast no discerning eye" towards politicians regardless of who they are thing is pretty damn pathetic imo...

This get tough on Iran rhetoric is troubling to the most casual of unbiased eyes.

all we need to do is lok at what history tells us....screams at us actually.

NCfan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The blind patriotism "cast no discerning eye" towards politicians regardless of who they are thing is pretty damn pathetic imo...

This get tough on Iran rhetoric is troubling to the most casual of unbiased eyes.

all we need to do is lok at what history tells us....screams at us actually.

The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...

DriftingByTheStorm

NCfan wrote:

The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...

Correct me if i am wrong, but was America not discussing the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran last year?

Hmm.

I can't seem to remember the last time ANYONE in the Iranian government came forward suggesting using arms, especialy fucking nuclear arms, against America.

You are free to have an opinion on the legitimacy of Iran's world views, but the fact remains they have done nothing to warrant agression.

The US on the other hand has OPENLY suggested dropping "tactical" nuclear missles on production facilities in Iran.

I'm not sure how you get off saying that Iran is on the wrong side of this one.

What is the problem exactly?
Because Iran feels the same way about Israels policy towards the Palestians as it feels about the US policy towards they themselves?

You know what, NONE of that is supposed to be the concern of the US.

And you are probably refering directly to the thoroughly debunked "wipe israel off the face of the map" quote, aren't you?

Please.

No one is saying Iran has a great ideology.
All we are saying is that it is the UNITED STATES that is eager for war with Iran. NOT the other way around.

There is no way you can spin that one.

Sheesh.

Oh and by the way, the "islamic revolution" was by and large a creation of US Foregn Policy to begin with! Had we not overthrown and then assassinated their first publicly elected president in HISTORY back in the 50s, and then used the CIA to install a murderous and cruel puppet dictator, and THEN interfered with their region for the next 50 years, they probably wouldn't have much to be pissed off about.

On the other hand, what exactly is the United States crying about?
We pissed someone off, and now they are holding a grudge?

Hahah.