Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 277
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Of course, France, German, and Russia's little dealings in Iraq up to the war has made its way out into the public domain since the invasion...which explained quite a bit.
    Let the nation who is without sin cast the first stone.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Modboy has apparently forgotten that the events leading up to the Iraq War did not take place in a vacuum nor were they a figment of Washington's imagination.

    It was not so much us playing cowboy, but more like the world (as in the UNSC) balked when push came to shove.

    Of course, France, German, and Russia's little dealings in Iraq up to the war has made its way out into the public domain since the invasion...which explained quite a bit.
    When you're ready to play nicely I'll respond. Frankly I've grown tired of your condescending bull$****.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    No not at all. Saddam had nothing to do with it. It is just how the timelines matched up. Here is what I mean:
    No need for the timelines my friend. I just wanted to be clear that Saddam staying in power would not have changed the outcome of our situation in Iran. In fact I would think that increased international pressure on Saddam and a real coalition threatening war in Iraq would have served as just as much motivation for Iran to accelerate their development plans. But who really knows what could have been?
  4.    #184  
    Agreed on all points!
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    There have been tremendous diplomatic efforts taken by England, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, US, and the UN. It takes two sides to tango....urr...negotiate. Iran has rejected all efforts without fail stating they will not give anything in any negotiations and continually kicks out any team to confirm their peaceful nuke program whenever they start to ask too many questions or want to look at anything significant.
    Sorry, but 'US' and 'direct diplomatic efforts with Iran' cannot be stated in the same sentence with any integrity. Last I looked, and maybe the map has changed since I last checked, but the US is still the only superpower remaining. To be the greatest should mean something more than most military might or economic strength. Those nations who leaned too heavily on those two characteristics, historically, imploded. We are also the only major power who is constantly sabre-rattling against Iran. Foolish, foolish world leadership.
  6.    #186  
    Put aside the US is The Evil of the world for a moment......

    .....now simply answer these questions:

    1) Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

    2) If no, how do you stop them now from getting them with a deadline as soon as 3 years from now?

    3) If yes, how do think that makes the Middle East more stable and world more secure?
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Put aside the US is The Evil of the world for a moment......
    Tell you what. You don't misconstrue my words and intent and I won't misconstrue yours, k? To make your point, you simply don't need to stoop that low.
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Let the nation who is without sin cast the first stone.
    A sentiment that works in well Sunday school, but not in geo-politics.

    So, in other words, you do admit that the protestations of Germany, Russia, and especially France, had more to do with the fact that invading what was once a large buyer of their arms and nuclear technology is a no-no, and that it would be best "to look the other way"?
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/05/2007 at 07:50 AM.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Put aside the US is The Evil of the world for a moment......

    .....now simply answer these questions:

    1) Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?
    No more than Russia....frankly, I think Russia and their "loose" control over their nukes scares me more than Iran. But in a word...."he!! no" should Iran get nukes.

    2) If no, how do you stop them now from getting them with a deadline as soon as 3 years from now?
    I don't think we have much choice. We need to bluff in some ways and actively push allies to step up in others. We need the world behind whatever actions may come to pass. We're running on fumes militarily so we need more muscle and absolutely must enlist our allies...I don't think I can be more adamant about that.

    3) If yes, how do think that makes the Middle East more stable and world more secure?
    Middle East more secure? Maybe temporarily but longer term I'm not so sure it will matter....I'm pretty pessimistic about the region as a whole though. The world? Sure. That is the card we need to play even more so than just a regional problem. Iran with nukes is a concern for the entire world.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/05/2007 at 10:58 AM.
  10.    #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Tell you what. You don't misconstrue my words and intent and I won't misconstrue yours, k? To make your point, you simply don't need to stoop that low.
    I apparently must apologize as I had no intention of micontruing your words in any way. I am only guilty of replying with a misunderstanding of some of your underlying points.

    Are you still able to answer the questions as I am seriously interested in trying to get a grasp of where you stand as it is not apparent from your posts in this thread?
  11.    #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    No more than Russia....frankly, I think Russia and their "lose" control over their nukes scares me more than Iran. But in a word...."he!! no" should Iran get nukes.
    Loose control of nukes and loose sharing of nuke technology is the sole reason why some have expressed concerns that Iran could have a nuke Thursday of next week of any given date. A rogue nuke from Russia is a real and grave concern from terrorists orgs to unbalanced state gov like Iran.

    And this flows both ways into Iran and out of Iran.

    NK and Russia (and China by a few) have been flagged as possible nuke technology sharing culprits that could jump Iran's nuke program ahead of schedule by years.

    Iran has also all but committed to sharing their technology with fellow unstable and/or unbalanced gov like Sudan. They don't even have the full technology yet and Iran is planning on using it in unresponsible ways
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Loose control of nukes and loose sharing of nuke technology is the sole reason why some have expressed concerns that Iran could have a nuke Thursday of next week of any given date. A rogue nuke from Russia is a real and grave concern from terrorists orgs to unbalanced state gov like Iran.

    And this flows both ways into Iran and out of Iran.

    NK and Russia (and China by a few) have been flagged as possible nuke technology sharing culprits that could jump Iran's nuke program ahead of schedule by years.

    Iran has also all but committed to sharing their technology with fellow unstable and/or unbalanced gov like Sudan. They don't even have the full technology yet and Iran is planning on using it in unresponsible ways
    Sorry for the typo on the word "loose" - I just corrected in above.

    In any event, we're of like minds on this Hobbes. It is a problem scary beyond belief and it is one we simply cannot tackle alone. Sadly I really feel as though the nuclear genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before one goes off on our soil no matter what we do. That is not to say we shouldn't try like heck to stop it from happening....but my gut tells me I will see a mushroom cloud on US soil before I die.
  13.    #193  
    More confirmation of the same destruction of Isreal policies from Iran:

    Millions of Iranians Attend Anti-Israel Rallies Called 'Al Quds Day'



    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Millions of Iranians attended nationwide rallies Friday in support of the Palestinians, while the country's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel's continued existence was an "insult to human dignity."

    "The creation, continued existence and unlimited (Western) support for this regime is an insult to human dignity," Ahmadinejad said. "The occupation of Palestine is not limited to one land. The Zionist issue is now a global issue."

    Ahmadinejad's remarks came as millions of Iranians held rallies across Iran to protest Israel's continued hold on Jerusalem, the city where Muslims believe Islam's Prophet Mohammed began his journey to heaven.

    The demonstrations for "Al-Quds Day" — Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem — also spilled over into anti-American protests because of U.S. support for Israel.

    In the capital Tehran, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets as they chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Some protesters also burned American and Israeli flags.

    ----------------

    Ahmadinejad is known for his Israel-lashing comments who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He has also called the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world after the World War II.

    -------------

    Ayatollah Mahould Hashemi Shahroudi, Iran's judiciary chief, said Friday's rallies was "a good start for the destruction of the Zionist regime."

    FULL STORY
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/05/2007 at 03:28 PM.
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    It is a problem scary beyond belief and it is one we simply cannot tackle alone. Sadly I really feel as though the nuclear genie is out of the bottle now and it is only a matter of time before one goes off on our soil no matter what we do. That is not to say we shouldn't try like heck to stop it from happening....but my gut tells me I will see a mushroom cloud on US soil before I die.
    Hasn't the US learned by now that engagement is the only legitimate method to gaining access into foreign governments' domestic plans? Outside of privately funded US "political interest groups", that is? I share the same concerns for our longterm security, yet chronic sabre-rattling is an ineffective, prehistoric tool that should be scrapped unless we are immediately prepared to back the words with force. That force, in my judgment, should only be exacted when there is an immediate present danger to the US. Wars, such as these in the Middle East, are about the continuity of distribution of oil, just as Alan Greenspan has stated both in his book, and in his clarification of his book's statement. If not for this product, the US would likely allow the Middle East to implode upon itself, save for Israel.

    Because post-USSR nations have such loose control over their nuclear arsenals and technologies, for the past, what. 18 years, doesn't it seem at all reasonable that if terrorist factions during such a long period had the inclination, being that money is a lesser object to them, that either 1) terrorist factions already have weaponry and have yet to use it, or 2) in 18 years, they haven't been able to work a deal with the criminal elements which control so much of post-USSR nations?
  15.    #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Hasn't the US learned by now that engagement is the only legitimate method to gaining access into foreign governments' domestic plans? Outside of privately funded US "political interest groups", that is? I share the same concerns for our longterm security, yet chronic sabre-rattling is an ineffective, prehistoric tool that should be scrapped unless we are immediately prepared to back the words with force. That force, in my judgment, should only be exacted when there is an immediate present danger to the US.
    But you seem to be ignoring all the peaceful efforts that have been taken so far with the US full support behind the scenes or directly in this situation to resolve this in a peaceful manner, but it takes BOTH sides to be able to come to an agreement.

    How do you view Iran's sabre rattling against wiping Israel off the face of the earth along with their continual denial of any negotiations that meet all of their stated goals with their nuke program?

    Here is what I stated earlier when sabre rattle brought twice before:

    Seriously I agree. It is not an easy situation that has so many irons in the fire that adds so many complexities. Here is my personal assessment of the situation:

    DIPLOMACY:
    I am 100% for diplomacy. But this can also be a weapon used against us. Diplomacy is only effective if both sides are willing to meet on a common ground. Things that will make diplomacy very challenging if not impossible with Iran:
    • Iran considers the UN sanctions an action of war
    • Stalling tactics are being very artfully used. This gives Iran the advantage of time to develop any possible nukes they can. It also gives them time to install / upgrade facilities to produce weapon grade material. They already have a deployment system in place that can reach well into the EU, they just need something with a big enough bang to put in it.
    • They claim to want to have nuke power for peaceful electricity and nothing more. So in response to this Russia offered to do the refining for them and make sure they have all the nuke power they need for electricity. They refused. The EU3 then offered to give Iran a nuke reactor that would produce energy for use for electricity but would not be able to be used for refining weapon grade material. Iran found this to be an insult to be offered the means to meet the goal they have stated they are trying to achieve.
    • Iran threatens to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the international treaty of accountability of possessing nuke power.
    • Iran threatens to share its nuke technology with unstable gov like Sudan.
    • Iran says the Holocaust of WWII is a fabricated myth. No Jews were held in concentration camps none of them were persecuted by firing squads or gas chambers. He has even held conventions to prove this is all a bunch of historic lies. This is all to justify his statement that he is personally called to be the person to "wipe Israel off the map."


    RUSSIAN & CHINA:
    Russia & China has so many economic ties to Iran it is ridiculous to think that they can give an impartial vote in any UN decision to take any action against Iran.
    • Russia: Russia is the one who has contracts to install and provide nuke facilities for Iran. Big money. They are also are a major arms customer of Russia. Big money.
    • China: China has made no secret that it considers Iran a major player in its energy needs in the future (along with India). Because of this they have a huge incentive to help protect Iran from sanctions and any other action against Iran......both now for immediate supply needs, and for a "IOU" in their Iran's pocket for China's support now.


    ISRAEL:
    As I mentioned above Israel may end up being the deciding factor of a peaceful or military solution. Let me rephrase that, Israel maybe the deciding factor for a military action. Basically if Israel gets into an armed conflict, it would be pretty safe to say that we will be as well. This is two fold:
    • Israel: Israel has proven several times in the past to not wait until the attacked to take action, but has made their move just before the other side was going to attack (arguably the 6 Day War and hitting previous nuke sites in Middle East neighbors).
    • Iran: They have already made no question about it, they want to literally destroy Israel with the most force possible. It would be just like your neighbor calling you on the phone and saying as soon as my gun arrives in the mail, I am going to shoot you and your children dead! If they make the first move, we are at war as well.


    MILITARY OPTION:
    In order for diplomacy to have any meaning or incentive to meet on common ground, this option has to always be on the table. This is not saying that this is the path to take, or should be taken.....but if it is on the table it cannot be a spineless threat. It has to be a true option if the bluff is called.

    This can happen against our wishes. For example Iran could refuse any and all diplomatic ventures and point their missiles at Iraq and Israel....or even the EU....then hover their finger over the button and say "I dare you". Or actually attack Iraq or fire on US troops / ships in the area.

    The other scenario beyond a conflict with Israel or saber rattling from Iran to brink of confrontation that I can see a military option being utilized, is if it is confirmed (or even possibly to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt, as is usually the very nature of intel) that Iran either developed or is JUST about to acquire a nuke.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    • ....the IAEA chief is focused on resolving this peacefully with talks.
      .
    • I was very much for seeing if the EU multinational negotiations (supported by the US but not active participant) with Iran would work, but Iran called them off saying they will not offer any point of negotiation.....forcing France, Germany, and GB to recommend them to the UN for international violations and their unwillingness to negotiate.
      .
    • I was all for the Russia offered plan to do all of their refinement for Iran, which would give Iran a very inexpensive and fast way to reach all of their stated goals (without any confrontation from anyone in the world community) of a peaceful nuke program for electricity, but they refused saying they must refine their own nuclear material (which can be abused to produce nuke weapon grade material) with no explanation as to why.
      .
    • I am very much for the IAEA inspections, but when they started actually finding incriminating evidence against Iran and Iran was being called on breaking into their seals on facilities that were under current investigation by the IAEA, Iran kicked them out and has refused access to IAEA to confirm their claim of developing only a peaceful nuke program.
      .
    • I am very much in support of the UN sanctions (especially if China and Russia will allow the sanctions that the rest of the voting UN members want). This could be the most effective way to deal with Iran.

    This is of interest because this may be our next war....or our next close call to war. It would also change the world political and possibly economic arena a great deal if Iran obtained an arsenal of nuke weapons.

    It maybe that Iran attacks Israel (as they have promised to do even again this last week). It maybe that Israel attacks Iran's nuke facilities (like they did in Iraq when they attacked their nuke facility and have not stated they will not do it against Iran). It maybe the UN may approve war after the sanctions do not work (if China and Russia will allow it). It may be that Iran attacks the US (which has been insinuated and flat out stated several times). It maybe the US attacks Iran (which has not been taken off the table)....all of which are plausible and very real scenarios that could be ignited with a very little spark blown in the wrong direction.

    It may also be...and hopefully so IMHO....that China and Russia will allow stronger sanctions and there will be enough pressure from within, economically, politically, etc... that Iran will stop its nuke program and then allow IAEA in to confirm it. This is also a very real and possible and the most hopeful resolution that will be the ultimate outcome from the EU negotiations which lead to the UN Sanctions.


    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Wars, such as these in the Middle East, are about the continuity of distribution of oil, just as Alan Greenspan has stated both in his book, and in his clarification of his book's statement. If not for this product, the US would likely allow the Middle East to implode upon itself, save for Israel.
    I fully agree that oil has a major part in our interest in the Middle East.

    And I am not talking about politicians being in the oil company's pockets. I am talking about the foundation of our whole economy. How is all of our food transported in this country? By trucks, planes, and trains....all of which must use gas. How are all of products (paper, deodorant, stereos, etc..) transported in this country? By trucks, planes, and trains....all of which must use gas. What form of transportation does 98% of the US population use to go to work to earn their livelihood? Cars, planes, and trains....most of which must use gas. What do you think is one of the ingredients in the materials in anything plastic, shoes, toothpaste, Plywood adhesive, Golf balls, Clothing Ink, Pantyhose, etc... oil.

    If we do not have a fuel source (whatever it is) at a reasonable price, our economy will fail in no time.

    So again, yes I totally agree with your statement that oil has a major role in our interest in the Middle East until we as a nation become oil independent from their oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Because post-USSR nations have such loose control over their nuclear arsenals and technologies, for the past, what. 18 years, doesn't it seem at all reasonable that if terrorist factions during such a long period had the inclination, being that money is a lesser object to them, that either 1) terrorist factions already have weaponry and have yet to use it, or 2) in 18 years, they haven't been able to work a deal with the criminal elements which control so much of post-USSR nations?
    It maybe just luck. I do recall that there were a couple times the sale of such nukes and/or those looking to buy such nuke were stopped by intelligence. But the big worry now is that so many of these Soviet Satellite States are finding themselves in such negative financial situations that the temptation to bring in a couple hundred million dollars might sound a little more tempting.

    Just because it thankfully hasn't happened yet, does not make it any less of a threat now.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Hasn't the US learned by now that engagement is the only legitimate method to gaining access into foreign governments' domestic plans? Outside of privately funded US "political interest groups", that is? I share the same concerns for our longterm security, yet chronic sabre-rattling is an ineffective, prehistoric tool that should be scrapped unless we are immediately prepared to back the words with force. That force, in my judgment, should only be exacted when there is an immediate present danger to the US. Wars, such as these in the Middle East, are about the continuity of distribution of oil, just as Alan Greenspan has stated both in his book, and in his clarification of his book's statement. If not for this product, the US would likely allow the Middle East to implode upon itself, save for Israel.

    Because post-USSR nations have such loose control over their nuclear arsenals and technologies, for the past, what. 18 years, doesn't it seem at all reasonable that if terrorist factions during such a long period had the inclination, being that money is a lesser object to them, that either 1) terrorist factions already have weaponry and have yet to use it, or 2) in 18 years, they haven't been able to work a deal with the criminal elements which control so much of post-USSR nations?
    Today on the decidedly liberal NPR radio network, during the news show "All Things Considered", they covered a story about how the administration had brokered the recent deal with North Korea that has resulted in the DPRK beginning the process of dismantling their nuclear programme. They raised the point the that the approach in North Korea just might work with Iran.

    They played a sound snippet, where the President said:

    ""We're dealing with a country where the leader has said that he wants to destroy Israel. My belief is that the United States will defend our ally Israel. This is a leader who has made very provocative statements. And we have made it clear, however, in spite of that, that we are willing to sit down with him so long as he suspends his program, his nuclear weapons program.

    The story ended with the remark that Tehran is not interested in anything Washington has to offer at the moment.

    So the sentiment of "sabre-rattling" doesn't quite fly. Indeed, this is not the first time the United States has said that they want dialogue - but the position is that they need to stop with enrichment.
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    But you seem to be ignoring all the peaceful efforts that have been taken so far with the US full support behind the scenes or directly in this situation to resolve this in a peaceful manner, but it takes BOTH sides to be able to come to an agreement.
    Even if your assumptions were true about US-backed 'efforts' (of other nations), with the stakes where they are, where is the point at which our government realizes that "old-Europe" surrogates don't represent the only remaining superpower, the one which is taunting with barbs of possible nuclear strikes within Iran, according to Republican's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman?

    How do you view Iran's sabre rattling against wiping Israel off the face of the earth along with their continual denial of any negotiations that meet all of their stated goals with their nuke program?
    My opinion of sabre-rattling doesn't change dependent upon who's using it, yet, again, as the only superpower and the greatest nation, shouldn't the US be leading with more intelligent, forward-thinking methods rather than lowering itself to the standard of what it considers its enemy?

    I fully agree that oil has a major part in our interest in the Middle East.
    Good to know that you, GHWB, and I are on the same page then, although GHWB and I agree that it is the reason. Without oil, the US would only intervene when/if regional conflicts spread outside the Middle East.

    And I am not talking about politicians being in the oil company's pockets.
    Neither am I.

    I am talking about the foundation of our whole economy.
    So am I.

    How is all of our food transported in this country? By trucks, planes, and trains....all of which must use gas. How are all of products (paper, deodorant, stereos, etc..) transported in this country? By trucks, planes, and trains....all of which must use gas. What form of transportation does 98% of the US population use to go to work to earn their livelihood? Cars, planes, and trains....most of which must use gas. What do you think is one of the ingredients in the materials in anything plastic, shoes, toothpaste, Plywood adhesive, Golf balls, Clothing Ink, Pantyhose, etc... oil.
    Although many Americans/consumers may not be aware of the use of petroleum in common products or our consumer-based supply system, I am. Explaining it away does not justify its continued practice, however. If this nation's government were serious about kicking the oil addiction, Bush would have put together a Manhattan Project to exact those results. There is no excuse for the talk vs inaction on that subject and baby-steps don't cut it with the stakes where they are.

    Has anyone at high-level even proposed that being a 'consumer-based' economy is short-sightedly counterproductive because it is the polar opposite of a renewable economy? It's common knowledge that going shopping helps the economy, yet just like the drug addict, the practice only deepens the dependency. It's a false logic to believe that maintaining this status quo helps our 'cause' in terms of a war on terror or correcting the base of our economy.

    It maybe just luck.
    Almost sounds like a PT Barnumism. Maybe the last 6 years have been just luck also, although a Trillion spent wants to claim otherwise. I've been itching for a new business venture lately. Maybe I should produce an aerosol can of elephant repellent and sell it at Walmart for $25 a can. Due to its high cost, it'll be sure to give the consumer high confidence, and just look, no stampedes!

    I do recall that there were a couple times the sale of such nukes and/or those looking to buy such nuke were stopped by intelligence.
    I'd be interested in reading those reports as long as they don't involve the politically-charged Plame circumstances.

    But the big worry now is that so many of these Soviet Satellite States are finding themselves in such negative financial situations that the temptation to bring in a couple hundred million dollars might sound a little more tempting.
    That's not exactly a 'new' worry. That concern has existed since 1989 and beyond when the 'democratic' interests within those nations were quickly discovered to be hardcore cash ***** criminals.

    Just because it thankfully hasn't happened yet, does not make it any less of a threat now.
    Wanna buy a can of new, improved Elephant Repellent? On sale, today only, at just $19.95 a can!
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Good to know that you, GHWB, and I are on the same page then, although GHWB and I agree that it is the reason. Without oil, the US would only intervene when/if regional conflicts spread outside the Middle East.
    This is intellectually lazy. One only has to look at the numbers to see that war is not an economically efficient way of getting at the oil.

    If oil were the primary reason, we would have just bought it. As it stands, there is not enough oil in Iraq to cover the cost of the war as it is.

    A simple review of countries who import the most oil to us would show that Iraq has been, historically, our 5th to 7th largest importer - and significantly behind Nigeria.

    So the economic realities on the ground would say that, yes, oil was a reason - but not nearly *the* reason.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/06/2007 at 11:51 AM.
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    The problem is that we did not even have confirmation that Iran had been lying to us for the last 20 years until after 4 months after Saddam fell.
    Not for your info Hobbes, because you know this, but for the others here it may be useful to know that Iran's nuclear program has not been some sort of secret kept from us by anyone's lies. Iran's nuclear program has been a well documented item for many years since the 50s when the US gave them nuclear technology in the first place.

    http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1825.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

    n.b. Notwithstanding the title of this thread, the idea that Iran really wants to develop nuclear weapons, in addition to nuclear power, does not seem too controversial to me.

    anyway nice to see you Hobbes
  20.    #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Even if your assumptions were true about US-backed 'efforts' (of other nations), with the stakes where they are, where is the point at which our government realizes that "old-Europe" surrogates don't represent the only remaining superpower, the one which is taunting with barbs of possible nuclear strikes within Iran, according to Republican's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman?
    Everyone of my "assumptions" of the US supporting or initiating these peaceful attempts are well documented with sources in both Iran threads from sources like CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, Fox, NY Times, etc....

    With the likes of the US, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and the United Nations, etc... all working together to seek a peaceful solution to this major concern....I am not sure what else you are looking for. In no way can this be factually claimed that the US is not trying to take every peaceful avenue available. And they are not doing it alone. Many of other countries are / have attempted to step to the forefront instead of the US being the main mouthpiece to help to resolve this without military conflict.

    I stated in the post you responded to Military use is not the path but a supporting tool to avoid that very option....very different than sabre rattling:
    MILITARY OPTION:
    In order for diplomacy to have any meaning or incentive to meet on common ground, this option has to always be on the table. This is not saying that this is the path to take, or should be taken.....but if it is on the table it cannot be a spineless threat. It has to be a true option if the bluff is called.

    This can happen against our wishes. For example Iran could refuse any and all diplomatic ventures and point their missiles at Iraq and Israel....or even the EU....then hover their finger over the button and say "I dare you". Or actually attack Iraq or fire on US troops / ships in the area.

    The other scenario beyond a conflict with Israel or saber rattling from Iran to brink of confrontation that I can see a military option being utilized, is if it is confirmed (or even possibly to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt, as is usually the very nature of intel) that Iran either developed or is JUST about to acquire a nuke.

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Although many Americans/consumers may not be aware of the use of petroleum in common products or our consumer-based supply system, I am. Explaining it away does not justify its continued practice, however. If this nation's government were serious about kicking the oil addiction, Bush would have put together a Manhattan Project to exact those results. There is no excuse for the talk vs. inaction on that subject and baby-steps don't cut it with the stakes where they are.

    Has anyone at high-level even proposed that being a 'consumer-based' economy is short-sightedly counterproductive because it is the polar opposite of a renewable economy? It's common knowledge that going shopping helps the economy, yet just like the drug addict, the practice only deepens the dependency. It's a false logic to believe that maintaining this status quo helps our 'cause' in terms of a war on terror or correcting the base of our economy.
    Again, I feel you seem to think we disagree on this issue, but for the most part we do not.

    I have posted my distain for all President Admins on this topic since our wakeup call with the gas crisis in the 70s. I am for drilling domestically. I am for developing alternative fuel sources including funding / tax breaks / grants for research and infrastructure costs. I have posted numerous posts in the Global Warming thread with numerous solutions that should have been taken during Carter's, Regan’s, GB, Clinton, and GWB Admins. They all failed equally.

    IMHO, The dems have blocked many of these solutions due to lobbyist's money and the Reps have blocked the other half due to lobbyist's money.

    Our oil independency (or being independent) is crucial to all future Middle East confrontations.

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Wanna buy a can of new, improved Elephant Repellent? On sale, today only, at just $19.95 a can!
    Again....just because a source of a threat has been around for nearly 20 years does not mean it is not just as serious (or even more so) today as it was when the USSSR originally fell. Otherwise we can claim we are safe from this possibility happening next week simply because it has not happened yet.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/07/2007 at 12:42 PM.

Posting Permissions