Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75
  1. gatorray's Avatar
    Posts
    12 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #21  
    bin Laden has been dead for a while now. That thing you see on the videos is a stand-in.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Thank you for making my point crystal clear. Good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats.
    Really? What's the most recently conjured up excuse for the most prolific blundering cost in human lives and international support?

    Ummm ... WMD? Scratch!

    A 'Program' to develop WMD? Scratch!

    An intent to develop a program? Scratch!

    Liberty? Not in a thousand years.

    On the run, hiding in a cave somewhere, and still laughing at the Americans for not taking him when the Sudanese offered him on a silver platter in the mid-1990s.
    Scraping at the bottom of the newsmax-barrell (again)? If a viable case could've been made to sufficiently try and convict bin Laden could've been made, the US DOJ would've, as bin Laden had not committed crimes against the US as of 1996.

    If the US had been a banana republic then as it became 5 years later, then of course the US could've pulled him off the streets of Sudan, thrown him into a solitary cell in Romania, waterboarded him repeatedly, and yet 9/11 still would've happened as well as Madrid, London, Bali, etc, etc, etc.

    But, you, Chuckles, would've felt warm and fuzzy inside that the US was successfully saving the world from itself. Hhmmm ... Wait! This just in! ... The US cannot successfully save the world from itself as revealed to every sober, nonfreebasing, rational person who ever took a breath on this little blue marble!

    "Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton explained to a Feb. 15, 2002 Long Island Association luncheon.

    "He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

    "They released him," the ex-president confirmed.

    "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

    "So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton explained. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
    Exactly what is your inventory level on red herrings, Chuckles?
  3. #23  
    Iran received their first shipment of nuclear materials from Russia on Monday. Yesterday, for the first time they announced a second nuclear facility.

    I can't really blame them- after all I can see why a country with a 130 gigabarrel oil reserve is conerned about cheap energy. It is only the second largest in the world. At the same time, with an econonmy that is so strong they really have nothing else to concern themselves with, well I guess they have time for this too; http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...3C8DF6789.html

    All of these moves surely will attract more tourism as well. You can really tell this is a well intentioned government that has a solid, long term plan for the Iranian people.

    But Bush looked like an ***** for 72 hours- so who cares, right?

    -Rob
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by robber View Post
    Iran received their first shipment of nuclear materials from Russia on Monday. Yesterday, for the first time they announced a second nuclear facility.

    I can't really blame them- after all I can see why a country with a 130 gigabarrel oil reserve is conerned about cheap energy. It is only the second largest in the world. At the same time, with an econonmy that is so strong they really have nothing else to concern themselves with, well I guess they have time for this too; http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...3C8DF6789.html

    All of these moves surely will attract more tourism as well. You can really tell this is a well intentioned government that has a solid, long term plan for the Iranian people.

    But Bush looked like an ***** for 72 hours- so who cares, right?

    -Rob
    Why the whining? Did Diebold sell them their flawless, unaccountable voting system too? Who besides those with the right to vote have the authority to say what their society values and what it does not? Your lifetime is but the blink of an eye to societies much more ancient than the teenage-tantrum youngsters on the block, meaning that sustainability is a value held in much higher regard than 'the next election', though I'm sure they'll get the hang of Rovian ways sooner or later.
  5. #25  
    That didn't forecast the end of the Soviet Union.
    That had no clue India and Pakistan were about to go nuclear.
    That called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk".
    That couldn't stop 19 punks with box cutters from hijacking airliners and slamming them into buildings.

    I could go on.

    I think that in a few years when Iran cracks off their first nuke in the middle of the great salt desert I'll have another to add to that list.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    That didn't forecast the end of the Soviet Union.
    That had no clue India and Pakistan were about to go nuclear.
    That called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk".
    That couldn't stop 19 punks with box cutters from hijacking airliners and slamming them into buildings.

    I could go on.
    I'm sure you will.

    I think that in a few years when Iran cracks off their first nuke in the middle of the great salt desert I'll have another to add to that list.
    Like to play international architect for peaceful resolution without the US intelligence community? Go for it.
  7. #27  
    Okay the report states that they have "high confidence" that Iran stopped their Nuke weapon's program in 2003, which probably as close to the slam dunk analysis with Iraq as intelligence can get. This is good news at the first glance. But few have reported that it also states in the same report that they only have "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the weapons program.

    But if we take it at face value that they did stop their nuke program and they have not started it up again...this is only 1/3 of a nuke program. The program they stopped deals mostly with the assembly of a warhead while providing a stable weapon and increasing it's output. They are still continuing the other 2/3 of a nuke program, which is why both the US AND Europe are still calling for another round of sanctions. Iran still continued their deployment system program (increasing range of missiles and often time a major stumbling block for inspiring nations) and still continued enriching (the source material to actually build a bomb with).

    I also find it interesting at the timing that they stopped it. It was the time that the US was really pressuring Saddam for his nuke program that he later testified to have halted at the time but still wanted Iran to think he had it until he could actually start it up again. It was after Libya opened up it's doors and gave up it's WMD programs for fear the US might look their way.

    So the question now is....should the sanctions already in place continue and should they continue as planned with the new ones? The US and many nations in the EU think yes. For two reasons....have they stopped enriching and allowed anyone in to verify it is not potentially able to be used for weapons grade material? And the other main reason is why the heck did Iran stop anyone from confirming this 4 years ago? This would have been to their advantage, yet they continually kicked out all UN & International agencies out when they started asking questions about it and looking for proof they were not doing what is now being reported they stopped doing 4 years ago. Maybe it is just my former corrections officer skepticism coming out again, but it seems if you are innocent and under pressure for stopping what you are have already stopped, then you would want the world to know about it. why won't they let anyone in now to confirm this report?
  8.    #28  
    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal;1389476]Okay the report states that they have "high confidence" that Iran stopped their Nuke weapon's program in 2003, which probably as close to the slam dunk analysis with Iraq as intelligence can get. This is good news at the first glance. But few have reported that it also states in the same report that they only have "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the weapons program.

    Ummm. only every published account I've read has stated the same, just as it was reported in the OP as well as every other published account referenced. Within the first 30 seconds after you read this line, kindly tell me what the aggregate intelligence confidence levels were regarding the evidence of Iraq WMD of the US IC. Yeah, that's what I thought.

    But if we take it at face value that they did stop their nuke program and they have not started it up again...this is only 1/3 of a nuke program. The program they stopped deals mostly with the assembly of a warhead while providing a stable weapon and increasing it's output.
    According to whom besides your fave rightwing blogs?

    They are still continuing the other 2/3 of a nuke program, which is why both the US AND Europe are still calling for another round of sanctions. Iran still continued their deployment system program (increasing range of missiles and often time a major stumbling block for inspiring nations) and still continued enriching (the source material to actually build a bomb with).
    Quick! Uranium or plutonium? Maybe Bush misread Putin's soul when he looked deeply into his eyes?

    I also find it interesting at the timing that they stopped it. It was the time that the US was really pressuring Saddam for his nuke program that he later testified to have halted at the time but still wanted Iran to think he had it until he could actually start it up again.
    Should we now just call you Scooter?

    Wow, it's almost like I'm reading the OP article. But, 2003 wasn't exactly when Saddam was sabre rattling about a nuclear program.

    So the question now is....should the sanctions already in place continue and should they continue as planned with the new ones? The US and many nations in the EU think yes. For two reasons....have they stopped enriching and allowed anyone in to verify it is not potentially able to be used for weapons grade material? And the other main reason is why the heck did Iran stop anyone from confirming this 4 years ago?
    Is Iran not a sovereign nation with autonomy? When was the last time Israel confirmed or categorically denied its US-provided nuclear arsenal or allowed independent IAEA confirmation?

    This would have been to their advantage, yet they continually kicked out all UN & International agencies out when they started asking questions about it and looking for proof they were not doing what is now being reported they stopped doing 4 years ago. Maybe it is just my former corrections officer skepticism coming out again, but it seems if you are innocent and under pressure for stopping what you are have already stopped, then you would want the world to know about it. why won't they let anyone in now to confirm this report?
    Welcome to the world outside of where the system is rigged, Hobbes. The onus is on the prosecutor, not the defense. The prosecutor, all 16 of them, have spoken via consensus, yet they still aren't listening to your pearls of wisdom. Hhhmmm

    If the US, under Reagan -> Bush -> Shrub, hadn't backed Iran into an extremely isolated corner, the likelihood of a more accommodating relationship may have been plausible. All sticks and no carrots does not gain agreement from adversaries. The world is not your jail to guard.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    That didn't forecast the end of the Soviet Union.
    That had no clue India and Pakistan were about to go nuclear.
    That called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk".
    That couldn't stop 19 punks with box cutters from hijacking airliners and slamming them into buildings.

    I could go on.

    I think that in a few years when Iran cracks off their first nuke in the middle of the great salt desert I'll have another to add to that list.
    That were certain that Iran had a weapons program in 2005.
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  10. #30  
    [QUOTE=lifes2short;1389495] Ummm. only every published account I've read has stated the same, just as it was reported in the OP as well as every other published account referenced. QUOTE]

    You need to broaden your research past moveon.org.


    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal And the other main reason is why the heck did Iran stop anyone from confirming this 4 years ago? This would have been to their advantage, yet they continually kicked out all UN & International agencies out when they started asking questions about it and looking for proof they were not doing what is now being reported they stopped doing 4 years ago. Maybe it is just my former corrections officer skepticism coming out again, but it seems if you are innocent and under pressure for stopping what you are have already stopped, then you would want the world to know about it. why won't they let anyone in now to confirm this report? [/QUOTE]

    Hmmmmm, this is a tough one. I wonder why they kept kicking all the inspectors out...
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by robber View Post
    You need to broaden your research past moveon.org.
    Apparently, you should read more and speak less, as you're the only one to reference them.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Apparently, you should read more and speak less, as you're the only one to reference them.
    I wouldent be suprised if you were tied to the organization. Your anger and attacks are very reminiscent of moveon.org.

    Honestly- take a look at your reply to HobbesisReal. It was Hobbes first post in this thread and he was clearly trying be unbiased. He raised his concerns in a well though out manner and backed them with his sources.

    Your response by comparison is to make a personal attack for his "outlandish" viewpoint. You addressed zero of his points with facts, instead digressing to quick one liners that have very little if any substance. Often times they are not even relevant to the topic.

    What you fail to realize is that people like you actually help the republicans. Your commentary and demeanor do not speak to the people you need to convince- your speaking directly to your radical left wing cohorts that have JFK turning over in his grave. So keep it up.

    All of us moderate conservatives owe you a drink.

    -Rob
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by robber View Post
    I wouldent be suprised if you were tied to the organization. Your anger and attacks are very reminiscent of moveon.org.
    Unconcerned. But, by all means, carry on with your paranoia.

    Honestly- take a look at your reply to HobbesisReal. It was Hobbes first post in this thread and he was clearly trying be unbiased. He raised his concerns in a well though out manner and backed them with his sources.
    Little late to the party, aren't you? Jumping into the middle doesn't preclude the past. Get it? His "points" have already been covered ... and Hobbes knows it.

    Your response by comparison is to make a personal attack for his "outlandish" viewpoint. You addressed zero of his points with facts, instead digressing to quick one liners that have very little if any substance. Often times they are not even relevant to the topic.
    Again, premature supposition on your part. Keep reading.

    What you fail to realize is that people like you actually help the republicans. Your commentary and demeanor do not speak to the people you need to convince- your speaking directly to your radical left wing cohorts that have JFK turning over in his grave. So keep it up.
    Softball kneejerk internet response, circa 1990.

    All of us moderate conservatives owe you a drink.
    I'll buy you a round to help you drown your tears on Jan. 20, 2008.

    Now, back to your justification for the plan for "US military intervention" in Iran without any backing from the US intelligence community.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    If the US, under Reagan -> Bush -> Shrub, hadn't backed Iran into an extremely isolated corner, the likelihood of a more accommodating relationship may have been plausible. All sticks and no carrots does not gain agreement from adversaries.
    You seemed to have forgotten Bill Clinton in your list or Presidents who have dealt with Iran and when he reportedly gave Iran the plans for a Nuke Bomb according to James Risen, the New York Times reporter.

    We offered plenty of carrots:

    • Russia offered to supply them with all the nuclear fuel needed to meet their claimed goals of a peaceful nuke program for electricity if they stop refining themselves. They refused. Now when Russia does send some, they announce they are opening another nuke facility.
    • We have offered to clear their name that they are not refining to weapons grade material. We have offered to clear their name that they do not have an active weapons program. On all accounts that we have tried to clear their name, they kick us out when we started asking too many questions or looking behind the wrong closed doors.
    • The UN has offered over and over and over again to remove all sanctions and not apply any more as long as they relieve the worries of the international community.

    I am all for a peaceful solution. Here are all the peaceful solutions that have been tried so far. Here & Here. Iran needs to let the UN in to confirm it is not pursuing nuke weapons. If they are innocent, this should not be an issue.....even if they want to refine their own fuel for electricity. They have many, many options to walk away from this with a clean record and the opportunity to gloat that they were right all along. A Win Win for Iran....if they are innocent. Which is the whole issue at it's core, no one able to confirm their innocence...which is all we want.

    It seems that even though Iran itself will not confirm it's own innocence you are willing to. Can you state clearly (without any sarcastic remarks) your position about Iran and your solution with dealing with Iran?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    According to whom besides your fave rightwing blogs?
    Only if CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, and Bloomberg are considered right wing blog sources.....


    Iran's Nuclear Know-How Unimpeded
    As Power Research Proceeds, Tehran Can Still Gain The Expertise Needed For A Bomb
    CBS News

    But developing the technology to enrich uranium is perhaps the most difficult step in a nuclear weapons - or civilian power - program. According to administration officials and outside experts, it is possible that Tehran has simply decided it does not need to proceed with actual bomb work, at least for now.

    "Iranian leaders appear to have recognized that by staying within the rules they can acquire capabilities sufficient to impress their own people and intimidate their neighbors, without inviting tough international sanctions or military attack," concludes George Perkovich, director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in an assessment of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate's (NIE) revelations.

    As of now the U.S. intelligence has high confidence that Iran has not produced enough highly enriched fissile material for a nuclear weapon. The earliest it would be able to do so is probably within the 2010 to 2015 time frame, according to the new NIE.

    And if Iran does decide to develop nuclear weapons, scientists would most likely use centrifuge technology, which they are currently working on at Natanz.

    "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons," says the NIE.

    Iran has long claimed that its enrichment program is intended for civilian purposes. Iranian officials say they only want to learn how to produce fissionable fuel for power plants, as they are allowed to do under terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    But in the past, Iranian officials have engaged in what UN weapons inspectors consider to be suspicious behavior in regard to their enrichment effort. For instance, Tehran has built and secretly operated centrifuges, the spinning tubes which are the heart of the enrichment technology Iran has chosen.

    For this and other reasons the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2003 declared Iran in violation of its UN nuclear safeguards agreement.

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

    As of mid-August 2007, Iran had produced only about 70 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, according to David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security. At full speed, 3,000 centrifuges should be able to produce 90 kilograms of LEU in a month.

    Once Iran accumulates 700 to 800 kilograms of low-enriched material, it would have a breakout capability, concludes Albright in an assessment in the current issue of the journal Arms Control Today. It could take that material and put it back into the centrifuges and keep upping its concentration, producing enough HEU for a bomb within a few months.



    FULL STORY http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3589706.shtml
    Doves find fault with Iran report too

    December 7, 2007

    Sharon Squassoni, a former government nuclear safeguards expert now with the generally liberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, noted that the intelligence report said Iran suspended its enrichment program in 2003 and later signed an agreement allowing U.N. inspections.

    But, she said, the portion of the report made public was silent on the fact that the Iranians reversed both actions in 2006.

    The ability to develop fissile materials is the most important element of a nuclear weapons program, she told reporters.

    Gary Samore, who was a top arms control official in the Clinton White House, agreed that the National Intelligence Estimate did not adequately emphasize Iran's continuing efforts to enrich uranium and build missiles.

    "The halting of the weaponization program in 2003 is less important from a proliferation standpoint than resumption of the enrichment program in 2006," said Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Samore said the report undermined Bush's warnings about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons and left Tehran in a strong position, allowing it to develop its enrichment capacity without a substantial challenge from the United States and its allies. The secret weaponization program is "on ice," he said, but Iran preserves the option to resume that when it wishes.

    FULL STORY: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ack=crosspromo
    France Pushes for Tightened Sanctions Against Iran Despite U.S. Report

    PARIS France pushed for continued negotiations to tighten international sanctions against Iran, saying Friday that its concerns about Tehran's nuclear program were not allayed by new U.S. intelligence.

    "Negotiations should continue so that we can reach possibly a worsening of the sanctions regime," said French presidential spokesman David Martinon.

    "We need to increase pressure on Iran and the only way to do that is sanctions," he added. "For us, the sooner the better."

    U.S. intelligence agencies, in a report released on Monday, concluded that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program, but halted it in 2003. But Martinon said the report did not allay France's concerns. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. President George W. Bush discussed the report earlier this week.

    "We cannot at all conclude that the threat has decreased," said Martinon.

    He urged Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency and suspend uranium enrichment.

    "The demands of the international community are more pertinent than ever," he said.

    FULL STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315789,00.html
    U.S., Europe Press for New Sanctions on Iran After Spy Report


    Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and its European allies will proceed with efforts to impose a third round of United Nations sanctions against Iran in the face of an intelligence report suggesting the nuclear threat from the country has diminished.

    ``We are going to continue our work on the Security Council resolution,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today after meetings with NATO and European Union foreign ministers in Brussels. ``We very much hope that Iran will choose to suspend its enriching and reprocessing activities.''


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

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said after meeting with Rice and her counterparts from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries that he hopes ``negotiations'' with Iran will continue and that the U.S. will not use force to resolve the matter.

    China said earlier this week that the intelligence report would impede agreement on new UN sanctions. ``We all start from a presumption that now things have changed,'' Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the UN, said on Dec. 4. There will be ``second thoughts,'' he said.

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

    Success with enrichment would bring Iran a step closer to producing a nuclear weapon, and the program only makes sense in the context of an attempt to build a bomb, Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht told reporters after hosting the meeting's first session late yesterday.

    ``Everyone around the table agreed we should not change our position,'' de Gucht said. ``They should come into line with all the obligations.''

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

    ``It is probably correct to maintain a necessary degree of pressure through the solidarity of the international community,'' German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. ``None of that should deter us especially at this moment from trying to find a way back to the negotiating table.''

    FULL STORY: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p....w4&refer=home
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/19/2007 at 12:10 PM.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Should we now just call you Scooter?

    Wow, it's almost like I'm reading the OP article. But, 2003 wasn't exactly when Saddam was sabre rattling about a nuclear program.
    It it is like reading the OP article why are you countering all points that would then seem to agree with you?

    Technically you are right. It would be from 1998 with Bill Clinton's statement of his concerns with active and unconfirmed status of WMD programs in Iraq up until March 2003 when we attacked Iraq. It is also interesting that you ignored Libya giving up their WMD program in 2003 as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddam's reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,
    Congress had already voted for going after Iraq on Friday, October 11, 2002 ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html ).
    Nov 8th 2002 the UN Security Council Approves Iraq Resolution ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html ).
    March 20th, 2003 US attacks Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/ ).

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 months AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    http://discussion.wmexperts.com/show...&postcount=175
    So it appears that they stopped their program only after it came to light and we started adding pressure to Iran about it. Along with attacking Iraq because of Iraq's WMDs, along with Libya giving their up for fear of the US going after them next.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/19/2007 at 12:34 PM.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    You seemed to have forgotten //Political Op-Ed Hackjob Snipped//
    Can't rise above lowbrow, attack politics to get a point across? How swiftboat/Rovian of you.

    Russia offered to supply them with all the nuclear fuel needed to meet their claimed goals of a peaceful nuke program for electricity if they stop refining themselves. They refused. Now when Russia does send some, they announce they are opening another nuke facility.
    Russia is the new England? And? . . .

    We have offered to clear their name that they are not refining to weapons grade material. We have offered to clear their name that they do not have an active weapons program. On all accounts that we have tried to clear their name, they kick us out when we started asking too many questions or looking behind the wrong closed doors.
    How 20th century of you to think that "clearing their name" is a carrot.

    Your jail cell monitor mentality overreaches. Again, the onus is on the prosecutor, not the defense.

    The UN has offered over and over and over again to remove all sanctions and not apply any more as long as they relieve the worries of the international community.
    Gee, what ever happened to your calls for the elimination of the UN? How convenient when US policy fails under Republican leadership that you need a patsy.

    I am all for a peaceful solution.
    Your numerous disguised rants defy you.

    Iran needs to let the UN in to confirm it is not pursuing nuke weapons. If they are innocent, this should not be an issue.....even if they want to refine their own fuel for electricity. They have many, many options to walk away from this with a clean record and the opportunity to gloat that they were right all along. A Win Win for Iran....if they are innocent. Which is the whole issue at it's core, no one able to confirm their innocence...which is all we want.
    Wow! Guilty before proven innocent? You really are a product of the jailhouse's special breed of American jurisprudence, aren't you?

    It seems that even though Iran itself will not confirm it's own innocence you are willing to. Can you state clearly (without any sarcastic remarks) your position about Iran and your solution with dealing with Iran?
    Is your understanding really that selective? If you take the time to selectively point fingers as you do, you can also take the time to understand the positions held, as expressed over and over again.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    It it is like reading the OP article why are you countering all points that would then seem to agree with you?
    Until now, you hadn't bothered to read the article, clearly, as your introductory post in this thread confirms due to its ill-advised assumption that the IC's conclusions on Iran were 100% airtight. Selective regurgitation of the article I posted, and acting as if it suits your agenda is what you're being called on.

    Technically you are right. It would be from 1998 with Bill Clinton's statement of his concerns with active and unconfirmed status of WMD programs in Iraq up until March 2003 when we attacked Iraq.
    You cannot take responsibility for your own errant claims of Hussein's verbal drum-beating about a non-existent nuclear capability? And yet, you act confused as to why your specious agenda gets countered.

    BTW, how many American or Iraqi lives did Clinton sacrifice by going to war in Iraq?

    So it appears that they stopped their program only after it came to light and we started adding pressure to Iran about it.
    Claiming credit for something in which the US had no involvement? The Ultimate Bushism!

    Along with attacking Iraq because of Iraq's [EDIT- non-existent] WMDs, along with Libya giving their up for fear of the US going after them next.
    Libya was as dangerous to US interests as Grenada. You may as well be saying "Don't forget Poland!".
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    How 20th century of you to think that "clearing their name" is a carrot.

    ----------

    Wow! Guilty before proven innocent? You really are a product of the jailhouse's special breed of American jurisprudence, aren't you?
    Life....can we hold a discussion without the personal degrading comments? It is valuable to share differing views backed up with sources of why one holds that view. I learn a lot from reading the sources that help shape opposing views and I will often times recognize them if sourced and shared in a respect manner.

    Again, as I said clearing the name of Iran is at the core of the whole issue. They refuse to do that. There are international organizations established to do just that. If I was caught with the murder weapon in hand standing over a body and I could prove my innocence by letting the policy search my house, you bet I would. Proving, or more true to the point in this case, confirming innocence would certainly be a carrot to any nation facing international charges that could result in result in tougher sanctions and possibly war.

    Iran was caught conducting potential activities outside of international regulation and law with a program they told us in 1979 that they stopped (with suppose to be full disclosure of any additional nuke activity which they did do for the limited projects that they did continue). Again, as I mentioned before the core of the issue is all the road blocks that Iran has and is putting up to confirm and verify (which is different from prove) their own innocence.


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Can you state clearly (without any sarcastic remarks) your position about Iran and your solution with dealing with Iran?
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short
    Is your understanding really that selective? If you take the time to selectively point fingers as you do, you can also take the time to understand the positions held, as expressed over and over again.
    Life I asked this in all sincerity as reading through this thread and not substantial and unsourced comments I truthfully was not sure what your stand it is on Iran and what solutions you think we should pursue to resolve it along with any sourcing that helps to support why you think that. Just saying I already said it leaves still not understanding your position. Would you be willing to summarize it in one post with any possible sources? Thanks.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/19/2007 at 03:23 PM.
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Life....can we hold a discussion without the personal degrading comments? It is valuable to share differing views backed up with sources of why one holds that view. I learn a lot from reading the sources that help shape opposing views and I will often times recognize them if sourced and shared in a respect manner.
    What's 'personally degrading' about pointing out that a viewpoint is antiquatedly quaint (by American standards) as interpreted in that region of the world? Nothing disrespectful about it. The value of one's communication is only as valid as how it is received, and the response from Iran should be telling both you and George something when the US IC is in consensus. Assumption of guilt is a core theme in your posts and pointing this out, as if you're not fully aware, is not a sin.

    Again, as I said clearing the name of Iran is at the core of the whole issue. They refuse to do that. There are internation organizations established to do just that. If I was caught with the murder weapon in hand standing over a body and I could prove my innocence by letting the policy search my house, you bet I would. Proving, or more true to the point in this case, confirming innocence would certainly be a carrot to any nation facing international charges that could result in result in tougher sanctions and possibly war.
    You're asking for Iran to prove a negative just as Bush spoke the immortal words "Saddam has not disarmed!", though you will not admit it, yet you will not/cannot accept how little value your "carrot" has for them. Just as the US does not allow the IAEA to prove or disprove the existence of Israel's US-provided nuclear arsenal, Iran owes you nothing. When parity can be agreed upon in the Middle East, you'll find a much more willing partner in Iran.

    Iran was caught conducting potential activities outside of international regulation and law with a program they told us in 1979 that they stopped (with suppose to be full disclosure of any additional nuke activity which they did do for the limited projects that they did continue).
    The US-puppet and brutal dictator, the Shah made this promise before Iran finally had enough of oil revenues being directed to US interests?

    Again, as I mentioned before the core of the issue is all the road blocks that Iran has and is putting up to confirm and verify (which is different from prove) their own innonence.
    As to providing links to prove I have an opinion, you couldn't even be troubled enough to read the OP's article until I pointed it out to you. Links to provide background for an opinion is a bit ridiculous outside of showing historical events, since opinions are like rightwing sock-puppets, but this may give you a hint as to how the US is considered: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a..._iraq_war1.php

    This is exactly how Republican chickenhawks justified a fool's war 5 years ago. It doesn't wash, as evidence is necessary for the prosecution to fulfill its obligation. Beyond the US Intelligence Community's conclusions, what further intelligence do you purport to have which trumps that of the US government for the invasive actions you suggest against Iran?
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions