Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 182
  1.    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    (see what i mean, these responses and counter responses are getting too lengthy).
    It is just after incomprehension, it seemed in order to include some facts to back up my statements instead of simply emotional statements, theories, statements based on biased loyalties, etc....

    So I will keep it simple, but since you seem to be missing some key facts, I doubt that will happen.....


    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I did read some of those reports you posted in reference to these "ties to al quaida", including those from mainstream sources, however you are wrong about them being new. This is the same information Bush and Cheney were using to drum up support for the war. This is just more verification of it, and none of this was disputed in the intelligence community. There were meetings between Iraqi government officials and al quiada, as a part of an effort to put aside their differences ( those differences being that saddam is secular and was torturing radical islamisists ). Those efforts failed. I have seen no credible information since, to the contrary. Sean Hannity aside of course.
    You act as if I am going around claiming all this is rock solid facts. I never said there were new claims, but that only what you said, new evidences for old claims that many have called lies. I have stated over and over again that much of this new evidence is either circumstantial, uncollaborated, and speculative (which is the very nature of world of Intel). I have only stated that this is interesting when looking at several pieces of evidence together. I have always said that may prove to be very insightful information as more is translated and released.

    Here are some of the examples that I think at very least is worthy of pause to consider, especially in light that other information is currently being translated from this same time period:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Among the treasure trove of information captured after Saddam Hussein's fall were tape recordings of the Iraqi leader discussing weapons of mass destruction with top aides.

    Transcripts of Saddam's tapes reviewed by NBC News show him ruminating about future terror attacks in the United States using weapons of mass destruction.

    Hoeckstra says there are more than 35,000 boxes of such tapes and documents that the U.S. government has not analyzed nor made public that should also be translated and studied on an urgent basis.

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

    An unidentified Saddam aide replies that biological weapons are easy to construct: “… any biologist can make it in water tank and kill 100,000 person … so you can’t accuse a country, one person can do it. One American person can do it in a house, next to the White House.”

    On another tape, Saddam says future terrorism will be with WMD. "It is possible in the future to see a booby trap and the explosion turns out to be nuclear, germ or chemical."

    U.S. intelligence analysts have confirmed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that Saddam’s voice on the audiotapes is authentic. The analysts believe most of the tapes were recorded in the ’90s, after the first Gulf War.

    “What the tapes show is that between the first gulf war and the second gulf war, Saddam Hussein had not lost his appetite for, or interest in, weapons of mass destruction,” says Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project, an advocacy group working to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction. “To the contrary, he was almost obsessed by them.’’

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/
    Then you add this:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Materials made public in the first wave of the release will be those least likely to raise objections from the intelligence community and U.S. allies. Negroponte plans to include many of the documents labeled "NIV"--for No Intelligence Value--in this first group of materials.

    But Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, insists that documents relevant to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 will be released in short order. "There may be many documents that relate to their WMD programs. Those should be released," says Hoekstra. "Same thing with links to terrorism."

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

    It is hard to say what, exactly, to expect with the coming release of documents [and 3,000 hours of audio tape after this initial release today]. There will be documents that lend support to those who opposed the war in Iraq and, to be sure, documents that bolster the case for those who supported the war.

    Importantly, after years of questions about the threat from the Iraqi regime, we will now be able to get some answers.

    * How close were the French and the Russians to the former Iraqi regime?
    * What kind of information was being passed to the Iraqis on the eve of war in early 2003?
    * What is the real story of Iraq's WMD programs?
    * Why did Saddam's military leaders and scientists fabricate their reports on the progress of those programs?
    * Which terrorist groups had an active presence in Baghdad? * How many Palestinian Liberation Front jihadists did the Iraqi regime train each year?
    * How effective was Saddam Hussein in deceiving UN inspectors throughout the 1990s?
    * What did Saddam Hussein privately tell Yasser Arafat when the Palestinian leader came to Baghdad?
    * And what were the Western targets of the "Blessed July" martyrdom operation that was being planned as U.S. troops crossed into Iraq in March 2003?

    FULL STORY: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/975brvct.asp



    New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    March 16, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government

    "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

    Document dated Sept. 15, 2001
    • That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
    • That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
    • That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
    • That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.


    (Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate..............)

    "Election Campaign Laws in France"

    Documents dated July-August 1999

    Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France............

    (Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)

    "Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"

    Document dated March 23, 1997

    A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:

    • Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.).
    • Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored.


    (Editor's Note: This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein's government towards the U.N. inspectors...............)

    "Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"

    Document dated August 2002

    A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.

    The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.

    (Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

    FULL STORY: http://abcnews.go.com/International/...1734490&page=1
    And this this.....

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    More Documents released this week with yet even more interesting information:


    "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"
    A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

    The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

    (Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

    It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

    The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)


    FULL STORY: http://abcnews.go.com/International/...1734490&page=1
    Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

    March 24, 2006

    A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

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

    The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

    While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

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

    "This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

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

    The directorate of national intelligence with the U.S. Army foreign military studies office has begun to make over 50,000 boxes of documents and some 3,000 hours of audio tape captured in Iraq available on the Web at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

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

    A reporter for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayes, yesterday said he thought the memorandum of the 1995 meeting demolishes the view of some terrorism experts that bin Laden and Saddam were incapable of cooperating for ideological and doctrinal reasons.

    "Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."

    Mr. Hayes's story this week makes the case that the Iraqi embassy in Manila was funding and keeping close tabs on the Al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf.

    FULL STORY: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=2

    http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3634481

    Can you see that this just might be worthy of the possibility that we actually may continue to find evidence on these old claims? Or are you too closed minded to recognize that this could actually have been a reality?

    I am willing to watch and see and accept what we find. And it may come that we find a single document that shows no connect ever was finalized or that after we are finished translating the remaining 35,000 boxes of tapes and documents that we will firm arrangements of cooperation.


    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hobbes, are you saying that the President was taking pre war intellegence information from Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry? Because if not, i cant see how any of this is an excuse for this blunder.
    You either missed the point, or maybe don't understand.......many of the quotes I shared are from the UN, foreign govs, other terrorist orgs, and high ranking Senators. Many of these Senators had access to a lot of the raw data, especially those on the Intel Related Committees. In other words after they had the chance to review much of the same sources and intel, they came to same conclusion.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/23/2006 at 02:47 PM.
  2.    #122  


    Iran's War On The West

    Iran and Al Qaeda?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/23/2006 at 06:12 PM.
  3.    #123  


    Iran To Enrich Uranium In Russia

    Iran's envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Saturday the Islamic republic had reached a "basic deal" with the Kremlin to form a joint uranium enrichment venture on Russian territory, state-run television reported.

    Ali Asghar Soltanieh, envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, "spoke of a basic agreement between Iran and Russia to set up a joint uranium enrichment firm on Russian soil," Iranian state television reported.

    It remained unclear, though, whether Iran would entirely give up enrichment at home, a top demand of the West, or whether the joint venture would complement Iran's existing enrichment program. Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactors that generate electricity or to make atomic bombs.

    "Only issues regarding technical, legal and financial matters remain to be resolved which need more deliberation and exchange of views," the television quoted Soltanieh as saying Saturday in Moscow.

    FULL STORY: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1533978.shtml
    We have seen Iran flip flop on this soooooo many times, is this just another stalling tactic? Do you think they will get to the last minute and back out, like they have done several times already since their 20 years of lies about their nuke program became public?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/24/2006 at 08:32 PM.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hey ... do you work in the white house? By the way.. Were you saying that the USA is the only nation with the right to have this postion? Or did you mean that the rest of the nuclear powers should take on the same stance?

    IE.."If bush so much as hints at using a nuclear device... blah blah blah, turn Washington Dc in to a skating rink blah blah."

    Or is your position... in the words of Dubuyahh, "bring it on".
    No White House post, position, or connection of any kind. Do you ever get tired of your simplistic diatribe of insufferable anti-Bush antics?

    Anyway, it is not a "bring it on mentality." First, name one nuclear power (other than your friends in North Korea) that would have any reason for such a stance relative to the United States. My position is simply our interests, and safety, come first. Pax Romana.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    No White House post, position, or connection of any kind. Do you ever get tired of your simplistic diatribe of insufferable anti-Bush antics?

    Anyway, it is not a "bring it on mentality." First, name one nuclear power (other than your friends in North Korea) that would have any reason for such a stance relative to the United States. My position is simply our interests, and safety, come first. Pax Romana.
    Just in case I wasn't the only one that didn't know. Thanks dstrauss, you keep expanding my horizons.

    Pax Romana
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Pax Romana (27 BC-180 AD), Latin for "the Roman peace", is the long period of relative peace experienced by states within the Roman Empire. The term stems from the fact that Roman rule and its legal system pacified regions, sometimes forcefully, which had suffered from the quarrels between rival leaders. During this time Rome still fought a number of wars against neighboring states and tribes, most notably the Germanic tribes and Persians. It was an era of relative tranquility, in which Rome endured neither major civil wars, such as the perpetual bloodshed of the first century BC, nor serious invasions, such as those of the Second Punic War a century prior.

    This period is generally considered to have lasted from 27 BC, when Augustus Caesar declared an end to the great Roman civil wars of the first century, until either 180 AD, when emperor Marcus Aurelius died or the death of his son, Commodus in 192 AD. It was a time in which Roman commerce thrived, unhampered by pirates or marauding enemy troops. It was not peaceful; rebellions frequently appeared, but were mostly quelled. For example, British tribes (Queen Boudicca and the Iceni) rebelled against harsh Roman rule in 60 AD and at least 150,000 people lost their lives, a figure which does not include the massacre and starvation after the British defeat. Aditionally both border skirmishes and Roman wars of conquest happened during this period. Trajan embarked on a series of campaigns against the Parthians during his reign and Marcus Aurelius spent almost the entire last decade of his rule defending the frontiers of the Empire. Indeed, one might argue that Rome was constantly involved in some conflict or another during the "Pax Romana." However, the interior provinces remained largely untouched by warfare, thus giving the empire the semblance of peace.

    The Ara Pacis, or "Altar of peace" was erected for Augustus at the expense of the Roman Senate to celebrate the era of 'Augustine' peace.

    The Roman city Pax Iuliae ("Peace of the gens Julia") is today's Beja, Portugal.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  6. #126  
    Since I know it's D. Strauss' favorite Munkatar,

    Munk Romana: Are You Not Entertained?!?

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Since I know it's D. Strauss' favorite Munkatar,

    Munk Romana: Are You Not Entertained?!?

    That was very good.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  8.    #128  
    First they say this:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal


    Iran To Enrich Uranium In Russia

    Iran's envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Saturday the Islamic republic had reached a "basic deal" with the Kremlin to form a joint uranium enrichment venture on Russian territory, state-run television reported.

    Ali Asghar Soltanieh, envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, "spoke of a basic agreement between Iran and Russia to set up a joint uranium enrichment firm on Russian soil," Iranian state television reported.

    It remained unclear, though, whether Iran would entirely give up enrichment at home, a top demand of the West, or whether the joint venture would complement Iran's existing enrichment program. Enriched uranium can be used to fuel nuclear reactors that generate electricity or to make atomic bombs.

    "Only issues regarding technical, legal and financial matters remain to be resolved which need more deliberation and exchange of views," the television quoted Soltanieh as saying Saturday in Moscow.

    FULL STORY: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1533978.shtml
    then turn around again and say this:



    Iran: Nuclear program 'irreversible'

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran said Sunday its nuclear program is irreversible, issuing yet another rejection of a U.N. Security Council deadline to cease enriching uranium that expires in five days.
    Earlier this month, Tehran announced for the first time that it had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges, a step toward large-scale production of nuclear fuel that can be used either in atomic weapons or in nuclear reactors for civilian electricity generation.

    "Nuclear research will continue. Suspension of (nuclear activities including uranium enrichment) is not on our agenda. This issue is irreversible," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

    FULL STORY: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n_x.htm?csp=15
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/24/2006 at 08:32 PM.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Since I know it's D. Strauss' favorite Munkatar,

    Munk Romana: Are You Not Entertained?!?

    Yes, no doubt the best avatar among a glorious career of entertaining mug (Munk) shots. The current ain't no slouch either.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    ...
    Pax Romana
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Pax Romana (27 BC-180 AD), Latin for "the Roman peace", is the long period of relative peace experienced by states within the Roman Empire. The term stems from the fact that Roman rule and its legal system pacified regions, sometimes forcefully, which had suffered from the quarrels between rival leaders...
    The one thing Wikipedia misses is the protection of the Roman citizen. It was a death penalty offense for a non-citizen to injur a Roman citizen within the empire. My how times change.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    First, name one nuclear power (other than your friends in North Korea) that would have any reason for such a stance [development/use of nuclear weapons] relative to the United States.
    How about a country whose elected PM was removed from power by a the secret service of a foreign nation, the same nation who supported the dictator who followed the PM, and which, after the dictator was removed, supported an attack on that nation by a vicious madman called Saddam Hussein?

    While I don't support Iran's plans regarding nuclear bombs, nor their government, at times I tend to understand why they feel the need of having one...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    How about a country whose elected PM was removed from power by a the secret service of a foreign nation, the same nation who supported the dictator who followed the PM, and which, after the dictator was removed, supported an attack on that nation by a vicious madman called Saddam Hussein?

    While I don't support Iran's plans regarding nuclear bombs, nor their government, at times I tend to understand why they feel the need of having one...
    I thought I said name a "nuclear power" who would have that claim against the U.S. Aren't you one of those "Bush lied because Iraq didn't have WMD's" crowd? Of the current nuclear powers: China, France, Great Britain, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia, other than North Korea which of them have this stance relative to the United States? By the way, did South Korea invade North Korea on June 25, 1950? Didn't think so.

    Your tendancy to be so "understanding" will be our undoing.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I thought I said name a "nuclear power" who would have that claim against the U.S.
    Would-be nuclear power, if you prefer.
    Of the current nuclear powers: China, France, Great Britain, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia, other than North Korea
    Strange, why did you forget Israel?
    Your tendancy to be so "understanding" will be our undoing.
    And you really don't see the difference between understanding what the driving force behind an action is, and condoning the action? I hope you are the exception.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14.    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    While I don't support Iran's plans regarding nuclear bombs, nor their government, at times I tend to understand why they feel the need of having one...
    Like when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map:

    "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

    His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
    rallies.

    ----------

    Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".

    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm
    Or that the Holocaust is a fabricated myth and calls for an international conference to prove it was all a hoax....

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the murder of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II was a myth, another in a series of comments that have drawn international condemnation.

    "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan

    FULL STORY: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ust-myth_x.htm

    VIDEO: http://usatoday.feedroom.com/?fr_story=FEEDROOM125960
    Or today:

    Tehran, Iran, Apr. 24 – Iran’s radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday that Jews living in Israel should go back to Europe.

    “Let them return to their own lands”, Ahmadinejad told foreign and domestic reporters at a press conference in Tehran.

    The hard-line president shocked the international community previously when he called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and described the Holocaust as a “myth”.

    “They say that no one must speak about or research that event. Why shouldn’t they? If it is real, you must allow scientists to research it so that the reality becomes clearer every day. Why do you not allow it?” he said during Monday’s conference.

    http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=6898


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    And you really don't see the difference between understanding what the driving force behind an action is, and condoning the action? I hope you are the exception.
    What action.....That Iran obtains a Nuke or Trying to stop Iran from getting a Nuke?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/24/2006 at 04:38 PM.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    Let's try simple and sweet: If that Iranian nut job so much as hints at using a nuclear device, we turn Iran into a glow in the dark glass factory.
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    Anyway, it is not a "bring it on mentality."
    It's not? Ok thanks.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    I thought I said name a "nuclear power" who would have that claim against the U.S...
    This is very simple.

    If I am the leader of North Korea, and I heard President Bush Say ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dubyah
    [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

    Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

    Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

    States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. President Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2002
    Then i saw the president, invade and occupy Iraq, and literally drop a nuclear device on Iran, I might not wait around to see what happens next.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Would-be nuclear power, if you prefer.Strange, why did you forget Israel?And you really don't see the difference between understanding what the driving force behind an action is, and condoning the action? I hope you are the exception.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is very simple.

    If I am the leader of North Korea, and I heard President Bush Say ...

    Then i saw the president, invade and occupy Iraq, and literally drop a nuclear device on Iran, I might not wait around to see what happens next.
    clulup & theBlaze74

    My apologies for leaving one of our allies off the list, but of course, you realize they are still a "suspected" nuclear power, as of yet declared as one of the officially listed.

    As for "understanding" vs. "condoning" I found those to be "weasel words" or "waffles" as the popular press likes to call them. If the action in itself is objectionable or abhorrent, then there is no "understanding" that can apply. In the parlance of diplomacy, that is like saying we don't "condone" the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, but we can "understand" the frustration that led to that desperate act. B*******

    This is no different than feeling that although we don't condone Dahmer's murders and cannibalism, we "understand" that Dahmer had a violent and disturbed childhood that drove him to this behavior. We have slipped off into a world that lacks personal responsibility and substitutes "understanding" for action.

    Folks that hold your beliefs should hope that I am an exception.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is very simple.

    If I am the leader of North Korea, and I heard President Bush Say ...

    Then i saw the president, invade and occupy Iraq, and literally drop a nuclear device on Iran, I might not wait around to see what happens next.
    So what would you do?
    1. Follow the Libya model and give up all your WMD programs in exchange for diplomatic recognition, a peace treaty/security guarantees, help in building two light-water nuclear power plants, and billions of dollars in aid from US, South Korea, and Japan.

    2. Accelerate and make certain your own demise by launching an attack on South Korea, Japan, or the US.

    3. Maintain your nation's isolation and poverty by continuing work on your decades-old nuclear program while extorting South Korea for aid and stringing along the US by alternating promises to negotiate with belligerent threats.


    And what exactly was your point?
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    My apologies for leaving one of our allies off the list, but of course, you realize they are still a "suspected" nuclear power, as of yet declared as one of the officially listed.
    No apology needed, you mentioned North Korea in your list of Nuclear powers.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    So what would you do?
    1. Follow the Libya model and give up all your WMD programs in exchange for diplomatic recognition, a peace treaty/security guarantees, help in building two light-water nuclear power plants, and billions of dollars in aid from US, South Korea, and Japan.

    2. Accelerate and make certain your own demise by launching an attack on South Korea, Japan, or the US.

    3. Maintain your nation's isolation and poverty by continuing work on your decades-old nuclear program while extorting South Korea for aid and stringing along the US by alternating promises to negotiate with belligerent threats.


    And what exactly was your point?
    What would I do? Personally?

    I would not treat nuclear armageddon like a **** measuring contest. That's my point.

    Good versus evil is great for cowboy movies, and get out the vote efforts in Oklahoma, but not such a great strategy for nuclear war.
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions