The White House says Iran has one last chance

[Almighty Colin]

VOA News:

The White House says Iran has one last chance to meet its obligations under U.N. nuclear agreements, before the Security Council considers possible action. Diplomats say U.N. inspectors have found traces of weapons-grade uranium at a second site inside Iran.
Diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency say U.N. inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at an electricity plant west of Tehran that the government had previously said was a non-nuclear facility.

Earlier this year, U.N. inspectors found weapons-grade enriched uranium particles at a plant about 250 kilometers south of the capital. Responding to that finding, Iran said the material may have already been on the equipment when it was purchased outside the country.

Enriched uranium could be used to make nuclear weapons, and the U.N. agency has given Iran until the end of October to prove that it has no secret nuclear weapons program.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan says, if Tehran does not meet that deadline, the dispute should be brought before the U.N. Security Council.


Scott McClellan
"This is one last chance for Iran to comply, and if it doesn't, we believe it should be reported to the Security Council," he said.

The United Nations wants Iran to allow tougher inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran says it is only using nuclear material to generate electricity. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday that Iran will not abandon its uranium enrichment program because it is only for civilian purposes.

Mr. McClellan says the Bush administration believes Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, and is trying to hide that development from U.N. inspectors.

"These are part of a long-standing pattern of evasion and deception to disguise the true nature and purpose of Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

The IAEA will consider a report on the state of Iran's nuclear program at its next board meeting November 20. It may then refer the case to the U.N. Security Council, which could recommend economic and political sanctions.

Iran says it will cut back its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency, because it says the October 31 deadline is politically motivated.

[[Labret]]

Good.

The sooner the manchild gets more American kids killed, the quicker he leaves office.

:salute:

[Mike AI]

How many people are murdered everyday in the United States?

Right now more Americans are killed in New Orleans each day then Americans in COMBAT in Iraq.

The military is not some big summer camp program, it is an extension of US diplomacy. While it is not being reported, our troops ARE making a difference in Iraq, and the vast majority of Iraqies are happy we are there.

I know you have a hard time looking at the bigger picture, but try to grasp these concepts....

I know for some people the idea of Saddam back in power, and Iran with nuclear weapons sounds peachy keen... We are living in a world where only the United States is willing to hold up the bar... while everyone else shriks their responsibilities.

Wonder who will be crying the most when they get nuked from Iran or a terrorist that Iran supports...

Oh and a nice retort without including Zionism would be great!

[Nickatilynx]

Right now more Americans are killed in New Orleans each day then Americans in COMBAT in Iraq.


Oh come on.Thats too right wing even for me,and I always thought Thatcher was a pinko! LOL

How many Americans are in Irag, compared with NO?

An American is 60 times more likely to die violently in Iraq than in California,I believe.

Not incredibly high,but high-er. ;-)))

it is an extension of US diplomacy

Its the ultimate failure of diplomacy.



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Sep 25 2003, 01:53 PM

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Sep 25 2003, 04:52 PM
Right now more Americans are killed in New Orleans each day then Americans in COMBAT in Iraq.


Oh come on.Thats too right wing even for me,and I always thought Thatcher was a pinko! LOL

How many Americans are in Irag, compared with NO?

An American is 60 times more likely to die violently in Iraq than in California,I believe.

Not incredibly high,but high-er. ;-)))

it is an extension of US diplomacy

Its the ultimate failure of diplomacy.


NO has less people then Iraq!

Show me the info on Cali and Iraq... I do not beleive it.

War is not always a failure in policy - sometimes it is a necessity!

[PornoDoggy]

Gawdamitey ... [Labert] over here, Mikerone AI over there - it's a fucking Steeler's Wheel moment.

Trying to make some sense of it all
But I can see it makes no sense at all
....
Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

Mikey ... this may come as a real shock (or a real disappointment) to you, but it is possible to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration represents the worst possible mistakes in foreign policy since Vietnam and still not want Saddam back in power.

Another disappointing newsflash - real live genuine patriotic Americans have the right to question how and where those troops are deployed (even if you AND Rush AND Neil AND the ghost of John Fucking Birch don't like it). There are thinking, educated people who consider what you defend as "realpolitik" to be the failed policies of 19th century imperialism wrapped up in a Kissengeresque veneer of pragmatic power projection. These policies are all the more dangerous because many of the fundamental problems we are confronting in those areas of the world vulnerable to Islamic terrorists are the aftermath of both those eras/policies.


And come on - surely you must realize that arguements about the relative safety of Iraq compared to NO are pathetic in the extreme.

[Labret] - the laundry called. Sheets are ready, but they don't know if it's medium or heavy starch for the brown shirts.

[Mike AI]

PD you think I love Bush, but I think he has not done to well, ESPECIALLY when it comes to issues here at home.

With the war on Terror, he gets a B+ He would get a higher grade if he would be kicking more ass, stop defending the house of Saud, etc...

We are winning the war on terror.... no matter what the press says. We are being successful in Iraq.

[Mike AI]

PD read this interview of a Democrat who just came back from Iraq, from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/24/ltm.03.html

AMERICAN MORNING

Iraq & the Media

Aired September 24, 2003 - 08:34 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The mounting death toll, meanwhile, in Iraq among U.S. troops well documented; 166 U.S. soldiers dead there since the 1st of May. That's when the president declared major fighting over. But are reporters focusing too narrowly on the bad news in Iraq? That's a charge leveled by U.S. Representative Jim Marshall out of the state of Georgia. He wrote that in an op-ed column published this week by the "Atlanta Journal-Constitution." He's with us live in D.C.
Good morning, sir. Nice to have you with us.

REP. JIM MARSHALL, (D), GEORGIA: Happy to be here.

HEMMER: Also in our studio, CNN's Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf, who will be going back to the Iraqi capital in about a week's time.

Nice to see you, Jane. Good morning.

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Thanks, Bill.

HEMMER: First to the Congressman, your main accusation says essentially that the negative reporting could lead to the deaths of more U.S. service members. Explain how you see that logic and that parallel, sir.

MARSHALL: Well, this is a guerrilla conflict, and we can't win it without the Iraqis stepping forward. We can't force freedom on them. They've got to take it for themselves. Their willingness to step forward and take chances is going to depend an awful lot upon how they perceive things going. If the media is painting a bleak picture, they're apt to see things fairly bleakly. If we're discouraged, if we're not resolute, they're apt to see things pretty bleakly. They don't come forward, they don't give us intelligence information, they don't fight. The consequences to us are pretty bad.

HEMMER: So you're saying the negative news, negative headlines encourages more terrorist activity?

MARSHALL: There's no question that it does that and will over the course of time do that. Americans need to think about this as they think about their nightly news and local TV stations and front pages of newspapers. If you think about it, in most communities, that's awfully negative stuff, and yet people can -- they have a sense that that doesn't really paint a fair picture of our community and what's really going on. In Iraq, it's a similar sort of thing. I don't think there's any grand conspiracy here. I think it's the tendency of media to focus on the negative, because the negative sells, and we need to be aware of that. To the extent the media can change and start showing a little bit more of the picture, that would be great. But at the very least, Americans need to know things are going better in Iraq than is depicted on our television screens.

HEMMER: I understand your point.

You're back from Baghdad. Do you see his point, and does he have a fair point?

ARRAF: I think he certainly has a fair point in that it's a very complicated situation, and everyone's trying to figure out the best way forward in something that's still very volatile. I don't really think that the terrorists are really watching the media, listening very much. I don't think that's really affecting them. And I think it really does a disservice, Bill, to the Iraqi people to think that if we have more good news stories, then their confidence will increase. That's really not the problem.

HEMMER: Let me share with our viewers quickly a part of what the Congressman wrote. We'll put it up on the screen He says, "I'm afraid the news media hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with the rest of the story, the progress made daily, the good news."

Why is it that we only hear about shootings on a daily basis and not about the school that's being rebuilt or the water treatment plant that's now been re-established or things of that nature, like a hospital?

ARRAF: There are small bits of good news, and we do try to do them, and everyone who's there tries to do a balanced picture. But I don't think we can forget that this is against the backdrop of something that cannot be seen as other than bad news. American servicemen are dying, Iraqis are afraid, and it's really only when you've been there, as we have, and as the representative have, that you get a sense of it.

But one of the things I have to say, as well, is that most congressional delegations who have come to Iraq do not even spend the night. They consider it too unsafe and they go back to Kuwait for the night, which is really an indication. We can't be overly -- we can't paint a rosier picture than exists. And the reality is, it is pretty bleak there.

HEMMER: Yes, Congressman, there are some new poll numbers that came out from the folks at Gallup earlier today. Listen to some of the numbers that they're putting out. Only 33 percent in Baghdad of those surveyed say they're better off now than before the war. 94 percent say their city is more dangerous now. Yet -- and here's a positive note here -- 62 percent do think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the effort. Does that, those poll numbers that you're watching, especially 94 percent, do they not reflect the reality on the ground in Iraq today?

MARSHALL: There's no question that it is dangerous in Iraq today, and it's dangerous for the people of Iraq, in part, because Saddam released an awful lot of criminals before the end of the conventional part of this war. Zogby took a poll, 70 percent of the folks that Zogby polled said that allied forces need to stay there for a year. Think about 774 embedded journalists. That's the total. I think the high point toward the embedded journalists during the conventional part of the conflict spread them out over the military forces in Iraq today, have them send videos, news articles home, and I think what you'd find is an awful lot of that 90 percent of those journalists would not be seeing mayhem, they'd be seeing progress.

And there are literally thousands of stories of progress that can be given. We're headed in a good direction. This is not an ideal situation. Nobody wants to spend this kind of money in support of this effort.

But the fact of the matter is, we've got an opportunity to do an immeasurable amount of good to our national security if we're successful here. We need to stay the course. The key to the deal is whether or not Iraqis step forward and secure their own freedom. We can't force them to do that. If they do that, then this is something that we'll look back on and say was a wise thing to do, to stay in there and try to secure a secular representative government in this country.

HEMMER: Understood. About 10 seconds left. Final thought on what he said.

ARRAF: Just Representative Marshall's thought on more embedding, I don't think that's the solution. With embedding, journalists -- putting them with the military, you get narrower coverage, and you get the purely military picture. That is not what we need. We need wider coverage, we need journalists out there with Iraqis.

HEMMER: You be safe when you go back Baghdad.

ARRAF: Thank you so much.

HEMMER: Jane Arraf, our bureau chief in Iraq.

And, Congressman Jim Marshall, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

MARSHALL: Sure.

HEMMER: Out of the state of Georgia, with us today from Washington D.C.

[PornoDoggy]

Mike ... I don't care if it's presented by a Democrat or a Republican, the idea that telling more good news about what is going on in Iraq will somehow deter terrorism is every bit as intellectually weak as your "more people die in NO" arguement. Grasping at straws, my friend.

Most arguements that we are "winning" the war on terror are made by the very same people who declare that this is a long war unlike any that we've ever seen before. It's way too early to tell HOW we are doing in the war on terror. It remains to be seen if the war in Iraq had any relationship with the war on terror in the beginning, and it will be years before we see if the tactical victory against Saddam was a defeat in the war on terror.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 25 2003, 01:00 PM
it is an extension of US diplomacy.


'US diplomacy' is an oxymoron. :moon:

[XXXManager]

PD.
For you to claim that a policy is the worst you should offer a better one.
But for someone else to prove your claim is wrong, he/she just have to point out a worse one. Just one.
So lets take any.
Any policy until now that the US had only kept the Middle east in his favorable terrorist hive status.
Clinton's policy of embracing Arafat making him a "legitimate '''elected''' leader", staying out of things that are "not his business" like the dark regimes in the middleeast and other places around the world didn't help you avoid the 9/11. Afaik it only made it possible.

If you suggest keep staying away and wait for that "side of the world" to start loving you, force the creation of a palestinian state with no law or order in, ran by a terrorist leader (which will only turn into another black country who hates the US for being a western democracy) and support international terrorism, weakening the US industry and big companies (to create a more 'fair' environment [not that I don't think it is these days though]), allow everyone around the world to have his nuclear enabled dictatorship...

What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?

[[Labret]]

And come on - surely you must realize that arguements about the relative safety of Iraq compared to NO are pathetic in the extreme.


You just got to let statements with analogies like that stand alone. They speak volumes about the cognitive abilities (or lack thereof) of the person making them.


[Labret] - the laundry called. Sheets are ready, but they don't know if it's medium or heavy starch for the brown shirts.


Bout time.

Ill send my nigger right over with instructions and to pick up the rest of the order.



Wonder who will be crying the most when they get nuked from Iran or a terrorist that Iran supports...


Crying? The only tears you will see are tears of joy streaming down my cheeks as I watch the sheep bleat and cower in fear. Their delicate little world destroyed, decades of consumer diplomacy come home to roost. Protect us o' beloved manchild, kill more of the angry brown men who worship the same God differently than we do. That will make them stop wont it?

Well... odds are they will be using it on Americans or Zionists, in either case it is a win / win.


Oh and a nice retort without including Zionism would be great!


doh, you got me. You and Buff must have a mind meld going. You are on fire.



Last edited by [Labret] at Sep 25 2003, 05:38 PM

[XXXManager]

Labret
Go back to GFY

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 04:54 PM


What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?

riiiiiight

Our "diplomacy" has kept your theocratic welfare state afloat and inflamed the middle east.

Want to solve a huge part of the problem with sand niggers wanting to kill Americans?

Stop supporting Israel and let the Arabs wipe them off the planet.

They will then inevitably turn on each other as they always have. Let the middle east descend into chaos. If they are busy killing each other they are not killing fat stupid Americans right?

But then again, that is why we liberated Iraq right? We hated seeing Saddam treat his people like shit. They need to be like us. Colonialism is the only way. No that never backfires. Ask France and England.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY

Can you explain to me how you can support a zionist state and at the same time condone working in pornography? I am confused, please help me to understand.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Sep 26 2003, 01:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Sep 26 2003, 01:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY

Can you explain to me how you can support a zionist state and at the same time condone working in pornography? I am confused, please help me to understand.[/b][/quote]
Yes I can.
Meet me up in GFY and I'll explain to you.
I promise :wnw:

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager+Sep 25 2003, 05:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (XXXManager @ Sep 25 2003, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -[Labret]@Sep 26 2003, 01:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY

Can you explain to me how you can support a zionist state and at the same time condone working in pornography? I am confused, please help me to understand.
Yes I can.
Meet me up in GFY and I'll explain to you.
I promise :wnw:[/b][/quote]

Sadly, Lensman no longer appreciates my candor regarding the fine staff of GFY and has seen fit to liberate me of my posting privileges.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Sep 26 2003, 01:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Sep 26 2003, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by -[Labret]@Sep 26 2003, 01:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 05:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY

Can you explain to me how you can support a zionist state and at the same time condone working in pornography? I am confused, please help me to understand.
Yes I can.
Meet me up in GFY and I'll explain to you.
I promise :wnw:

Sadly, Lensman no longer appreciates my candor regarding the fine staff of GFY and has seen fit to liberate me of my posting privileges.[/b][/quote]
Oh REALLY?
I am SHOCKED. Really battling myself into believing that.
How can that be? What were they thinking about? Crazy people.

When you finally found a place that has some people who appriciate you and listen to what you have to say.

You are too good for GFY my friend. They don't deserve someone as bright and enlightened as you. An the humanity.. oh.. the humanity. And did I mention love? Love for human kind...
Oh well.

But I also think this place is not good enough for you. so why don't you keep looking in other places?



Last edited by XXXManager at Sep 26 2003, 02:27 AM

[hghpaysbig]

[QUOTE]Sadly, Lensman no longer appreciates my candor regarding the fine staff of GFY and has seen fit to liberate me of my posting privileges.

Lensman dosn't like offensive anti-semetic bigots who think that they know everything? Go figure.

Anyone ever met labret?

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 06:26 PM






Oh REALLY?
I am SHOCKED. Really battling myself into believing that.
How can that be? What were they thinking about? Crazy people.

When you finally found a place that has some people who appriciate you and listen to what you have to say.


Sarcasm noted.


And did I mention love? Love for human kind...
Oh well.


Mildly ironic coming from the guy who undoubtedly only sits miles from one of the ghettos his people have forced the original inhabitants into. Tell me more about this love you have for humanity.


But I also think this place is not good enough for you. so why don't you keep looking in other places?


Serge appreciates my "work". That and watching you squirm and cry like a bitch only feeds me. Admittedly slower and less idiots to abuse, I look forward to the hours of idiot abuse that Oprano will offer me. So far so good.

So again, I am waiting on the justification and rationalization of Zionism and pornography. This is gonna be like watching a Klansman attempt to rationalize dating Mexican girls.

[[Labret]]

Sadly, Lensman no longer appreciates my candor regarding the fine staff of GFY and has seen fit to liberate me of my posting privileges.

Lensman dosn't like offensive anti-semetic bigots who think that they know everything? Go figure.

Anyone ever met labret?

He liked me to the tune of 11k plus posts over the course of two and a half years. Lensman never cared so long as I kept the impressions rolling in. It was a nice relationship. He let me abuse you idiots and I helped him get more out of advertisers.

anti-semite bigot? Isnt that rather redundant? Stop combining buzzwords. He has a slight ego problem as of late and has issued a wave of bannings recently. I dont feel particularly singled out. All he did was prove my point and he could have payed me no better a compliment than to ban me.



Last edited by [Labret] at Sep 25 2003, 06:55 PM

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Sep 26 2003, 02:47 AM
So again, I am waiting on the justification and rationalization of Zionism and pornography. This is gonna be like watching a Klansman attempt to rationalize dating Mexican girls.
Ok.. so how about you start your own board and wait there?
I promise to visit it (at least once) to explain it to you there :bwave:

[[Labret]]

I understand the apprehension, it is an undefendable position.

[Nickatilynx]

Labret
Go back to GFY

Pearl! :)

[The Truth Hurts]

Beg Lens to take you back, Labrat.

Your blind hatred of just about everything is sorely missed.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 08:26 PM
Labret
Go back to GFY
Yeah [Labret] because that place has had zero entertainment value sicne you were liberated.

Seriously, you were responsible for probably 50-60% of the eyeballs over there.

Luckily you've landed here at Oprano and they should love the extra eyeballs :)

Besides, I'm the only one at GFY who owns a Skrewdriver tshirt now that you've left, but at least I'm not the only one here with one now ;-)

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by The Truth Hurts@Sep 25 2003, 07:28 PM
Beg Lens to take you back, Labrat.

Your blind hatred of just about everything is sorely missed.

phhht, beg Lens? Fuck that goofy looking bitch, I did him a favor by posting in that shithole.

Blind hatred? Nah, I can argue every single point I make.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by SykkBoy@Sep 25 2003, 07:35 PM
Besides, I'm the only one at GFY who owns a Skrewdriver tshirt now that you've left, but at least I'm not the only one here with one now ;-)

oh hell yeah

http://www.rustedpuffin.com/skrew.jpg

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Sep 25 2003, 10:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Sep 25 2003, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--SykkBoy@Sep 25 2003, 07:35 PM
Besides, I'm the only one at GFY who owns a Skrewdriver tshirt now that you've left, but at least I'm not the only one here with one now ;-)

oh hell yeah

http://www.rustedpuffin.com/skrew.jpg[/b][/quote]
Yup, I have the same shirt, will have to dig it out and grab a snap of it...

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 07:54 PM
PD.
For you to claim that a policy is the worst you should offer a better one.
But for someone else to prove your claim is wrong, he/she just have to point out a worse one. Just one.
So lets take any.
Any policy until now that the US had only kept the Middle east in his favorable terrorist hive status.
Clinton's policy of embracing Arafat making him a "legitimate '''elected''' leader", staying out of things that are "not his business" like the dark regimes in the middleeast and other places around the world didn't help you avoid the 9/11. Afaik it only made it possible.

If you suggest keep staying away and wait for that "side of the world" to start loving you, force the creation of a palestinian state with no law or order in, ran by a terrorist leader (which will only turn into another black country who hates the US for being a western democracy) and support international terrorism, weakening the US industry and big companies (to create a more 'fair' environment [not that I don't think it is these days though]), allow everyone around the world to have his nuclear enabled dictatorship...

What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?
First of all, you are attempting to pull my words out of context. What I said in response to some mindless drivel posted by Mike was "it is possible to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration represents the worst possible mistakes in foreign policy since Vietnam and still not want Saddam back in power." Mike likes to wrap himself up in the flag as if it is a proprietary possession, and I tend to thump him about it - it's part of my crude public-school upbringing.

You are assuming that I believe it - and your assumption is wrong. I think it is way too early to tell WHAT THE HELL GW has accomplished, and what the fallout from those "accomplishments" might be. It is not the course of action I would have taken. I personally would have concentrated more on finishing the job in Afghanistan before taking on another nationbuilding project.

I'm not suprised that this turned immediately into an attack on the Palestinians ... it's what you do. The problem with much of your tirade about President Clinton is that there are still those in your country who say the same about Carter and the negotiations with Sadat.

[slavdogg]

Israel considers Iran nuke strike
Combination of 'non-conventional weapons,' 'non-conventional regime,' alarms Jerusalem
Israel's defense forces are raising the prospect of an operation to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Senior government and military officials, alarmed by the failure of the international community to move against Iran, have issued warnings that Israel would consider unilateral action to stop Tehran's development of nuclear weapons, reports

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34793 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34793)

[[Labret]]

Israel is always concerned about nukes in the middle east. Why?

Because they will be the first ones to die.

[confucy]

Labret, was that you interrupting a debate on GFY by entering with several different names? It was the thread that Lensman started by asking SinEmpire to pay Amputate a few thousand dollars. Amputate is such a whiner. Where the hell is his backbone? He complained to Lensman about this webamster owing him money. He didn't have the balls to call SinEmpire on the phone and settle the problem off the boards.

Kimmy calls me a drama queen. I'll tell you who the DRAMA QUEENS ARE!!
LENSMAN AND AMPUTATE!

So Labret, I can understand why you wanted to get your posts on the board! Try licking Lensman's dirty boots...he may unban you. :)

[JR]

PD, i dont think there is much of a connection between Bush and Irans pursuit of Nuclear weapons. They were on this same path long ago.

North Korea as well, was pursuing nuclear weapons for 10 years and no one has stopped them and today they are threatening already to test their first bombs.

Its fine to point out that his international policies (or lack thereof) may have done more harm than good in recent years in some ways... for example, in losing the ability to deal with these issues with more international cooperation. However, it can also be argued that diplomacy has also failed continually, which in part, allowed Saddam to tell the UN to fuck off for 12 years, For North Korea to continue for more than a decade to pursue nuclear weapons and for Iran to do the same.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Sep 25 2003, 11:54 PM
Israel is always concerned about nukes in the middle east. Why?

Because they will be the first ones to die.
Seems like a reasonable concern. <_<

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by confucy@Sep 25 2003, 10:51 PM
Labret, was that you interrupting a debate on GFY by entering with several different names? It was the thread that Lensman started by asking SinEmpire to pay Amputate a few thousand dollars. Amputate is such a whiner. Where the hell is his backbone? He complained to Lensman about this webamster owing him money. He didn't have the balls to call SinEmpire on the phone and settle the problem off the boards.

Kimmy calls me a drama queen. I'll tell you who the DRAMA QUEENS ARE!!
LENSMAN AND AMPUTATE!

So Labret, I can understand why you wanted to get your posts on the board! Try licking Lensman's dirty boots...he may unban you. :)

Couple of them, that one was hard to read.

AMP is such a bitch, that thread only solidified his position as Lensman little lap bitch. First Lens gives him a pity job after he has a nervous breakdown, then he has to have Lens handle business for him that he shoulda handled himself a year ago. I would be humiliated if my "boss" came on the board to handle my business. Its like your mom handling your problems with the neighborhood bully. Fuck, it was sickening to witness. The sheer magnitude of the emasculation is mind numbing. AMP might as well put on a dress and tuck his penis between his legs. Anyone who could have any respect for him in the slightest after that thread needs their head examined.

It sickened me to watch that insignificant little bitch puff up his chest after Lens gave him the courage to even open his mouth. The ultimate tragedy of the whole thing is one of the most honest people I have ever dealt with got his name drug around and will ultimately have to pay off the fucking whiner to the tune of an amount of money that I am sure will be absurd. I hope Brad finds out which are AMPs designs, pulls them down, and tells him to ram them up his ass.

Soon as the public sentiment started running in favor of Brad, thread locked.

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Colin+Sep 26 2003, 08:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Sep 26 2003, 08:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Sep 25 2003, 11:54 PM
Israel is always concerned about nukes in the middle east. Why?

Because they will be the first ones to die.
Seems like a reasonable concern. <_<[/b][/quote]
Funniest thing about this is the the same US most of the Arab world hates so much is the only thing that has kept Israel from wiping them out completely.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 26 2003, 04:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Sep 26 2003, 04:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--XXXManager@Sep 25 2003, 07:54 PM
PD.
For you to claim that a policy is the worst you should offer a better one.
But for someone else to prove your claim is wrong, he/she just have to point out a worse one. Just one.
So lets take any.
Any policy until now that the US had only kept the Middle east in his favorable terrorist hive status.
Clinton's policy of embracing Arafat making him a "legitimate '''elected''' leader", staying out of things that are "not his business" like the dark regimes in the middleeast and other places around the world didn't help you avoid the 9/11. Afaik it only made it possible.

If you suggest keep staying away and wait for that "side of the world" to start loving you, force the creation of a palestinian state with no law or order in, ran by a terrorist leader (which will only turn into another black country who hates the US for being a western democracy) and support international terrorism, weakening the US industry and big companies (to create a more 'fair' environment [not that I don't think it is these days though]), allow everyone around the world to have his nuclear enabled dictatorship...

What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?
1] First of all, you are attempting to pull my words out of context. What I said in response to some mindless drivel posted by Mike was "it is possible to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration represents the worst possible mistakes in foreign policy since Vietnam and still not want Saddam back in power." Mike likes to wrap himself up in the flag as if it is a proprietary possession, and I tend to thump him about it - it's part of my crude public-school upbringing.

2] You are assuming that I believe it - and your assumption is wrong. I think it is way too early to tell WHAT THE HELL GW has accomplished, and what the fallout from those "accomplishments" might be. It is not the course of action I would have taken. I personally would have concentrated more on finishing the job in Afghanistan before taking on another nationbuilding project.

3] I'm not suprised that this turned immediately into an attack on the Palestinians ... it's what you do. The problem with much of your tirade about President Clinton is that there are still those in your country who say the same about Carter and the negotiations with Sadat.[/b][/quote]
1] I didn't attempt any such thing. I didn't know you were playing these games with Mike. I didn't know you were playing with the concept of the possibile existance of someone thinking that the Bush policy is the worst since Vietnam. I though you were indirectly expressing your own thoughts (which is what I usually expect to see in people's posts). Apologies for not understanding the vauge post ;).
ok - so you don't think its the worst policy. Agreed.

2] Understood. Agree. I also think its too early to tell how things are going. But the thing is - A job that has to be done, has to be done. Even if at the moment it doesn't look like its being accomplished well. As to the Afghanistan first... Maybe some people are thinking it's not good to wait whatever tens of years that it would take to generate some positive change in Afghanistan to deal with the next rising danger? When you have a fire in your house in several points, you don't deal with one and move to the next only when the first is cleared and cleaned... You "multi-task"

3] Quoting you once again - "I'm not suprised that this turned immediately into an attack on the Palestinians ... it's what you do"
Where did I attack the Palestinians????? Please quote me.
I am not surprised you categorize me so quickly and blame me for things I haven't done. After all - "it's what you do". You seem to brief through what I write instead of reading it. Please quote where I just attacked the Palestinians. I want to see for myself.

As to "those in your(my) country who say the same about Carter and the negotiations with Sadat".. I don't know what you mean by that at all.
Only thing I can tell you is that in my country there are 6.6 million people, and being a democratic country where people usually say what they want - you will find "those in your(my) country who say almost anything about anyone". Thats called diversity of thoughts. Since when did that become bad? (again - not that I know what parallelism you point to)

[PornoDoggy]

Understood. Agree. I also think its too early to tell how things are going. But the thing is - A job that has to be done, has to be done. Even if at the moment it doesn't look like its being accomplished well. As to the Afghanistan first... Maybe some people are thinking it's not good to wait whatever tens of years that it would take to generate some positive change in Afghanistan to deal with the next rising danger? When you have a fire in your house in several points, you don't deal with one and move to the next only when the first is cleared and cleaned... You "multi-task"


No doubt that the "fire had to be put out" - but how to put out the fire remains a topic that generates a number of opinions. A firefighter who attempts to put out multiple "hot spots" by himself is probably a fool. A firefighter who does everything in his power to make sure he works alone is even worse.

Here in the United States we've had a number of situations in the last several years where the "backburns" started to stop mid-level fires have turned into conflagrations that far exceeded the possible damage from the original fire.

If the resources deployed to invade Iraq had instead been deployed to rebuild Afghanistan, the "tens of years" you mention could have been reduced substantially. The Taliban/al Qaida crowd - the most dangerous enemy of the United States - are already operating with relative impunity in large portions of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.

3] Where did I attack the Palestinians????? Please quote me.
I am not surprised you categorize me so quickly and blame me for things I haven't done. After all - "it's what you do". You seem to brief through what I write instead of reading it. Please quote where I just attacked the Palestinians. I want to see for myself.

Okay - if you want to split hairs, you are technically right on this point. You did not directly attack the Palestinian people. You attacked the Palestinian Authority. Spare me the histrionics about "a palestinian state with no law or order" - a good part of the reason for that is the deliberate and prolonged attacks on what few institutions they have been able to develop over the last several years by your government. Not even a truth-impaired idealogue like Dick Cheney would have the balls to lay the blame for the instability of much of Iraq on the inability of Sadam's police to keep order.

As to "those in your(my) country who say the same about Carter and the negotiations with Sadat".. I don't know what you mean by that at all.
Only thing I can tell you is that in my country there are 6.6 million people, and being a democratic country where people usually say what they want - you will find "those in your(my) country who say almost anything about anyone". Thats called diversity of thoughts. Since when did that become bad?
We can agree that democracy and diversity of thought are good things. But gimme a break - you know exactly what I mean. There are some in your country who think that the solution to all problems in dealing with the Arab/Islamic world is (or should have been) military - and Camp David is viewed as a defeat by those people. To my knowledge, there are not many of them. There are potent political forces in your country that will do anything within their power to prevent the evolution of a Palestinian State. Clinton was far more committed to an EQUITABLE solution to the Israeli/Palistinian solution than GW is, the faux threat of withheld loan guarantees to the contrary.

BTW ... I do enjoy debating with you. Although it's a tad late, L'shanah tovah.

[XXXManager]

Shana Tova to you too man :D
I enjoy debating with you too. :rokk:

However, I did not like your latest attack on me, as if I automatically attack palestinians no matter what the discussion is. It depicts me as something far from what I am.

I for one state what I think and believe in.
I do not (unless I slip) use stereotypes or attack large group of people based on sheer hatered, racism or pure shallowness (like you hinted). I use logic and state my case clearly (or so I hope).

My "attack" (which was not even attack) was against a person which is by all definitions I care about (and so does the US administrations [past and present] and many European and other counties [even if they don't admit it publically]) - a terrorist, and heads a terrorist network.
Your definition of him as a "palestinian authority" does great harm even to palestinians (imho).

For all intents and purposes, I could use your logic to state that Saddam is the Iraqi people and Bin-Laden is the Afghan, Yemeni and Saudi people.

Funny enough - I could also say that Bush is the american people - and therefore by attacking or criticizing him you criticize yourself - which is very dumb to say that you are dumb and don't know shit.

Maybe you can see the validity of seperating a leadership from general population in some cases. Especially when the "leadership" is far from leading.

Summing it all up - please give me a bot more credit in the future and pay a bit more attention to what I say. I am sure our debates would be much more fruitful that way.

--

On a different note...
I want to state what I predict about the "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The main problem about this process is the "materials" which the reconstruction depends on. Being more specific and clear - the human material.
I think it will take dozens of years rebuilding Iraq and same for Afghanistan.
I do not think more money will help much in cutting it down from 50 years to 10 (or from 10 to 1) - as if its a question of just buying more stuff.
The only chance there is for a new and "better" countries, meaning - free, more liberal, just, non fundementalist, peace seeking, educated countries lies in education and the only thing that goes on in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other countries, is education in the "other direction" - negative one (to my perception).

Which leads us to the question - does the US have rights educating and shaping the minds of other people? or does it only hold the obligation to protect thier people with brutal force once some of those people (shaped in the opposite direction) become a threat?

Alternatively one would say that there is nothing wrong with the way those individuals are shaped and that Jihad is a legitimate funky thing ;) To which concept I will not care responding.

[XXXManager]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 27 2003, 04:10 AM
We can agree that democracy and diversity of thought are good things. But gimme a break - you know exactly what I mean. There are some in your country who think that the solution to all problems in dealing with the Arab/Islamic world is (or should have been) military - and Camp David is viewed as a defeat by those people. To my knowledge, there are not many of them. There are potent political forces in your country that will do anything within their power to prevent the evolution of a Palestinian State. Clinton was far more committed to an EQUITABLE solution to the Israeli/Palistinian solution than GW is, the faux threat of withheld loan guarantees to the contrary.
p.s.

There are some on your country who think that black people should be wiped out of the face of the earth.
There are some on your country who think that white people should be wiped out of the face of the earth.
There are some on your country who think that jews should be wiped out of the face of the earth.
There are some on your country who think that the US government should be taken down by force.
There are some on your country who think that muslims should be wiped out from the earth.
There are some on your country who think that the US should vanish.
There are some on your country who smiled at the TV on 9/11

Should I go on?

Your point is?

There are very few people in Israel who think that the solution to the problems will come from military action. That is a very clear fact. A stong military is a tool, not a purpose. and an essential one - considering who our neighbors are. In that you will find close to 100% of the people of Israel agreeing on. Your suggestions don't serve much purpose.

I should note though that there is a very substantial majority, including a majority from the left wing, that realizes now that Camp David was a charade and that charging towards the same "adventure", going blindfolded towards "peace" without realizing that the other side has other plans sometimes is not something likely to happen again.
There was an awakening among Israelis, realizing that while they were preparing for peace and all happy and cheerful about things to come, the other "side" was busy teaching in school about how only Jihad and terror will bring freedom and how the other side is something to hate and ebolish (text books material). Awakening from being naive and from not paying attention to such details for the only reason that its not easy to charge towards peace while really dealing with these issues.
A lot of Israelis chose to ignore those signs and played dumb and blind, as if this didn't exist - simply because it was not comfortable dealing with it.

Well.. reality is something every dreamer has to wake up to from time to time.

Maybe you will see what I mean in the future. (maybe you already do?)

[JR]

Which leads us to the question - does the US have rights educating and shaping the minds of other people? or does it only hold the obligation to protect thier people with brutal force once some of those people (shaped in the opposite direction) become a threat?

All countries act in their own best interst first. thats a simple fact. Isreal acts in its own interest when gunning down "suspected militants" or bombing Palestinian TV and radio stations. Arabs and Muslims act in their own interest by supporting Hamas and others and running around the street with dead bodies held in the air and firing automatic rifles and whipping people into a frenzy.

It's all subjective.

I dont believe that people hate america for its double standards because NO country is different in that respect. Every country acts in its own selfish interests while trying to convince others that they are actually acting to the benefit of all. Thats nothing new and its not unique to any country.

What i believe to be the real underlying issue and what is unique is the USA's disproportionate ability to influence others.

But its behavior is not unique. The US does whats in its own best interest which is usually not in the best interests of others. Which includes i might add, defending Isreal and their unpopular behavior towards Palestinians and preventing Isreals neighbors from trying to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth.

The older i get, the more i believe that there is no right and wrong in the world. Just those who are willing to act and those who aren't. "Why" does not really matter and is not worth debating.

"Why" is purely subjective and is never black and white.

All you can do is to do what you believe in.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Sep 28 2003, 05:37 AM
I dont believe that people hate america for its double standards because NO country is different in that respect. Every country acts in its own selfish interests while trying to convince others that they are actually acting to the benefit of all. Thats nothing new and its not unique to any country.

What i believe to be the real underlying issue and what is unique is the USA's disproportionate ability to influence others.

But its behavior is not unique.
Oh, bingo. I am truly with you on that, JR. It is a rare nation indeed that does not attempt to influence the world in proportion to its ability to do so.
Such nations have often been reviled (Great Britain, Spain, France, Rome) in much of the rest of the world.

I have to throw "the fall of the Soviet Union card" on the table. "Anti-Americanism" rose steadily throughout the 1990s in much of the world, dipped on September 11, 2001 and has now begin its journey down again.

I swear there's a conservation of fear and loathing in the world. Looks like the US has inherited the lion's share of the Soviet Unions. Europe, for example, can afford to throw some hatred this way now that they don't have 180 Red Army divisions on their borders at constant alert.

The foreign policy thing in the Middle East is largely a lark. Has anyone else noticed that when the US does something in the Middle East it is "poor foreign policy" and when the US doesn't do something in the Middle East people ask "Why didn't America help?" Who supplied Afghanistan for ten years against the Soviets? Who armed Egypt? Who armed Saudi Arabia? Who armed Kuwait?

[Meni]

I just like posting lyrics

Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams

RATM "Know Your Enemy"

[XXXManager]

Meni - You poetic soul :D
Whats going on? :)

JR - I agree.
Though - maybe with one twist - All countries do what they think is in their best interest. Sometimes they fail. And sometimes a "country" is only the leader - like in dictatorships.. in which case the leader is doing what he thingks is in his/her best interest.

But I do not fully agree with the non-existant good/bad. That's more a philosophical issue - so let's leave it aside for now and keep the dirty down to earth fights ;)

[Meni]

I think I'm going to Atlantic City tomorrow
its my bday
and some of the porn girls I know are in town for East Coast Video Show
and we can party like its
oh wait
forget it