Powell fires parting salvo at Iran

[Almighty Colin]

CNN. "The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says. Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic weapons by next year"

[RawAlex]

Where have I heard this song before? A little to the west of there, there is a little country called Iraq. Full to the brim with WMD, I tell ya! They have some many weapons that Saddam has to sleep with a missle just to keep them out of site.

Why don't I believe anything coming from the warmonger boy's administration?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Alex,

Americans are willing to take over the entire Middle East to preserve the Western World while everyone else stands idly by, twiddling their thumbs, thinking once again - like in the period between 1871 and 1914 that the world is safe for democracies. Islam is a killer religion. Fooled me once shame on me fooled me twice shame on... uhh shame on.. well you know how it goes.

[RawAlex]

Fooled me once shame on me fooled me twice shame on... uhh shame on.. well you know how it goes

The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well...

It sounds like the same sort of "someone said to somebody that knew a guy who heard about someone who..." sort of non-intelligence that got the US in trouble the last time out. Perhaps they can get someone in South Africa to confirm this one, too.

Alex :salute:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 09:45 AM
The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well...
Sorry, Neville Chamberlain resigned. King George is in charge. Get used to it! You have NO choice. :salute:

[Mike AI]

Alex, you are so out of touch - it's almost scary to try and comprehend.

Iran is a major problem. One that needs to be solved soon. I predicited after Bush's win that they would nuzzle up the the Europeans and make a "deal". The deal would include free nuclear technology and help for power plants in return for stopping weapons program - just like the N. Koreans got from Clinton.

But just like N. Korea, Iran would lie ( shock) and still work on their nukes.

Iran needs to be handled - sooner rather then later.

I am glad we have a President who will take action, not sit on his hands while problem gets worse to appease ignorant people like Alex.

[dantheman]

someone will have to do "something" to persaude the iranians that they can't have their own nukes. Over the next decade or more there will be some very hard decisions to make and alex and others might not like some of them but to insure the safety of the world(yes it's our responsiblity) we'll have to.

the question is. How long do we wait untill we take some sort of action?

[Mike AI]

I have a strong idea who that "someone" will be.

Fortunnately we have Iran surrounded already. :D

The reality is we need to see Iran, Syria and Iraq as the same problem. The people who are fighting us in Iraq, the insurgents are being armed, supplied, encouraged, led by Syria and Iran.

I am sure Syria and Iran's arguement is the same as ours - better to fight them in Iraq then in our own streets.

[PornoDoggy]

I don't doubt that Iran is trying to become a nuclear power.

I don't dispute that something needs to be done about it.

I do not believe that the United States has the capabilites (at this time) to make a unilateral military move against Iran in view of our current obligations.

Alex AI - it's not just the U.S. who is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. Even the Bush Administration can be right once in a while.

Raw Mike - Whle we do have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think saying we have them surrounded is a bit overstated.

[Mike AI]

I do not believe that the United States has the capabilites (at this time) to make a unilateral military move against Iran in view of our current obligations.

Can you explain this to me?

I am assuming you mean we do not have the political support of the UN, our allies, France, the Arab street, Bin Laden, etc....

Physical military capabilities, we could move against Iran tommorow and destroy their entire military infrastructure in a matter of months - JUST FROM THE AIR!!!
Do not underestimate the military might of the US.

Now politically, and diplomaticly to have the will to go against UN, and world setiment might be tough to deal with. Fortunately we have a President who does puts OUR interests above "the worlds".

Someone ( US/Israel) better act soon.

[Evil Chris]

Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!

[Nickatilynx]

My guess is to "save the world" a great part of it is going to have the shit blown out of it.

IMHO there is no doubt the world is less safe ,rather than safer , since GW came to power.

[Mike AI]

Chris to compare the US having Nukes to Iran getting them shows how out of touch you are. I just hope not all Canadians are as ignorant as you.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...84-e011cb8fd2fa (http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=03bd20c9-7950-417e-bb84-e011cb8fd2fa)

After reading some of the comments at the bottom, I think there may be same sane people in Canada.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 12:00 PM
My guess is to "save the world" a great part of it is going to have the shit blown out of it.

IMHO there is no doubt the world is less safe ,rather than safer , since GW came to power.


The world has never been a safe place. It is only an illusion. One that is dissapating quickly because of technology.

With modern weapons, bio, chemical and ease of trasporting them - with the rise of Non State Actors ( al quada, other terrorists groups) the world is much more dangerous.

Bush merely inherited the situation. He also acted decisively, rather then passing the buck as past President's have - as well as the rest of the world - especially Europe. ( canada is too inconsiquental to matter)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 18 2004, 11:46 AM
Alex AI - it's not just the U.S. who is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. Even the Bush Administration can be right once in a while.

Raw Mike - Whle we do have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think saying we have them surrounded is a bit overstated.
rotflmfao..... :wnw: :wnw:

[SykkBoy]

I think I've stated publicly more than once that Iran and/or Syria should have been our first target instead of pussyfooting around with Iraq...
maybe we should just get it over with and launch our nukes already...

I mean, we can't even find Osama Bin Laden, we got lucky in finding Saddam...so, what happens if we fully invade Syria AND Iran (I guess we'll have to destroy North Korea too so they'll shut the fuck up)? We can only put out so many fires at once.

maybe we can dust off old copies of those nuclear scare movies of the 80's...just update them a little with nasty arabs instead of those evil russkies....

[wig]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Nov 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!
US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 11:54 AM
Can you explain this to me?

I am assuming you mean we do not have the political support of the UN, our allies, France, the Arab street, Bin Laden, etc....

Physical military capabilities, we could move against Iran tommorow and destroy their entire military infrastructure in a matter of months - JUST FROM THE AIR!!!
Do not underestimate the military might of the US.

Now politically, and diplomaticly to have the will to go against UN, and world setiment might be tough to deal with. Fortunately we have a President who does puts OUR interests above "the worlds".

Someone ( US/Israel) better act soon.
No, Mike ... I wouldn't bother to mention international support to someone who does not consider it important. And just so you know, I consider Iranian nuclear capabilities a grave threat to the stability of the region AND the security of the United States - I just don't think there is a simple solution to it.

We probably could do considerable damage to their military infrastructure from the air (although I suspect at a much higher cost than we faced in Iraq).

I'm talking strictly about military capabilities, but I was assuming you are advocating invading and occupying Iran the way we have Iraq. We do not have the boots to put on the ground for that, and I question the value of a "quick-fix" strike to take out nuclear facilities only (assuming we really know where they are).

BTW ... I am personally of the opinion that the long-term effects of the unilateral intervention will serve the interests of the United States in pretty much the same way isolationism did in the period 1920-1941 ... but we'll both be dead by the time my theory can be proven.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.
I'm not so sure about that ... the theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will probably come into play between smaller states just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on....

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on.... [/b][/quote]
if you continue to point out facts ,sarettah , Mike and his crowd will have you shot!!

[Mike AI]

PD you are corect - we are not in posistion to occupy Iran.

We could invade and destroy their military but do not have the man power to occupy.

I think a strategy of what we did with the Kurds in Iraq. We should create some safe zones inside Iran. ( no fly zones) where people can start an orginized resistance. We could enforce an embargo on Iran, cut off their oil revenue, and destroy their offensive military infrastructure - including nuclear.

The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world.... I expect this from Alex....

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 09:43 AM
where people can start an orginized resistance. ..
What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world....


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 12:43 PM
I think a strategy of what we did with the Kurds in Iraq.
Give the Ayatollahs poison gas ??? Hey worked for us with Saddam...... :awinky:

[dantheman]

i was waiting for the post that hey since we have them what's wrong with everyone haveing them. that's just plain crazy<shakes head> Guess it'll take a BIG boom before some folks see this threat.


sare, india pretty much counters pakistan's nukes "for now"


The fact is, once these weapons are in the hands of people that DONT think about others but just themselfs then the world as we know it now will be history and we'll be living in a cold dark world. Do I have a solution? yeah, be proactive, and be ready to do things that might not be populor with some. Sometimes you cant afford to wait and see..........it'll be too late

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Nov 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.
So you think it would be ok if the US sold nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria, and Libya in the same way that it sells M1A1 tanks? Why or why not?

[wig]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 12:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on.... [/b][/quote]
some muslim countries / leaders may have a little more restraint than others, but for Chris to compare it to the US having nukes is just plain silly. That was my only point.

If you guys feel as comfortable with Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. having nukes as the US, I don't know what to say.

[wig]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 18 2004, 12:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 18 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.
I'm not so sure about that ... the theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will probably come into play between smaller states just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. [/b][/quote]
uh huh. i thought these were the same folks who get 72 virgins when the die?

[Nickatilynx]

The fact is, once these weapons are in the hands of people that DONT think about others but just themselfs then the world as we know it now will be history


ummmmm you mean like giving them to GW Bush?

[PornoDoggy]

From a tactical standpoint, I wish everybody would get rid of their nukes but us.

I have to agree that comparing a nuclear U.S. to a potential nuclear Iran is kind of silly.

I think using Pakistan as an example of a Moslem country having nucs not attacking Israel is equally silly, particularly since Pakistan has turned out to be the center of the proliferation circle jerk.

I think that assuming an Islamic state that comes into possession of nuclear weapons would automatically nuke Israel is silly.

I also have to say that trying to have this discussion without bringing up the fact that Israel is a nuclear state is silly.

The ideal solution to the situation in Iran would be to enforce non-proliferation under the moon and stars across the ENTIRE region - not only prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, but force ANYONE who already has them to get rid of them.

[Rolo]

Putting presure on Iran is prehaps one of the most important tasks the western world can do... Iran is a crumbling state - there is a "decade of opportunity" in the next 10 years or so, since this when the young people still have hope of change - if we fail them by making deals with their "rulers" or letting the mullahs get "unlimited" military power, then we would have lost prehaps one of the best ways to end the mullah dictatorship... making the mullahs weak, so people will revolt.

I think its good that the US continues with putting presure on Iran... having dialog with fundamentalists is a myth.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 18 2004, 01:52 PM
The ideal solution to the situation in Iran would be to enforce non-proliferation under the moon and stars across the ENTIRE region - not only prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, but force ANYONE who already has them to get rid of them.
I agree, but since that's not really a option. What's your plan B?

[gigi]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Nov 18 2004, 09:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Nov 18 2004, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 09:43 AM
where people can start an orginized resistance. ..
What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world....


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday. [/b][/quote]
:wnw: :ph34r:

[gigi]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 10:18 AM

The fact is, once these weapons are in the hands of people that DONT think about others but just themselfs then the world as we know it now will be history and we'll be living in a cold dark world.
:blink:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by gigi+Nov 18 2004, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Nov 18 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 09:43 AM
where people can start an orginized resistance. ..
What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world....


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday.
:wnw: :ph34r: [/b][/quote]


Hot air Nick.

I have yet to see any concrete example of how Bush is trying to spread born against Christianity through out the world.

Try dealing in facts, rather then parroting the same breathless propaganda.


Nick, the one getting blinkered is you.

Could it be that alchohol HELPED your vision rather then impare it?

[gigi]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 18 2004, 10:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 18 2004, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Evil Chris@Nov 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.
So you think it would be ok if the US sold nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria, and Libya in the same way that it sells M1A1 tanks? Why or why not? [/b][/quote]
Of course not...but you're throwing him a curve ball.....

Buying them from the US isn't the only way they could get them.

[gigi]

Mike,

re: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...84-e011cb8fd2fa (http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=03bd20c9-7950-417e-bb84-e011cb8fd2fa)

Parrish is an embarrassment to Canada. She SHOULD be banished from the caucus and stripped of her MP position.

[Mike AI]

I thank God that Canada does decide what is best for the US or the world.

[gigi]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 11:31 AM
I thank God that Canada does decide what is best for the US or the world.
You mean 'doesn't', right?

Me too. Everyone would be sitting around in toques eating donuts, drinkin' beer and watching hockey. ;)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by gigi+Nov 18 2004, 02:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Nov 18 2004, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 11:31 AM
I thank God that Canada does decide what is best for the US or the world.
You mean 'doesn't', right?

Me too. Everyone would be sitting around in toques eating donuts, drinkin' beer and watching hockey. ;) [/b][/quote]


:D

Yeah doesn't.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 18 2004, 11:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 18 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by gigi@Nov 18 2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 09:43 AM
where people can start an orginized resistance. ..
What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world....


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday.
:wnw: :ph34r:


Hot air Nick.

I have yet to see any concrete example of how Bush is trying to spread born against Christianity through out the world.

Try dealing in facts, rather then parroting the same breathless propaganda.


Nick, the one getting blinkered is you.

Could it be that alchohol HELPED your vision rather then impare it? [/b][/quote]
Nawww...

You see I tolerate all arguments and then decide, but I'm ready to have my opinion changed by rational argument.

When I drank , I sometimes thought irrationally.

Whats your excuse?

[RawAlex]

Nick, don't worry, Mike never let facts get in the way of a good rant against the rest of the world (and those communist muslim bastard terrorist rouge non-nation and government sponsored terror minded groups).

Iran is very smart. They know that GW has overplayed the US forces, and there really are not enough soldiers around to do anything about Iran. The UN will certainly not be in the mood to support action, and the usual list of countries will not be interested.

As a result, Iran more than likely IS working on nuclear capabilities, and the US created the situation under which it could happen without potential for "correction".

Because Colin Powell and the US cried wolf already, less people are likely to pay attention this time.

It's just how it goes.

Alex

[Mike AI]

I do the same Nick, but my world perspective is a little different.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 02:49 PM
Nick, don't worry, Mike never let facts get in the way of a good rant against the rest of the world (and those communist muslim bastard terrorist rouge non-nation and government sponsored terror minded groups).

Iran is very smart. They know that GW has overplayed the US forces, and there really are not enough soldiers around to do anything about Iran. The UN will certainly not be in the mood to support action, and the usual list of countries will not be interested.

As a result, Iran more than likely IS working on nuclear capabilities, and the US created the situation under which it could happen without potential for "correction".

Because Colin Powell and the US cried wolf already, less people are likely to pay attention this time.

It's just how it goes.

Alex


Alex, you bring up VERY good points. I am in shock.

Iran is doing a masteful job in RealPolitik. They are playing the US off the Europeans.

The US is in a weaker posistion because there was no WMDs found in Iraq.

It will be more difficult to convince the world to go along with the US to put real, significant pressure on Iran. The UN, and most of the world would be against any military action, or any real pressure that would change Iran's mind.

However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

If the UN and Europe do not come around, the US will be forced to act unilaterally. ( Israel is a wild card here as well). Fortunately, we have a President who understand this, and the US has enough capability to take out Iran's nuclear program on its own.

I give full respect to the Iranian leaders - they have been very effective, and very wise. Certainly they played the game better then Saddam did.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 02:49 PM
As a result, Iran more than likely IS working on nuclear capabilities, and the US created the situation under which it could happen without potential for "correction".
Uhh, ok. "The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well... " - Raw Alex (a few hours ago). So now, after just a few hours, you are being fooled just like all us 'mericans? Cool. I guess Powell got inside your head. That was quick.

Maybe you are new to following world politics but the dispute with the Iranians on this issue has been going on for quite some time, long before Bush's election.

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

(April 2000) ENDING A TWO-YEAR dispute with Congress, on March 14 President Clinton signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, which authorizes him to take punitive action against individuals or organizations known to be providing material aid to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iran. The legislation (H.R. 1883) also substantially cuts U.S. funding to Russian space agencies responsible for the joint U.S.-Russian space station project, absent a determination that Russia "has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent" aid to Iran's weapons programs.

Clinton vetoed a 1998 version of the bill that focused on missile proliferation to Iran because it required the imposition of sanctions on Russian entities unless the president determined that a waiver of sanctions was "essential" to U.S. national security. The administration argued that the legislation, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, would harm the administration's effort to garner Russian cooperation on a wide range of proliferation issues.

However, to demonstrate his commitment to stopping Russian aid to Iran's WMD efforts and to avoid an override of his veto, Clinton amended Executive Order 12938, the 1994 order that declared a national emergency with regard to WMD proliferation, to allow the executive branch to impose financial penalties on proliferators. Clinton immediately exercised this new authority, sanctioning seven Russian entities in June 1998 for their assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program. Three more were sanctioned in January 1999 for the same reason. (See ACT, June/July 1998 and January/February 1999.)

The language of the new law is substantially less restrictive than the 1998 legislation. It requires the president to submit to Congress every six months a list of entities known to be providing material assistance to Iranian WMD programs. The president is then authorized and encouraged to utilize Executive Order 12938 provisions, arms export prohibitions, and dual-use export prohibitions on those entities. But the onus for action remains soundly with the president. Should the president decide not to take action against a particular entity, congressional notification and a written explanation is required, but a waiver is not.

Apart from expanded reporting requirements, the legislation will not require any demonstrable action by the administration against Russian entities. Russian officials nevertheless responded angrily to the suggestion that Russia was aiding Iranian programs.

"Why are we considered fools?" Sergei Ivanov, secretary of the Russian Security Council, asked in an interview with the Interfax news agency. Russia, he said, has no interest in giving Iran "a grenade with a pulled-out pin" that could then "be hurled back" at Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also balked at the legislation. In a March 15 statement released to Interfax, the Foreign Ministry noted that, depending on the administration's use of the authority granted in the legislation, the bill "may significantly undermine…Russian-American interaction in the field of non-proliferation and export control."

The bill's strong bipartisan support (the measure was passed unanimously in both houses) sent a message to the White House that Congress is concerned about Russian involvement in Iranian proliferation activities. Congressional sources said that many members see the legislation as a gentle reminder to the president that Capitol Hill is watching the administration on this issue.

Source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_04/irnap00.asp

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)

[Rolo]

Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology) - they have only survived, because nobody really gave a shit (meaning who wanted to die in some iranian desert in the 80s and 90s, beside iraqis?)... however that have changed now - I give them 10 years, then they have either been overthrown, or they have crippled their own economy and people to a point where they will be unable to do anything, beside endless friday prayer rhetoric.

Iran is not surround yet, however freedom have never been closer to their borders, and I think the mullahs are stressed about the future, so we should keep knocking on their door until they break down.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 12:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question) [/b][/quote]
They keep shooting " Bring it bitch , we are well hard" looks at the USA.

;-))))

[gigi]

Originally posted by Rolo@Nov 18 2004, 12:56 PM
Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology)
:blink:

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Rolo@Nov 18 2004, 03:56 PM
Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology) -
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?

[Rolo]

Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?
When Bush reinitiate the Inquisition, then you can compare the two...

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Rolo+Nov 18 2004, 01:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Nov 18 2004, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?
When Bush reinitiate the Inquisition, then you can compare the two... [/b][/quote]
give him a year two..

Inquisition!!!!!

HA!!!!!!


NOBODY expects the Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and suprise....

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....

Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to George Bush....

Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....


I'll come in again.






;-)))

[Nickatilynx]

AHA!!!!!

NOBODY expects the Inquisition!

Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to George Bush, and nice red uniforms -

Oh damn!

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question) [/b][/quote]


You are joking I hope.

Iran with nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the US and our interests.

You may want to take some time to read up on the recent history of Iran, and the people who run the show. From about 1970 to today....

To think otherwise would put you in a fringe group that even Al Gore would be scared to support.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Nov 18 2004, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Nov 18 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Rolo@Nov 18 2004, 01:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?
When Bush reinitiate the Inquisition, then you can compare the two...
give him a year two..

Inquisition!!!!!

HA!!!!!!


NOBODY expects the Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and suprise....

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....

Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....

Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....


I'll come in again.






;-))) [/b][/quote]
Don't forget "shock"

oh yeah almost forgot, can't leave out "awe"

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 04:32 PM

give him a year two..

Inquisition!!!!!




I waited 4 years for the crackdown from Ashcroft....


:zzz:

[dantheman]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question) [/b][/quote]
pretty much the same way some ragtag group of guys from the desert of afganastan was

; )))

[gigi]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rolo@Nov 18 2004, 03:56 PM
Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology) -
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ? [/b][/quote]
I see us Canadians are rubbing off on you, EH?, Sarettah. :yowsa:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 01:33 PM

You may want to take some time to read up on the recent history of Iran, and the people who run the show. From about 1970 to today....

Yeah , prior to 1970 it was an idylic oasis of reason in the tumultous sand sea of Arabia.

;-))



( Hell I can use my mouth better than Mary36DD)

;-))

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by gigi+Nov 18 2004, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Nov 18 2004, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 01:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Rolo@Nov 18 2004, 03:56 PM
Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology) -
Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?
I see us Canadians are rubbing off on you, EH?, Sarettah. :yowsa: [/b][/quote]
I have never "rubbed off" on sarettah!!!

Its a vicious lie!!!

But if he ever comes to Vancouver I may ;-))

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 04:33 PM
Iran with nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the US and our interests.

A threat to interests we have over there, yes.

A threat to the U.S.... Not yet in any real sense of the word.

Those aren't intercontinental missiles they are developing.

As far as going back to 1970 or there abouts, We created a situation there by openly supporting the Shah and failing to react to what was going on in the country. We could have ended up with a much better situation if we had kept the Shah in reign instead of letting him do his own little tyrranical thing. Funny thing with puppets is that you have to keep a pretty tight hold of the strings to make them do what you want, ya know.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 18 2004, 04:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 18 2004, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)


You are joking I hope.

Iran with nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the US and our interests.

You may want to take some time to read up on the recent history of Iran, and the people who run the show. From about 1970 to today....

To think otherwise would put you in a fringe group that even Al Gore would be scared to support. [/b][/quote]
And pretty neat there that you failed to answer my question, you merely repeated your assertion.

So, I will ask again: "How is Iran a threat to the United States ?"

Not our interests, Not Israel, but us, "We the people", The United States of America (oh, and the red states too)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by dantheman+Nov 18 2004, 04:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dantheman @ Nov 18 2004, 04:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)
pretty much the same way some ragtag group of guys from the desert of afganastan was

; ))) [/b][/quote]
Same could be said of Timothy McVeigh and other members of groups here in the U.S.

[RawAlex]

Colin, "more than likely" isn't exactly "yes they are". I wouldn't put it past the Iranian leaders to be taking advantage of the US having played itself out in Iraq. They know that, without a doubt, the US cannot and will not open a THIRD front in the "war on them muslim people who might know they guy who paid the guy who visited the guy who traveled with the guy who once spent a moment in the same country as bin ladin". So they take their moment in the sun, step up to the plate, and move forward with plans to join the "big club".

However, having Colin Powell of all people up there claiming Iran is working on WMD is, well, humorous at best. He has such little credibility on this issue. The world as a whole would be more likely to accept and agree with comments made from the whitehouse janitor than Powell on this issue.

Mike, until the US gets 100% out of Afghanistan, they will not have the military muscle available to really fight a war with Iran. Iran knows it. The US has become very mired down, forces stretched to the practical limits, and there is little or no way out of the situations quickly. Iraq will be another 2 - 3 years, maybe more...

Because Bush has not been good at getting people to be on "his team", he is going it alone. There are only so many military people, so much equipment, and so much desire in the bank before the US will have to stop being the world's policeman.

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 01:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)
pretty much the same way some ragtag group of guys from the desert of afganastan was

; )))
Same could be said of Timothy McVeigh and other members of groups here in the U.S. [/b][/quote]
AHA!!!!!

Now, Sarettah!!!

you have one last chance.

Confess the heinous sin of heresy to the great Bush, reject the works of the democrats

*two* last chances.

And you shall be free

*three* last chances.

You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 04:33 PM
Iran with nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the US and our interests.

A threat to interests we have over there, yes.

A threat to the U.S.... Not yet in any real sense of the word.

Those aren't intercontinental missiles they are developing.

As far as going back to 1970 or there abouts, We created a situation there by openly supporting the Shah and failing to react to what was going on in the country. We could have ended up with a much better situation if we had kept the Shah in reign instead of letting him do his own little tyrranical thing. Funny thing with puppets is that you have to keep a pretty tight hold of the strings to make them do what you want, ya know. [/b][/quote]


Well where do we draw the line Sarattah? You seem to be against allowing them to attain ICBMs.

The hard part in nuclear weapons is development of the nuclear device itself. Delivery is much easier.

In case you have not figured it out, there are many inventive ways to deliver a nuclear device besides ICBMs.

You could smuggle it through cargo ship, airplane ( 9-11 style), across mexican/candian borders in trucks.

How many tons of drugs cross the US borders everyday?

I am dissappointed that you cannot see nuclear Iran as a direct threat to the US.

Oh and for the record, a Nation's interests around the world are worth fighting for.

[Nickatilynx]

How many tons of drugs cross the US borders everyday?


errr Mike , this is something maybe we should discuss , privately.


;-))))

[Nickatilynx]

Oh and for the record, a Nation's interests around the world are worth fighting for.

What about the World's interests being worth fighting a nation over?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 04:58 PM
The hard part in nuclear weapons is development of the nuclear device itself. Delivery is much easier.

Wrong.

Nuclear devices are actually quite simple to build. Plans used to be on the net in fact. Arose from a college junior designing a practical Nuclear weapon as a class project.

The hard part is obtaining clean fission material. And then the delivery system. Much more time has been devoted in this world to delivering practical delivery systems then there has been to developing nukes.


IMHO of course :)

[dantheman]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)
pretty much the same way some ragtag group of guys from the desert of afganastan was

; )))
Same could be said of Timothy McVeigh and other members of groups here in the U.S. [/b][/quote]
doh, anyone can be a threat, just becuause they live across the world dosnt mean they are not. right? and I'm sure there's a few missiles out there for sale that could reach your house. after they have the warheads what do you think will be their next purchase ; ))

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 18 2004, 03:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM
However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)
pretty much the same way some ragtag group of guys from the desert of afganastan was

; )))
Same could be said of Timothy McVeigh and other members of groups here in the U.S. [/b][/quote]
ah, but Timmy was a good, christian boy, not some insane towleheaded camel jockey who wipes his ass without benefit of toilet paper.......

I think we'll see a new civil war in our lifetime long before we see the arab boogeyman launch an all out nuclear atack on us...I fear the enemy within more than one across the sea...

and don't worry Nick, I caught your Monty Python reference ;-)
although, I also have this song in my head called "The Inquisition" featuring Torquemada and some nuns in a pool doing some synchronized swimming...

[dantheman]

reading this thread makes me believe that some of you forgot what happened on 9/11. It WILL happen again. no matter who is pres, no matter what Alex says, no matter what I or mikeai say. There's a group of folks on this planet that will not rest(they dont take sundays off:) untill they hit us over and over. They THINK they can beat the US in this war and will do everything they can to prove it.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 02:11 PM
reading this thread makes me believe that some of you forgot what happened on 9/11. It WILL happen again. no matter who is pres, no matter what Alex says, no matter what I or mikeai say. There's a group of folks on this planet that will not rest(they dont take sundays off:) untill they hit us over and over. They THINK they can beat the US in this war and will do everything they can to prove it.
Who and where are these people , Dan?

I'm happy for them to be identified ,hunted and for these criminals to face justice.

But if in order to do that , you too become a perpetrator of attrocities on innocents of the same magnitude as 9/11...

[sarettah]

Originally posted by dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 05:04 PM
doh, anyone can be a threat
Exactly, anyone can be a threat, unfortunately for me I was raised with this really weird idea that it was considered anti social to run around beating the hell out of people just because I thought they might hurt me. I was taught that I would have to be able to prove that someone was trying to hurt me before it was ok to take action. I was also taught that just because I was the biggest kid in school (and you know that you and I stand almost eye to eye eh Danny) did not give me the right to appoint myself as class regulator.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+Nov 18 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ Nov 18 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 02:11 PM
reading this thread makes me believe that some of you forgot what happened on 9/11. It WILL happen again. no matter who is pres, no matter what Alex says, no matter what I or mikeai say. There's a group of folks on this planet that will not rest(they dont take sundays off:) untill they hit us over and over. They THINK they can beat the US in this war and will do everything they can to prove it.
Who and where are these people , Dan?

I'm happy for them to be identified ,hunted and for these criminals to face justice.

But if in order to do that , you too become a perpetrator of attrocities on innocents of the same magnitude as 9/11... [/b][/quote]
damn, I'm happy you quit drinking and doing drugs, your down to just a handfull of brain cells.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by dantheman+Nov 18 2004, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dantheman @ Nov 18 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 05:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dantheman@Nov 18 2004, 02:11 PM
reading this thread makes me believe that some of you forgot what happened on 9/11. It WILL happen again. no matter who is pres, no matter what Alex says, no matter what I or mikeai say. There's a group of folks on this planet that will not rest(they dont take sundays off:) untill they hit us over and over. They THINK they can beat the US in this war and will do everything they can to prove it.
Who and where are these people , Dan?

I'm happy for them to be identified ,hunted and for these criminals to face justice.

But if in order to do that , you too become a perpetrator of attrocities on innocents of the same magnitude as 9/11...
damn, I'm happy you quit drinking and doing drugs, your down to just a handfull of brain cells. [/b][/quote]
and by that post it proves I STILL have double yours.

Note so far ..

Two of our looney right candidates have brought in my sobriety to use against me in this discussion.

Interesting.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 05:25 PM
Note so far ..

Two of our looney right candidates have brought in my sobriety to use against me in this discussion.

he he he


:wnw:

[RawAlex]

Nick, welcome to my end of the playing field: Where logic, information, and fact are negated by "your a liberal" "your a commie" "you sucked Fidel off" etc.

I have learned to accept that comments like that are actually their gentle way of saying "your right, but I can't bring myself to admit it".

:-)

Alex

[Diamond Jim]

Feels icky when PD is on the rational side...

What a world, what a world...

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 02:54 PM
I have learned to accept that comments like that are actually their gentle way of saying "your right, but I can't bring myself to admit it".
ignorance is bliss :awinky:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 05:54 PM
welcome to my end of the playing field: Where logic, information, and fact are negated by "your a liberal" "your a commie" "you sucked Fidel off" etc.

I have learned to accept that comments like that are actually their gentle way of saying "your right, but I can't bring myself to admit it".

:-)

Alex
Logic, information and fact, you say? Man oh, man. You never sway.

You mean like how you first state that the American people will get fooled "a second time" on Iran. Then soon after you state that Iran is more than likely developing nuclear weapons? Huh? Hey! Huh? Hey! That's inconsistent and thus ILLOGICAL. You
can't have it both ways.

So then you concoct a half-baked, no fully baked, theory - and I use the term lightly - that Iran likely has a nuclear weapons program as a result of George Bush. Errr ... ok. What was all that in the 90's then? The US sanctions on Iran under Clinton and the non proliferation act under Bush I? Wow, your anti-Americanism musta been running low on gas to dream that one up. What's next? Would the Middle East have been peaceful the past 14 centuries without GWB.

Anti-Americanism. Anti-GWBism. Your version is confusianism not confucianism but just in case remember that "to learn and to practise what is learned time and again is pleasure, is it not?".

Alexism. version 1.2.

Yes, you ignored the FACT that previous US administrations and the rest of the world have been dealing with Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems for the better part of a decade.

Look 'er up. All of this INFORMATION is publicly available.

You didn't conveniently ignore that part of my prior post because you couldn't debate against logic, information and fact, did you?

No, you're (no, it is NOT "your" :rolleyes: ) NOT right but you are a liberal commie pinko Fidel lover.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 18 2004, 07:24 PM
but you are a liberal commie pinko Fidel lover.
You left out the fag part...

He is Canadian you know.....



:okthumb:

[Nickatilynx]

sucks to be you , Alex :)






;-))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 07:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Nov 18 2004, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 18 2004, 07:24 PM
but you are a liberal commie pinko Fidel lover.
You left out the fag part...

He is Canadian you know.....



:okthumb: [/b][/quote]
Oh, but I like Canadians. Nick, for example! And Shania Twain.

Fags are alright too. Man, that Gay "top 50" I ran back in the day rocked.

[Nickatilynx]

I rock!!

Alex sucks!!


SWEEEEEET

:)

;-)))))




and mmmmm Shania Twain ..... :)

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Nov 18 2004, 06:14 PM
Feels icky when PD is on the rational side...

What a world, what a world...
:ph34r: Maybe you better check the fluoride content of your local water supply .... :ph34r:

I am opposed to nuclear proliferation. I would be less concerned if Canada was developing an independent nuclear capability than I am over Iran doing it. I am not any more concerned about Iran doing it than I would be if Poland or Japan started to do so.

Regardless of what the flag-draped bobbleheads chanting "Bush" and "9/11" might think or bleat, the biggest threat of a nuclear Iran is regional.

Hell's bells ... if I were Iranian, with Russia to the North and potential U.S. satellites to the east and west, I would want my own nukes too.

If I were an Iraqi (assuming that one country comes out of whatever process will follow the "elections" in January), I'd have to think that a nuclear Iran was a threat that warranted consideration of a WMD program for defensive purposes.

Personally, based on geography and demographics, I think it's nuts that Australia doesn't have a nuclear deterent.

One of the reasons I advocate larger, stronger conventional forces for the U.S. military is to reduce the possibility that we not find ourselves in a situation where the "nuclear option" is the only option available. I have never thought of nuclear weapons as just one more toy in the toybox; some of the folks on the neo-con side aren't so inclined.

[Nickatilynx]

I would be less concerned if Canada was developing an independent nuclear capability than I am over Iran doing it.

Excellent....




;-)))

[RawAlex]

o then you concoct a half-baked, no fully baked, theory - and I use the term lightly - that Iran likely has a nuclear weapons program as a result of George Bush. Errr ... ok. What was all that in the 90's then? The US sanctions on Iran under Clinton and the non proliferation act under Bush I? Wow, your anti-Americanism musta been running low on gas to dream that one up. What's next? Would the Middle East have been peaceful the past the 14 centuries without GWB.

Colin, it isn't that they have a program BECAUSE of the boy, but they potentially have used the current "overextension" of US forces as a chance to jump ahead, with less fear of "being caught". The boy didn't cause it, but he has made it much easier for them to move ahead with it. That is all IF (big if) they are in fact going that way. My opinion is that news like this coming from Colin Powell isn't likely to make the world sit up and take notice, considering what his last call on WMD lead to.

As for the rest, well...

The middle east has never been a peaceful place (nice attempt to use an extreme exaggeration to make me look bad, you failed), but there has been a notble shift in the targets of their anger. It use to be themselves, between countries, groups, clans... now they appear to be uniting... and they have focused the anger.

Nick, it's fun over here. It's enjoyable to no end to see people using junior high debating techniques in order to avoid discussion, lowering themselves quickly to name calling, bizarre absolutes, or pointless misdirections to avoid saying "you might be right".

You will learn to love it! :rokk: :rokk: :rokk:

Ale :bjump:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 04:50 PM


Nick, it's fun over here. It's enjoyable to no end to see people using junior high debating techniques in order to avoid discussion, lowering themselves quickly to name calling, bizarre absolutes, or pointless misdirections to avoid saying "you might be right".

You will learn to love it! :rokk: :rokk: :rokk:

Ale :bjump:
I always remind myself its just words on a message board , therefore its like water off a ducks ass :)

Otherwise you could go nuts...



wibble..
penguin
screeech.


;-)))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 07:50 PM
My opinion is
The truth. I like it! That talk of "logic, information, and fact" must have had you feeling light-headed.

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 07:50 PM
Nick, it's fun over here. It's enjoyable to no end to see people using junior high debating techniques in order to avoid discussion, lowering themselves quickly to name calling, bizarre absolutes, or pointless misdirections to avoid saying "you might be right".
/me searches for posts where Alex first disagrees, then changes his opinion and says "you might be right"...

[Nickatilynx]

LOL

Alex two things in this "game" I know for certain

1) do not piss with serge ( unless the money warrants it)
2) do not debate Math , staistics , or logic with Colin
3) if Anthony asks you if you'd "like to see something nice" , don't look.It isn't.

Ok the three things I know...

[PornoDoggy]

I believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

I believe that an Iranian nuclear weapons program threatens the security of the United States because it threatens the stability of the Middle East.

I believe this IN SPITE of the fact that the Bush Administration agrees with me. I'd be lying if I didn't say that causes me to pause and wonder.

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 18 2004, 07:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 18 2004, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Diamond Jim@Nov 18 2004, 06:14 PM
Feels icky when PD is on the rational side...

What a world, what a world...
:ph34r: Maybe you better check the fluoride content of your local water supply .... :ph34r:
[/b][/quote]
I only drink bottled water..

Lewis Black, baby...

[MikeW]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Nov 18 2004, 09:01 PM
I only drink bottled water..

Lewis Black, baby...
hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! thank you DJ for the obscure but completely hilarious reference ;-))))) :rokk:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 07:50 PM
there has been a notble shift in the targets of their anger. It use to be themselves, between countries, groups, clans... now they appear to be uniting... and they have focused the anger.
Same shit, different century. Really. Are you familiar with the history of the Middle East?

They were much more united under the Ottaman Empire than they are today. You expecting the Caliph to come back or something? Not going to happen. 1683, baby. East meets West. West wins. 250 years until she went bust. Hasn't been the same since.

Then there was pan-Arabism. Yeah, that turned out well. Now Nasser gave 'er a try but didn't get anywhere. Nasser assassinated. Saddat assassinated. And that was the high period this century of Middle East aspirations to reunite. And the Ayatollah Khomeini? Run Rushdie, run!

The Middle East uniting? What a joke. Half the Middle East sold out to the US letting us set up operations there to attack Iraq. Iran, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia hate Iraq. The Turks wanna kill the Kurds. The Kurds wanna form their own the state. The surrounding nations support Palestine but they all reject the refugees. None of them want the tired, poor huddled Palestinian masses. What gives?

Their modes of self-identification are too fragmented. Shiite or Sunni. Persian, Turkish, or Arab. Arabic, Farsi or Turkish. Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi and so on.

[Diamond Jim]

There goes Colin with his junior high debating again..

Give Alex a brain-noogie until even his hair can't stand him...

Oooops, too late...

Mike W....my favorite line is...

"The only thing worse than a Democrat or a Republican is when these pricks work together."

[Vick]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Nov 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!
and the problem with this is? :P


While on the whole I like Canadians, I seriously wonder about the sanity of native born Canadians
after all Canadians invented curling and play it and not the naked womens curling I have been trying for years to get to be an Olympic event


The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship
Just let the USA run the world and we will be benevolent
I promise

he he he

[RawAlex]

Colin, diversions... diversions... back to the subject at hand. Colin Powell calling "WMD" is as likely to get people excited as someone yelling "free ice cream" at the north pole.

Is the "reliable information" as good as the ones about Iraq trying to buy aluminum tubes? Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs? Those lovely "tips" from the middle of nowhere, used in Presidential speeches even after the CIA said it was likely not true?

He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.

DJ, one of the nicest things about expressing opinions (as opposed to be all seeing, all knowing) is that you can always allow that the other point of view might be correct. More often than not, in the middle of these discussions, we go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the actual subject, and as a result the conversation strays...

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Nov 18 2004, 09:56 PM
There goes Colin with his junior high debating again..
:okthumb: Your mama!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 12:57 AM
Colin Powell calling "WMD" is as likely to get people excited assomeone yelling "free ice cream" at the north pole.

Is the "reliable information" as good as the ones about Iraq trying to buy aluminum tubes? Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs? Those lovely "tips" from the middle of nowhere, used in Presidential speeches even after the CIA said it was likely not true?

He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.
I agree with you there, Alex. The man is Secretary of State though and it is his job. This is an ongoing issue, not a new one. All he did was answer a question a reporter asked stating that he's seen evidence that "suggests" Iran has been "working on a delivery system". No surprise there. US administrations have been dealing with that issue since the 90s.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 09:57 PM
He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.
IMHO - The real underlaying policy is how do we get the mullahs from power? Sanctions is one way to undermine their hold on power, however since we have many bewildered people in the west then we need to give them a reason :awinky: ... Nuclear weapons could be one of the reasons, however with the current climate in world politics, then the western world will probably end up with doing nothing, and just letting the iranian people get oppressed for the next 10 years. And in those 10 years we will have to fight off mullahs trying to start civil wars in their neighbour countries - like Iraq, Afghanistan, and spreading their fundamentalist belief to muslims in europe, russia, china etc.... once the 10 years are over, then I´m sure someone will say "why didn´t the US do more to remove the mullahs from power?", and then the US will blame canada ;-))))

[RawAlex]

Rolo, might I ask the obvious (but sort of dumb) question:

Who has the right to say the Mullahs have to go?

It's a serious issue. Is the US and the US alone the judge of "good leadership" (maybe the boy can remove himself)? How do you decide that someone "has to go"? Is not the act of attempting to remove of kill the current leaders of a country in fact a declaration of war on them?

I am really starting to feel that the US wants to make everyone free, even if they have to force them to be free (which isn't really very free, now is it?).

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 09:10 AM
Rolo, might I ask the obvious (but sort of dumb) question:

Who has the right to say the Mullahs have to go?

It's a serious issue. Is the US and the US alone the judge of "good leadership" (maybe the boy can remove himself)? How do you decide that someone "has to go"? Is not the act of attempting to remove of kill the current leaders of a country in fact a declaration of war on them?

I am really starting to feel that the US wants to make everyone free, even if they have to force them to be free (which isn't really very free, now is it?).

Alex
Thats a really good question. I have some too. Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

[RawAlex]

Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/index.html)

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 12:21 PM
Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/index.html)

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex
LOL

Alex , you are always right.



























in your own mind

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 03:21 PM
Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.
In your post that I replied to, you implied that being "forced" to be free isn't "really free". At the end of World War II the nonconsensual governments of Japan and Germany were forced into becoming constitutional democracies. They were forced ... and now they are free. What does the scale have to do with my observation? If Afganistan, Iraq or both become stable democracies then I would argue that they are free and it happened as a result of war. History shows over and over again that you can occupy a nation's capital, replace its leaders and leave the people with a far better life than they had before. All of this happens against the will of many of the citizens themseves who in the end realize it was actually all for the better. Yes, the same people who were armed and fighting back. Bizarre? Nope. Just the way it goes.

I guess you could take the point that no one is free. After all, we are all slaves to our governments in various degrees. The concept of "free" would loose its meaning in that case though. At any rate, I prefer to think of myself as living under Rousseau's "Social Contract".

-------------- repeat ------------------

Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 03:21 PM
Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/index.html)

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex
I don't think a single person disagreed with you. Most here have the same belief you do. Iran is likely to be developing nuclear weapons. The debates in this thread are about what type of action should be taken to prevent that - not about the reliability of the "source" of Powell's intelligence. Questionable "intelligence"? Well, duh. All intelligence is questionable. If it weren't they wouldn't call it "intelligence". What did Powell say in the first place? He said he has information which "SUGGESTS" they are developing a nuclear weapon.