I heard a news report today that Iran has told the UN and the international community that it has halted it's nuclear program. Bush responded by saying that he wouldn't take Iran's word at face value, he want's Iran to give us the right to send people in to inspect and make sure that they really did halt, since Iran made this announcment only days before a UN meeting where they would have been scolded. Does this sound anything like the beginning of the whole mess in Iraq to anyone else? Are we going to have to "liberate" Iran to make sure that they are not making strides in their nuclear program... I know Iran has a checkered history with us what with the embassy stuff and communist support in the cold war, but geez, do we really need more problems over there?
"Mac, you ever been in love?" - "No, I've been a bartender all my life."
its to do with the so called 'liberal world order', which is dominated by the great powers of the late 20th century. Otherwise known as the UN.
Non-proliferation is a joke unless all nuclear powers give up or vastly reduce the number od stockpiled nuclear weapons...it is strange how the only nation on earth who has actually used this hellish weapon on human beings can preach who cannot have the weapons....the USA used the weapon on Japan when they were faced with no other option but to invade and lose more lives, perhaps nations such as Iran and N.Korea feel a nuclear defense is their only option...however we can never know what intentions are, and it is unproven Iran wants to make weapons.
'it's better to have your ministers inside the tent pissing out than outside, pissing in'
Originally posted by rttennis: What I find funny about this whole thing (although this has been said before) is that we have two thousand more nuclear weapons than any other country on this planet, but we have to ask other countries to get rid of theirs. Why don't we get rid of ours, and maybe the other countries will follow. I don't know.
Because other countries cannot be trusted. It's all about power.
What I find funny about this whole thing (although this has been said before) is that we have two thousand more nuclear weapons than any other country on this planet, but we have to ask other countries to get rid of theirs. Why don't we get rid of ours, and maybe the other countries will follow. I don't know.
I'm bumping this thread up again on account of 2 news stories I read today. One of them talks about how the United States has just issued it's formal declaration that it found no WMDs in Iraq. Also an investigative journalist is touting inside sources in the white house as tipping him off that the USA is gearing up to take out Iran with bombing runs, this time they are planning far ahead of time so as to avoid an Iraq or Afghanistan like result from our invasion. When asked about the accusation of the US planning war with Iran, a top whitehouse spokesman said "no president in history has ever taken war off of the table as a possible tool". Is it just me or is that basically saying "yeah, we are going to go ahead and liberate Iran because of their WMD's... Errrr I mean nukes".
"Mac, you ever been in love?" - "No, I've been a bartender all my life."
quote:Originally posted by WJ: i guarentee go to some of the valleys in the syrian desert and you'll find iraqs WMDs and i'd bet money that jacques chirac helped saddam stash em'
Oh. Before, I wasn't sure if Saddam had WMD's, but now that such a reliable source has proclaimed that he did, I realize that I was incorrect. Just because there is STILL no proof that there were any shouldn't discourage me from believing that there must be WMD's because the most brilliant person in the world, WJ, says so.
Well, 2 years later, no WMDs. Also, this war has changed purpose 3 times. Enough for me to consider this all a big fat lie of a war Bush created for no reason.
If Jacques Chirac helped Saddam Hussein stash the non-existant WMDs to bomb Bush, I would become his **** buddy till I die.
"Regardless, I have always, and will always, succeed."
North Korea wont nuke us they would nuke taiwan and japan and sadddam had them but he had time to stash his WMDs in syria a place you can snoop around without getting your head chopped off i guarentee go to some of the valleys in the syrian desert and you'll find iraqs WMDs and i'd bet money that jacques chirac helped saddam stash em'
Grrrrr.... I hate living in the US any more I rather live in a 3rd world country. This is all ********* if you ask me. Im sick of Bush wanting war and all that bull. I think the US needs to get over its self particulary the goverment and get it head out of its a**. Ohhh and Celtic your right.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: YNLissa,
quote: we are the richest nation in the world! it is unfair to match their wealth to ours. there is no question. where did they get the money? even having two or three isnt cheap.
Red, some countries waste their cash on weapons. And yes, you're not the richest anymore, and you have NEVER been the richest one by a lot. It's not like you're WOW and everyone else is ****ed up.
"Regardless, I have always, and will always, succeed."
quote: But do you know who does have both WMDs and intercontinental ballistic missiles? North Korea. Think about it: North Korea could be nuking us any day now. Be afraid, be very afraid!
But *why* would North Korea nuke America? Tons of countries have nuclear capabilities!
I agree with you that the Iranian threat is probably a dud. I am incredibly skeptical about anything politicians say regarding 'threats' these days. The Iraq War was conducted for absolutely no reason and I'm not about to be fooled again. Now all this stuff about a humanitarian purpose? Pfft! If we have a humanitarian motivation towards Iraq then why have we been bombing the people for the past decade? Thanks to English and American bombing, by the year 2000 Iraq had become the poorest country in the world, services were failing and millions of innocent lives had been lost, all for the sake of intimidating Saddam. This was *before* the war! I hadn't been aware of this long-established agression towards Iraq. Makes the reason for them pinning the blame on Saddam Hussein for 9/11 all the clearer.
Justifying our actions now with the 'evil dictator' argument is hipocrisy. The West *supports* incredibly brutal regimes as long as their goals aren't in conflict with our own. War is a bloody business fought for money. Isn't America rich enough already?
I'm happy not to believe a word politicians say about war.
quote: Originally posted by redrepublican: they knew what was knwon then as the truth...and yet they didnt act on it. it is truly sickening.
And in the end, they turned out to be right. Kinda makes you think they were looking at the evidence a little bit more rationally than the two Georges (Dubya and Tenet), doesn't it? Sorry, maybe that logic only works if you're sane.
At the time we invaded Iraq, reports were sketchy and evidence was inconclusive. George Tenet gathered his speculations and his circumstantial evidence and sold the Iraq War to the American people and those overseas. The difference is, those overseas had the sense to look at what they were buying before they purchased it. It is also definitely worth acknowledging that despite many Americans' belief that the CIA is an organization that works independently of the White House, the two are very closely connected. Tenet's job and reputation could very well have depended on selling that war; enough people have certainly come forward and revealed Bush's plans to invade Iraq from his first day in office.
quote: does anyone but me see this pattern? we all asid the same avbout Iraq! how do you know that they REALLY have WMDs? we had negotiations with iraq. we all said "we know saddam has WMDs" we went to war. No Wmds in Iraq. "oh this is all bush's fault! why did he klie to us? impeach him! impeach him!" where are we on this pattern now? we have negotiations with NK. we all say, "we know kim jong has WMDs." how long willi take to fulfill the next part of teh pattern?
I have no idea what you're trying to say by this (which I assure you is a greater reflection on your writing skills than my comprehension skills), but I think I was able to pick out the word "pattern", so let's talk about that. The Bush administration could very easily continue that pattern that began with Iraq: Gather speculatory, circumstantial evidence, sell it with lots of words like "clear and present threat", work hard to confuse people and alleviate the President of all blame, repeat.
We're already seeing the beginning of this with Iran. Most of the evidence that has been presented for invading Iran is both outdated (for example, the resurfacing "evidence" that Iran learned to make nukes from Pakistan dates back to 1996) and amounts to nothing. Colin Powell has presented his speculations that the Iran terrorists are working on a system of attaching WMDs to missiles, thereby threatening America. There's no proof of this; we're just supposed to take his word for it. But do you know who does have both WMDs and intercontinental ballistic missiles? North Korea. Think about it: North Korea could be nuking us any day now. Be afraid, be very afraid!
As for Iranian WMDs, they have a maximum range of 800 miles. The last time I checked, there were more than 800 miles between America and Iran. In addition, as the person who started this thread mentioned, Iran has claimed that they have stopped production of WMDs. We obviously shouldn't just believe them, but at the same time, we shouldn't automatically disbelieve them, as Bush seems more than willing to do.
quote: Originally posted by WJ: yes we need to get them before they get us!
we are the richest nation in the world! it is unfair to match their wealth to ours. there is no question. where did they get the money? even having two or three isnt cheap.
Topics 
