Iran hiding Nuclear Facility - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-25-2009, 03:31 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:52 PM
and, as ever, the point stands that Bill Clinton never, ever endorsed a full-scale invasion, and Bush's War was a radical policy break from what had been over a decade of US policy.

the other fact that remains is that Colin Powell's false assertion that there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and Baghdad came from a detainee named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who was tortured by the Bush administration and gave up false information in order to get them to stop torturing.

so there you have it. they tortured people to provide a false pretext to launch a war.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:24 PM   #32
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Interesting comment on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Quote:
It must drive them nuts to see a clear, if limited, victory for a strategy that is diametrically opposed to their own. Their ideology being discredited by events, and so they characteristically fall back into blind fits of intransigence, like screaming, foot-stomping children.

Obama has known about this facility from day one. At Cairo, he reached out the Muslim world, undermining the Iranian regime's ability to engage in arm-waving, fear-mongering anti-Americanism. He built himself a triumvirate with Brown and Sarkozy, who actually have an intelligence presence in Iran. He used that presence to build an airtight case. He cut a deal with the Russians. He reached out to Iran, knowing that they would likely reject or ignore his overtures. Then, when Ahmadinejad comes to New York, having to face Western journalists, Obama announces the the existence of the Qom facility, turning the spotlight on Iran when they are unable to hide behind state-controlled media. Obama, cool and calm, pulled off a near-perfect diplomatic pincer.

Finally, after years, we're starting to get somewhere with no threats and no bombs. Like I said, it must drive the neocons nuts. Obama did in eight months what George Bush couldn't do in eight years. How long do you think it will take for Krauthammer find a way to twist this victory into an accusation of naivete?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 08:04 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:52 AM
It's a good commentary from Sullivan.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 08:18 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 12:52 AM
The question is, what happens now? Ahmadinejad has proven remarkably apathetic when it comes to the opinions of the West (or, frankly, anyone who disagrees with him). When listening to Obama's speech today, I couldn't help but wonder, "...or what?" America's ability to wield the big stick has been undermined by overextending its military presence in Iraq, and the UN has been proven to be relatively ineffective at anything except sanctions -- which have historically been more effective at aggravating the common populace than having any real effect on the leaders in question. It would be nice if the Iranian people were moved to take matters into their own hands, but the riots this summer only proved how calloused Ahmadinejad is to the voice of his own people...

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Ahmadinejad has a secret facility in the shadow of Bush's presidency, any more than it should have been a surprise that N. Korea had a secret facility in the shadow of Clinton's presidency. Containment and diplomacy didn't work when dealing with N Korea, saber-rattling didn't work with Iran. So how shall we deal with small-minded dictators hell-bent on obtaining WMD?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 10:06 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
It would be nice if the Iranian people were moved to take matters into their own hands,
Are you advocating a revolution in a democratic country, on the basis that the democratically elected government doesn't suit your views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So how shall we deal with small-minded dictators hell-bent on obtaining WMD?
What are you talking about? Iran's government is democratically elected.

What kind of bullshit is being put forward in the US media?
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 11:39 PM   #36
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 07:52 PM
How many other secret facilities do you think they have?

Iran will have nuclear weapons in by 2012.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 04:19 AM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and, as ever, the point stands that Bill Clinton never, ever endorsed a full-scale invasion
Thats false! Both Bill Clinton and his wife endorsed the 2003 Bush administration led invasion of Iraq! Bill Clinton went on Larry King Live the week before the invasion and said Bush was doing the right thing. Hillary Clinton voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion.

Quote:
and Bush's War was a radical policy break from what had been over a decade of US policy.
The proper enforcement of the UN Security Council Resolutions and protecting and securing the Persian Gulf through the necessary removal of Saddam's regime was perfectly consistent with US policy up to that point and was long overdue. Everything except invasion and the removal of the regime had been tried and failed.

Kenneth Pollack, Bill Clinton's National Security Staff member in charge of handling Iraq advocated for invading and removing the regime even before the Bush Administration did.

Quote:
the other fact that remains is that Colin Powell's false assertion that there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and Baghdad came from a detainee named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who was tortured by the Bush administration and gave up false information in order to get them to stop torturing.

so there you have it. they tortured people to provide a false pretext to launch a war.
Authorization to use any military means the President felt necessary to deal with Iraq came from Congress on October 13, 2002. UN authorization came in mid-November 2002. Neither resolution involved assertions of a link with Al-Quada obtained allegedly through torture.

Based on opinion polls, the majority of the American public already supported using military force to remove Saddam even before September 2001. By mid-November 2002, President Bush had greater support from within the United States to launch the invasion than his father had back in 1990-1991 to use military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait.


Here is a video of Democrats supporting Bush administration policy when it comes to Saddam's regime:

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 04:27 AM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Interesting comment on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Just goes to show that Andrew is ignorant or forgot what Bush administration policy was on Iran prior to Obama coming into office. The Bush administration already had been working with the UK, France, Germany, and Russia to get Iran to comply with the interational communities demands on their nuclear program. Research, intelligence break throughs, resolutions at the UN, sanctions, were all things being undertaken by the Bush Administration against Iran in cooperation with many other countries.

Another important thing to mention is that Bush NEVER bombed Iran and Obama has not taken the THREAT of military force off the table. Again, Obama administration policy on Iran is not a radical departure from the Bush administration.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:56 AM   #39
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: in a series of dreams
Posts: 578
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberBeaver
They had no proof of WMDs - the closest they could muster was Colin Powell holding a picture of some trailers.



and this false, embarrassing information was extracted via torture.

just saying.
 
It's actually Optimus Prime.
__________________
solemole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:59 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Obama warns Iran: `come clean' on nukes - Yahoo! News

Yet, some people here believe Iran has been fully cooperating with the IAEA.
it's where ahmadinejad keeps his porn. anyone can understand not wanting to share that.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 08:50 AM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The question is, what happens now? Ahmadinejad has proven remarkably apathetic when it comes to the opinions of the West (or, frankly, anyone who disagrees with him). When listening to Obama's speech today, I couldn't help but wonder, "...or what?" America's ability to wield the big stick has been undermined by overextending its military presence in Iraq, and the UN has been proven to be relatively ineffective at anything except sanctions -- which have historically been more effective at aggravating the common populace than having any real effect on the leaders in question. It would be nice if the Iranian people were moved to take matters into their own hands, but the riots this summer only proved how calloused Ahmadinejad is to the voice of his own people...

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Ahmadinejad has a secret facility in the shadow of Bush's presidency, any more than it should have been a surprise that N. Korea had a secret facility in the shadow of Clinton's presidency. Containment and diplomacy didn't work when dealing with N Korea, saber-rattling didn't work with Iran. So how shall we deal with small-minded dictators hell-bent on obtaining WMD?


the difference now is that we have France on board, and it's looking like the Russians are willing to actually engage -- remember, it's the Russians who have been the foil when dealing with Iran, and it was France -- treacherous France! -- who were unwilling to go along with the Iraq war.

next is China. the "or what ..." is that Iran will be totally isolated.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 08:59 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:52 PM
1.

Quote:
Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04


Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.

"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.

Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he "supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing. Portions of both interviews -- part of the publicity campaign in advance of this week's release of Clinton's memoirs -- were distributed in advance by the news organizations.

The Time excerpts, in particular, leave Clinton's views on Iraq somewhat jumbled. He both defends Bush for confronting a threat of which Clinton also spoke in dire terms while president, and minimizes the size and urgency of the problem posed by Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

Noting that he has "repeatedly defended President Bush against the left" on Iraq, Clinton dismissed the notion that the Iraq war was principally about protecting petroleum or financial interests.

Instead, he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons and that the president was under the sway of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis" that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy.

Clinton's own rhetoric while president emphasized the commitments to allow unfettered weapons inspections that Iraq had made under the terms of surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the likelihood that then-President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use.

In February 1998, after Hussein blocked U.N. inspectors from entering Iraq, Clinton warned: "What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

In the Time interview, Clinton said "I never really thought" Hussein would use his weapons but did worry that Iraqi weapons might be sold or given away.

Clinton ordered missile strikes against Iraq in December 1998 but did not press aggressively for U.N. inspectors to return. Bush administration officials said this was precisely the "ambiguous third route" in Clinton's warning. But Bush has been embarrassed by the failure of inspectors after Hussein's fall last year to find major weapons programs.

In the Time interview, Clinton suggested that he was concerned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that Iraq had "a lot of stuff unaccounted for." But in the same interview he seemed to warn against exaggerations about how many weapons were ever suspected.

He said at the time the United Nations pulled out the weapons inspectors in 1998, not to return until after Bush came to power, "there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents" in addition to some "chemical agents" such as VX and ricin that were "unaccounted for."

"Keep in mind," Clinton urged Time interviewers Michael Duffy and Joe Klein, "that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity."


2. The UN decides how to enforce it's resolutions, not the United States.

3. The fact remains that Colin Powell's presentation -- where they tried to make the what would have been critical assertion that Baghdad and AQ were working together -- was sexed-up with demonstrably false "facts" gained through torture.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 09:26 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Plenty of evidence has been out there that Iran is not cooperating, the question is, will liberals dream up a way to dismiss this latest piece of evidence.
Plenty of evidence Iraq had WMD....lol
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 11:37 AM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
1.





2. The UN decides how to enforce it's resolutions, not the United States.

3. The fact remains that Colin Powell's presentation -- where they tried to make the what would have been critical assertion that Baghdad and AQ were working together -- was sexed-up with demonstrably false "facts" gained through torture.

1. If Clinton thought the timing of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was wrong, he could have come out in said that it was. He didn't! He supported it fully at the time! The article you posted is not from March 2003 or earlier, but from over a year later in 2004.

Bill Clinton fully agreed with the position of his wife which was the following:


Tim Russert: Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?

Senator Hillary Clinton: I doubt it! I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussian because I think it is in the long term interest of our National Security.

NBC "Meet The Press" September 15, 2002




Quote:
2. The UN decides how to enforce it's resolutions, not the United States.
I agree, and the UN decided in resolution 678, that the "use of all means necessary" was justified in bringing Iraq into compliance and applied this to all subsequent resolutions in regards to Iraqi compliance. This was used again in resolutions 687 and 1441. All three resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations allow for military force to be used to bring about compliance. Resolutions against Israel are passed under Chapter VI rules which does not allow the use of military force to bring about compliance.

Bill Clinton sited resolution 678 throughout his presidency when ever he used military action against Iraq. You can't claim that Bush acted against the UN while Clinton acted with the UN. Both Presidents had authorization from prior UN resolutions to use military force against Iraq to bring it into compliance. When it comes to military force and the resolutions passed against Iraq, the United Nations never made any distinction between air strikes, partial invasions, full scale invasions etc. If you believe that Bush did not have UN authorization to engage in the military action he did, then you can't claim that Bill Clinton had UN authority to engage in the military action he did either.


Quote:
3. The fact remains that Colin Powell's presentation -- where they tried to make the what would have been critical assertion that Baghdad and AQ were working together -- was sexed-up with demonstrably false "facts" gained through torture.
Colin Powell's presentation MONTHS after Bush already had authorization to go to war from congress and the United Nations consisted strictly of intelligence information approved by George Tennet at the CIA. Nothing in Powells report was sexed up at all. Powell was very concerned that he present only the best and most reliable information strictly from the CIA and not any hunches or information that did not have solid backing. It did not contain any of Cheney's more skeptical material or sources.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 12:01 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:52 PM
in 2008, on Meet The Press, Mrs. Clinton had this to say:

Quote:
Clinton justified her 2002 Iraq war vote again on Meet the Press, saying that she thought "it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she was “told by the White House personally” as were others that that’s what the resolution was for and noted that Bush himself said publicly that the resolution was the best chance to avoid a confrontation.

Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”

Clinton responded saying, “We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How likely do you view a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran before end 2008? financeguy Free Your Mind Archive 31 09-28-2007 09:10 AM
U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite? AchtungBono Free Your Mind Archive 10 12-28-2006 05:03 AM
iran doesnt back off on nuclear tech all_i_want Free Your Mind Archive 9 08-11-2005 11:10 PM
Bush Pushes for New Nukes sulawesigirl4 Free Your Mind Archive 26 07-10-2003 09:18 PM
nuke iraq till they bleed american Flag Pole Pear Free Your Mind Archive 214 02-08-2003 10:39 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com