Iran hiding Nuclear Facility - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-07-2009, 08:53 PM   #121
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:46 AM
^ It's possible that he doesn't deny the Holocaust as an actual event, but that he refers to, in his view, the exploitation of the Holocaust by imperialistic powers as a myth and therefore denies the myth. He doesn't seem to have ever clarified it one way or the other.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:20 PM   #122
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Thanks Ali for your reply.
__________________

__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:04 PM   #123
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post


The lies committed by the neocons to bring us into war represent mendacity on a monumental scale.
No one lied and you grossly overuse and generalize the slang term neocons, which as you define it, probably does not exist anyway.

Quote:
Elements of the British and American states were involved in spinning a story so vile that they will be damned for ever in the history books, not least because they have killed a huge number of people on the basis of that pack of lies.
I'm waiting for the first person to write the book "Saddam should have been left in power" or "Why Iraq and the world would be safer with Saddam in power". No one lied, and the invasion was a necessity and any resulting casualties are the fault of Saddam's regime and the terrorist who tried to take advantage of the situation afterwards.

As time goes by, few people will come to Saddam's defense, and gradually, the majority of Americans will see the war as a necessity, like they did up until the summer of 2005. History will not defend Saddam, and it will vindicate Bush.

Quote:

A lie to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands is not like lying to win an election. It is not like lying about the economic news or statistics or trend curves. It is not like someone lying to his wife if he is late home some night. It is not like the average, everyday, venal political or personal lies that are told.
Well, I think everyone would agree with that. But the only leader engaged in lies involving Iraqi policy was Saddam. Saddam was the one who launched 4 unprovoked invasions and attacks on his neighbors. Saddam is the one guilty of using WMD more times than any leader in history. Saddam is the one that consistently lied to the international community and decieved the inspectors for years.


Quote:

It is a lie that led us into a disaster the bottom of which we have, I fear, not yet seen and may not see for quite some time.

The reverbations, I suspect, will continue as long as you and I and probably everyone here is alive, and as long as the children of everyone here are alive, and maybe beyond.
Well, it certainly does seem like parts of the anti-war movement hopes that will be the case, but I think they are going to be bitterly disappointed! Iraq is already ahead of Morocco in Standard of Living and has a lower murder rate than the United States!

The real disaster was averted by removing Saddam from power.

Quote:

They have scarred the face of the international and legal systems.

They have undermined respect for democratic institutions and the democratic system itself.
Actually, the war strengthed those systems. The UN Security Council had essentially become a joke, until 2003 when the necessary and long overdue action was taken to enforce the resolutions.

Iraq is developing into a democracy which is the exact opposite of the type of government it had with Saddam. The development of democracy in the middle east is stronger today than it was 20 years ago.

Quote:
They have further polarised the world between east and west and between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Actually, they have literally brought them together. Hundreds Of Thousands of US military personal have been working closely with Iraqi military, police, and civilian and government officials for years now in building a new Iraq. There has never been this level of engagement and contact between the United States and the Middle East ever before.

Quote:

They have stoked the fires of the hatred that exists against us in the Arab and Muslim worlds - us, Strongbow, you, and me, and probably everyone that posts here - and made them hate us even more than they already did.
You may like to think that, but its certainly not the case. Relations between the US military and their Iraqi counterparts have never been stronger. Violence against the 120,000 US troops in Iraq has become rare. The fires of hate and extremism stoked by Al Quada have been largely extinguished and replaced by even greater cooperation rebuilding and development.

Quote:
With a charge sheet like that, it is no wonder that almost no-one here will back you up, Strongbow,
LOL, well, I would not expect little San Francisco to support many of the facts and opinions presented by Republicans.

Quote:
as you continue with your constant repetitious references to minor legalities and resolutions,
Sorry, but there is nothing minor about them. The resolutions passed against Iraq by the UN security council were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN and are the most serious resolutions that can be passed by that organation. There is nothing minor about resolutions that authorize the use of military force to bring about enforcement.

Quote:
which are really just another, smaller smoker screen to detract attention away from the major issue of the monstrous crimes committed by the neocons in the name of 'regime change'.
The only one that committed monstrous crimes was Saddam's regime, and its amazing that there are still people out there willing to defend that regime.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:06 PM   #124
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
However, a number, such as John Edwards, subsequently admitted they were wrong to back the war.
In order so they could be competitive in the Democratic primary.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:09 PM   #125
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:46 AM
what is the problem with Iran having nuclear power? im all ears. (or eyes in this case)
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:38 PM   #126
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Speaking of Russia, the advent of the Russian atomic bomb geatly dissuaded the US and Britain from using their new toys again. It kept NATO expansionism, war and aggression firmly in check post WW2.
LOL. NATO expansionism was not a problem just after World War II. Its has never really been a problem unless of course you believe the Russians lately. Soviet expansionism was the problem. The Soviet Union exploded their first atomic bomb(which had been under development for some time) only a couple of months after NATO was first formed.

Until the mid-1960s, the United States had the ability to destroy targets in the Soviet Union without any real fear that the Soviets could hit the US mainland with a nuclear weapon. Thats one of the reasons why the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 was considered a crises, because it was the first time the Soviets had a realistic chance of hitting the US mainland with a nuclear weapon.

Until the mid-1960s the Soviets did not have operational SLBM armed subs in sufficient numbers that could get close enough to hit the US mainland. Although the Soviets developed their first intercontinental bombers in 1954, they never had enough then or through the 1960s to penetrate US air defenses. The Soviets only had 4 ICBM's in 1961 that were not considered operational.

It was not until the late 1960s, and the development of a survivable second strike capability with the Soviets first ICBM stockpile that the Soviets could be said to have finally entered the deterence game on the level of the United States. By that point in time, even a US nuclear first strike of the Soviet Union would not have been able to take out all Soviet ICBM's and would have resulted in a counter strike large enough to destroy the United States to a degree from which it would be unlikely to recover. It is around that time that the term MAD(mutually assured destruction) first came into use. But this was the late 1960s, NOT the situation in 1949.


Quote:
An Iranian bomb will have the same effect - greatly altering the balance of power in the Middle East. That's what the US administration, whether under Bush or Obama, is concerned about, not a bomb being fired in the Middle East.
The impact of an Iranian nuclear weapon will first be felt in Iran's foreign policy. Iran up to now has always hid behind proxies like Hezboloh, Humas, or other terrorist groups to carry out military action. Unlike Saddam, the Iranian regime has been unwilling to take direct military action itself in most cases. But with a nuclear weapon, Iran will likely caculate that it can now afford to take more risk with the bomb backing them up. Iranian nuclear weapons means more Iranian adventurism and possibly direct conventional military action in the region to achieve its foreign policy goals.

Consequently, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and many other states in the region may feel forced to start their own nuclear weapons programs to counter the Iranian threat. Essentially, it could be the start of a new much larger nuclear arms race involving dozens of country's around the world. Those are the chief concerns and worries of much of the international community in regards to Iranian nuclear weapons.

Quote:
If they were worried about that, they'd have disarmed Israel - a country with a track record of aggression against its neighbours, unlike Iran - long ago. They just don't want their client state and proxy in the Middle East being checkmated
Israel with nuclear weapons is not the same as Iran with nuclear weapons. Israel was legally created in 1948 and then brutally attacked by its Arab neighbors the next day. Israel has not been the agressor since then, it has been its Arab neighbors that have been guilty of agression in trying to wipe Israel of the face of the map and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. The US and its Allies new that Israel would never use nuclear weapons unless it was about to be completely overrun. Israel is a true democracy and is not a supporter of terrorism unlike Iran.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:40 PM   #127
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
what is the problem with Iran having nuclear power? im all ears. (or eyes in this case)
The problem is not nuclear power, the problem is nuclear weapons and Iran's failure to let the international community accurately verify whether or not it is making a nuclear weapon.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:58 PM   #128
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The problem is not nuclear power, the problem is nuclear weapons and Iran's failure to let the international community accurately verify whether or not it is making a nuclear weapon.
ok, so what if they have nuclear weapons? why is that any of the USA's business? lots of countries have nuclear weapons. why do some countries get to pick and choose who gets them and who doesnt? do you really think Iran is a threat to the US as far as nuclear missiles and whatnot are concerned?
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 02:59 PM   #129
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post

Quote:
One: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
FALSE: There is plenty of evidence of Iranian warhead design and development up through 2003 when the program was stopped.

Quote:
Two: The U.S. has not discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran.
The Iranians have disclosed the location of a nuclear facility that has been there for sometime and was never previously mentioned in its dealing with the IAEA. Regardless of what has been done at the facility, that alone clearly shows deception. Such deception can indicate intent.

Quote:

Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.
Only the launch of Anti-ballistic missile systems or anti-aircraft missiles could be seen as "purely defensive".

Quote:
Four: Despite what we all have repeatedly heard, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust. (Please see quotes below.)
Which is irrelevant.

Quote:
Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.
It sure does, although not as much as several of its neighbors. In addition, it has to be sent away to be refined into gas while most other countries in the region can do that on their own.

Also, nearly all of Iran's oil is located in the province of Kuzistan right next to Kuwait and Iraq, and in some places along the coast. This means Iranian oil is vulnerable to siezure in the event of a conflict. One would not have to invade deeply into Iran in order to sieze its oil supplies and keep it on the world market. I'm not suggesting that is something to suddenly do, but if a serious conflict were to errupt, it remains an option in order to protect the global economy.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 03:07 PM   #130
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
ok, so what if they have nuclear weapons? why is that any of the USA's business? lots of countries have nuclear weapons. why do some countries get to pick and choose who gets them and who doesnt?
Because the proliferation of nuclear weapons is considered to be a threat to global security. The goal of non-proliferation is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while at the same time trying to reduce the current stockpile of nuclear weapons in use by the few nations that have them, with the ultimate goal of possibly one day going down to zero nuclear weapons provided that a way to technically verify that can be developed one day.

Only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons:

United States
Russia
United Kingdom
France
China
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea

Thats nine countries out of 195.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 03:15 PM   #131
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
ok, so what if they have nuclear weapons? why is that any of the USA's business? lots of countries have nuclear weapons. why do some countries get to pick and choose who gets them and who doesnt? do you really think Iran is a threat to the US as far as nuclear missiles and whatnot are concerned?
Because their leader repeatedly talks about wiping Israel off the map.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 03:25 PM   #132
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Because their leader repeatedly talks about wiping Israel off the map.


and that is the US's problem how? sounds like Israel's problem to me.

our "alliance" with Israel seems a bit one sided to me. what have they ever done for the US thats been worth a damn compaired to what the US has done for Israel? seems like our strong support of Israel, along with our being involved in middle-eastern affairs for the last 60 years, is one of the main reasons they are pissed off at us.
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:09 PM   #133
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The real disaster was averted by removing Saddam from power.
And what exactly was that real disaster expected to be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The only one that committed monstrous crimes was Saddam's regime, and its amazing that there are still people out there willing to defend that regime
Who's defending his regime?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:12 PM   #134
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:46 AM
^ the main question i have about that was was it worth the billions and billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives we've blown over 6 years? what did the US gain from liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's regime?
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:14 PM   #135
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
and that is the US's problem how? sounds like Israel's problem to me.

our "alliance" with Israel seems a bit one sided to me. what have they ever done for the US thats been worth a damn compaired to what the US has done for Israel? seems like our strong support of Israel, along with our being involved in middle-eastern affairs for the last 60 years, is one of the main reasons they are pissed off at us.
Britain hasn't done much for us either, except try to stop us from creating our own country, so I guess we don't need them as allies either. And frankly I don't give a damn if the rest of the middle east doesn't like us for allying ourself with Israel.
__________________

__________________
The_Pac_Mule 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 12:46 AM.


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