Why Iran? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-05-2007, 10:27 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


Speaking of broadening terms to the point where they're robbed of all meaning whatsoever, then exploiting them for political grandstanding...
There are many other sites that don't mention candidates:
e.g.: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/...t_raises_fears

The concern with the broad wording is that protesters would be considered terrorists.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 10:28 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
There needs to be a middle ground here, and I think that, for all the sabre rattling, this is exactly what's being done. Nations like Iran (state sponsors of terrorism--i.e., Hezbollah), Venezuela and Russia ("democratatorships") have no place in the 21st century, and, rather than automatically bringing out the military and blowing them up, you can also put diplomatic pressure on them that is prolonged and repeated. Some nations, eventually, like Libya, will learn that it is better to cooperate with international law than it is to continually thumb its nose at it, and we're getting emerging signs that North Korea might be soon learning a similar lesson.
If we want to talk about who has no place in the 21st century then clearly we have to start with the Saudis and that is precisely where our hypocrisy and self-interests become most apparent. In light of how that country is treated by the west, and particularly how it is hailed by the US government, any other stand we take is maybe not entirely empty, but pretty damn close.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 10:30 AM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Iran is still enriching Uranium.

Iran is still funneling weapons into Iraq that are killing innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

Iran is still connected to terrorist groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a "foreign terrorist organization." (Hillary should be given credit for recognizing this.)

Ahmadinejad is aligning himself with Hugo Chavez.

Iran is still a threat -- but the good news is maybe they're more responsive to sanctions, world-wide condemnation and yes, the hint of military intervention, than we may have believed.

That's an ignorant jackass's view anyway.


and none of this makes Iran a nuclear threat worthy of invasion. and it seems you agre.

and i wish i was shocked that you're perfectly fine having your leaders lie directly to your face about matters of life, death, and global security. they wanted to start a war -- and Cheney still does -- over information that is not just verifiably false, but the precise opposite of what is true.

why? why do we put up with this?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 12:55 PM   #64
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 09:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


I stand by every word I said.

And that was the EDITED version of what I was originally going to post.
If you think that posting like that is okay here, that's going to be a problem.
__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:08 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and none of this makes Iran a nuclear threat worthy of invasion. and it seems you agre.

and i wish i was shocked that you're perfectly fine having your leaders lie directly to your face about matters of life, death, and global security. they wanted to start a war -- and Cheney still does -- over information that is not just verifiably false, but the precise opposite of what is true.

why? why do we put up with this?
I do agree, military strikes can, for now, be taken off the table. But the report indicates that Iran has only "suspended" their quest for nuclear weapons...not abandoned it. The threat still remains, only the urgency for action has changed.

If I thought George Bush had been lying about this I'd say so. But I think this more of another instance of our intelligence agencies failing us. It very much hurts our credibility to again appear so out-of-touch with our security assessments. But that is very different than lying. Believe it or not, George Bush is not creeping around the Middle East in a turban and false beard gathering this information. He's much too busy eavesdropping in on American phone calls for that. No, he is dependent on the C.I.A and others to collect and interpret the information.
And it appears they have let him, and us, down again.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:31 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

If I thought George Bush had been lying about this I'd say so. But I think this more of another instance of our intelligence agencies failing us.
Have you completely missed this:

Quote:
But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
At best, with rose-coloured glasses he's disingenuous. You don't even seem open to this option, though.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:46 PM   #67
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:37 PM
AHAHAHAH

Bush - what a sad clown.

I'm so angered and don't even know what to say, so i'll say this:

I hope Bush goes down as the most evil dictator in history of civilization.



This is why we are hated and why people want to kill us! We step all over the world acting like we own the place. WE ARE THE THREAT, not Iran, WE ARE.

Osama bin Laden, if you're reading this, please know that most of us are sane people so don't attack us please, most of us are not evil like the monkey in the White House.

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:46 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


And it appears they have let him, and us, down again.



this really misses what has been going on the past 7 years.

GWB and Cheney have used the intelligence community not to create policy, but to verify whatever preconceived course of action. and when the facts don't fit the plan, the facts are disregarded.

at the very least, can we stop with the Hitler comparisons?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 01:48 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

But the report indicates that Iran has only "suspended" their quest for nuclear weapons...not abandoned it. The threat still remains, only the urgency for action has changed.
The report may still be inaccurate.

There's no consensus among other countries that they had a nuclear weapons program:

Quote:
''We do not have information that such research was made before 2003, though US colleagues stated that this was the case,'' Mr Lavrov said here at a press conference after talks with his Armenian counterpart Vardan Oskanian.

He stressed the information provided by the United States gave no grounds to assume that Iran had ever pursued a military nuclear programme.

''The data possessed by our American partners, or at least the data shown to us, give no reason to assume that Iran has ever pursued a military nuclear programme,'' Mr Lavrov said.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:18 PM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 09:37 PM
The sad thing is is that Iran is still a threat. But it is not an imminent threat. And by trying to convince the American public that Iran was (falsely) an imminent thread (ex. using phrases like "WWIII" etc.), Bush and Cheney have continued to weaken their credibility.

They did the same thing with Iraq and the WMD. What they don't seem to realize is that by crying wolf over these two issues, how are we supposed to believe them when a real threat comes along? If Iran does ever get close to being an imminent threat, what is Bush supposed to say? "Wait, I really mean it this time."

And that press conference was just sad. The NIE report was available to the administration months ago and Bush just found out what it said last week? This from a man who gets briefings everyday?

What was Bush's explanation? Something like "I knew there was new information but I didn't know what it said until last week." Really? Like one of the news commentators said last night, "Well, didn't you think to ask? How did it go? Someone comes into your office a few months ago and says, 'Sir, we have some new information on Iran.' You look up from your desk, say 'Okay.' and go back to what you were doing?"

This is supposed to be the President of the United States and that was the best he could do yesterday? Please.
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:20 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

At best, with rose-coloured glasses he's disingenuous. You don't even seem open to this option, though.
Well, that's the opinion of a Washington Post article. The way I understand it, Bush was told several months ago that new information might lead to a reassessment of some type, but that the final report was only just approved and received by the White House last week.

I hope Peter Baker and Robin Wright can fill in the details of how they know that the president was given the complete NIE months before the White House says they received it.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:24 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


The way I understand it, Bush was told several months ago that new information might lead to a reassessment of some type, but that the final report was only just approved and received by the White House last week.

I hope Peter Baker and Robin Wright can fill in the details of how they know that the president was given the complete NIE months before the White House says they received it.
Even if he didn't know "exactly" what was in the report, I'm sure he had some idea. He's the President. Do you honestly believe that he had no idea what the report was going to say before last week?

And when he did find out months ago that there was new information, why continue the talk of "WWIII" and similar rhetoric?


So it's either he's uninformed and not on the ball, or that he's lying.

To buy Bush's explanation that he knew there was a NIE report with new information but he didn't know what was in it, is asking us to believe that he doesn't know what is going on with Iran in a timely manner.

The other side is that he did know and chose to ratchet up the rhetoric anyway.

I don't know which explanation is scarier.
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:50 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:37 PM
this is a president who is fixated on Iran, who gets briefings every day -- do you honestly think he was uninterested in learning this "new" information on Iran before it was "ready"? does ignorance strike you as an explanation, especially one to be proud of as Bush seems to in this press conference? does it comfort you that Bush's inner-circle routinely do things that he's kept unaware of, like dissolving the Iraqi army or outing a CIA agent in political tit-for-tat? that he doesn't actually read documents or ask any questions after his briefings?

it's laziness. simply laziness. this whole administration has been characterized by half-assing. why build up a case of objective, nuanced information against Iran and Iraq and NoKo when you can simply declare people, places, and things "evil" and then walk away from it? why bother interrogating suspects when you can just waterboard them and then say you got information?

all in all, i think the most interesting question is how an NIE that's so thoroughly embarrassing to the administration got out -- you'd have thought that Cheney would have kicked someone's puppy or put his heel on the throat of someone's grandmother before this got out.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:56 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


all in all, i think the most interesting question is how an NIE that's so thoroughly embarrassing to the administration got out -- you'd have thought that Cheney would have kicked someone's puppy or put his heel on the throat of someone's grandmother before this got out.
If you were the intelligence guys, would you want to take the fall for these idiots a second time?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2007, 03:10 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bonochick


If you think that posting like that is okay here, that's going to be a problem.


Fair enough.

But I still meant every word I said.

I say that not to be belligerent to you BC, but it wasn't that bad. If someone can't take being called an ignorant jackass for defending a liar and a criminal (and it wasn't directed at anyone specifically anyways), then they've got incredibly thin skin. Much worse things are said about all sides of the political spectrum every single day on television.

Anyways, I don't mean to hijack the thread with this. Great discussion here, BTW
__________________

__________________
DaveC is online now  
 

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 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