PDA

View Full Version : The Iran Charade So They Lied Again



fishman3811
12-10-2007, 12:19 AM
So they lied again. And again. Despite the fact that the Bush administration knew quite well that its very own intelligence estimate stated quite clearly that the Iranian government had halted its work on building nuclear weaponry, Mr. Bush told the world not more than two months ago that Iran was risking World War Three if it continued said work. On Monday, December 3, 2007, an report from Mr. Bush's own government said quite clearly that its intelligence proved that Iran halted nuclear arms work four years ago. Despite this knowledge, the Bush administration and its enablers in Congress have continued to move the United States closer and closer to war with Iran.

Of course, the fact that the White House has been lying for at least four years about the dangers of Iranian nuclear weaponry comes as no surprise to many of the world's citizens. After all, it was this very same administration that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its long lost weapons of mass destruction. What is somewhat surprising is the response to Monday's news from the White House. According to national security adviser Stephen Hadley, everything that the White House has said up to now about Iran's nuclear intentions was not wrong. Indeed, according to Hadley, it only proves that gathering intelligence is "notoriously difficult." Furthermore, in the White House's estimation, this revelation proves that the White House was right and that the US is correct to continue threatening war and encouraging sanctions. You know, just to keep Iran in line. Now, I don't know about you, but this argument sounds very similar to Bill Clinton's line about what constituted having "sex with that woman." In other words, they got caught in a lie and now the Bush White House and its allies in the government and media are using facetious arguments to justify those lies.

Will it fly? If US politicians like Joseph Lieberman and the government Israel have anything to say about it, it will. Israel has already essentially dismissed the report and continues to insist that Iran is very close to possessing a nuclear weapon. In addition, the recent appointment of Iraq war architect and propagandist Paul Wolfowitz to the State Department office that deals with other nation's WMD may be an indication that some type of story creation a la the yellow cake lie of 2002 is already in progress. Even if this doesn't occur, the ongoing spin by the White House to make Teheran's cessation of nuclear arms activity a continuation is enough to convince me that Bush and Co. are still keeping an attack on Iran on its front burner, despite the hopeful and confused commentary by former CIA analyst Robert Baer that appeared at Time.com on December 4, 2007. In this odd little piece, Baer puts forth the supposition that George Bush himself was behind the release of the intelligence estimate. Why? To forestall and attack on Iran, of course. Essentially, Baer writes that Bush is against attacking Iran because of the situation in Iraq-where he repeats the latest Washington line that things are "looking up"-and because the White House is afraid Israel will be attacked if Iran is. I'm not sure where Mr. Baer has been or what prescriptions he may be on, but the possibility of Israel being attacked because of Bush's bellicosity has never been a concern of Bush in the past and if, Tel Aviv's statements since the release of the intelligence estimate are any indication, it doesn't seem to be a concern of Tel Aviv now. In the New York Times, a different story is emerging-that the intelligence estimate "holds up to scrutiny, but they (various experts) acknowledge that some conclusions seem to have been thinly sourced." This statement sounds like an open door to more spin. As for the situation in Iraq, Mr. Bush certainly wasn't too concerned about destabilizing it in 2003 when he invaded.


Anti-Invasion and Anti-Tehran-HOPOI and Stop the War UK

Meanwhile, in the British segment of the movement against war with Iran there is a debate over whether or not those groups and individuals opposed both to a US/Israel attack on Iran and the theocracy that currently rules that country can be part of the national Stop the War UK Coalition. Some of those forces, now coalescing around the group Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPOI), recently had their petition to join that coalition rejected. The reasons for this decision are murky, with the Stop the war Coalition claiming that HOPOI is hostile to its aims and is seeking to set itself up as an alternative to Stop the War UK. HOPOI's response to the rejection and explanation is that Stop the War UK includes dozens of groups with differing agendas on several issues but all of them are opposed to the occupation of Iraq and any attack on Iran. How, they wonder, is HOPOI any different? Furthermore, HOPOI claims the exclusion is political and revolves around some prominent members of Stop the War UK being apologists for the Iranian mullahs.

This argument is somewhat reminiscent of the debates that took place among leftists regarding the Soviet Union and China during the post Cold War era of the twentieth century. Like that argument, it has the potential to divide a movement that needs to remain united. After all, many of the groups in Stop the War UK are leftist, as are the groups currently making up HOPOI. Divisions precipitated by different tendencies on the left in antiwar movement around Vietnam occasionally caused confusion not only amongst the Left but also among the general population opposed to the war. Indeed, the support for the Soviet Union by some left formations probably caused some folks to not participate in the movement. Similarly, a perception by the general population opposed to war with Iran might not participate in a movement that appears to align itself with the government in Tehran-even if it doesn't in actuality.

The groups in HOPOI are anti-imperialist first and foremost. This means that before everything else they are opposed to an attack on Iran and its people. They oppose US imperialism and Israeli aggression. As noted above, the group is composed of small communist organizations and also oppose the theocracy in Iran, considering it to be antidemocratic and a betrayal of the revolution against the Shah. At one time the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) might have been considered to be in an allied camp with HOPOI, but in recent years the PMOI's work with some of the neocons in the United States and rumors that it works with various US intelligence agencies has insured HOPOI's opposition to the group, despite the PMOI's publicly stated opposition to a US invasion.

For those of us in the US and western Europe, our primary concern should be preventing war with Iran. This may mean making temporary alliances with groups with whom we disagree on several points, but to allow those differences to supersede opposition to an invasion would not only be foolish; it would be doing Washington's work. Perhaps HOPOI's conference in London this weekend will make progress toward alleviating some of the problems it is experiencing with Stop the War UK.

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

Anubis10012007
12-10-2007, 03:43 PM
I was just watching FOX News and the guy they had as a guest, I believe a former CIA agent said that he wouldn't be surprised if Iran tested a nuclear weapon tomorrow, which is December 11th. Reminiscent of 9/11?

L.A.S.F

Delta9 UK
12-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Pffft - won't matter.

If Iran don't get nukes then a false flag dirty bomb is on the cards ;) I mean - it will be obvious, right?

fishman3811
12-11-2007, 07:56 AM
Fucking FOX news is still spewing out fucking garbage as usual.If we said the sky is blue FOX news will bring out some expert that says its actually red and our eyes are lying to us.

snowblind
12-11-2007, 11:38 AM
wow americans has finaly be informed to what the rest of the world have seemed to have known for quite a while *cough*wild goose chase*cough*

i wish that america would just have the balls to say, look we dont like you and we want your oil so were gonna shoot the shit out of your people and steal you economic stability because were the world police, for countries with something we want.

then we wouldn't have to go through this retarded rigmorol of properganda that anyone with 4 brain cells can see through.

fuck you murdock.

medicinal
12-11-2007, 09:08 PM
Hey, I'm with the fuck you Murdoch thing allright. It's amazing how many people can't see the forest for the trees.

killerweed420
12-11-2007, 09:23 PM
Fuckit too many people on the planet anyway lets just nukeem and weed the population out a little.

Ozarks
12-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Fucking FOX news is still spewing out fucking garbage as usual.If we said the sky is blue FOX news will bring out some expert that says its actually red and our eyes are lying to us.

Shoot the messenger, brilliant, you can't change the facts with propaganda or dirty words.:thumbsup:




WASHINGTON â?? Twenty-one commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are the top scientists running Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, says the man who exposed Iran's nuclear weapons program in 2002.

On top of that, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published last week saying Tehran shut down its weaponization program in 2003 failed to mention that the program restarted in mid-2004,] said Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian dissident and president of Strategic Policy Consulting.

The scientists working on the alleged civilian nuclear centrifuge program are IGRC commanders, said Jafarzadeh, who was providing a list of names to the press on Tuesday. But their intention is not a nuclear energy source for civilians.

"It's the IRGC that is basically controlling the whole thing, dominating the whole thing," Jafarzadeh told FOXNews.com. "They are running the show. They have a number of sites controlled by the IRGC that has been off-limits to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and inspectors, including a military university known as Imam Hossein University. ... That site has not been inspected. They have perhaps the most advanced nuclear research and development center in that university."

Jafarzadeh said the 2003 decision to stop the weaponization program, which was operating in Lavizan-Shian, a posh northeast district of Tehran, was not Iran's own. The site had been exposed by the opposition, the National Council of Resistance on Iran, in April 2003 after revelations of several other nuclear sites that could be portrayed as dual purpose facilities. Lavizan-Shian could not, he said.

"The regime knew that this is not the site that they can invite the IAEA ... this site was heavily involved in militarization of the program," Jafarzadeh said. "They were doing all kinds of activities that were not justifiable. So they decided before the IAEA gets in â?? and it usually takes four to six months before they can go through the process and get in â?? use the time and try to basically destroy this whole facility, and that's what they did."

Jafarzadeh said the Iranians razed the buildings, removed the soil, cut down the trees and allowed the IAEA to inspect the Lavizan-Shian site, which had been turned into a park by June 2004. He noted that the regime acted as if it had succumbed to municipal pressure to open a park with basketball and tennis courts and that is why the area had been flattened.

Jafarzadeh said that "in a way it's correct for the NIE to say that in late 2003 the weaponization of the program was stopped, and they said it was due to international pressure. But they failed to say that it restarted in 2004" in a location called Lavizan 2, he said.

Lavizan 2 "has never been inspected by the IAEA," Jafarzadeh added.

Jafarzadeh's comments preceded a call by President Bush on Tuesday for Iran to explain why it had a secretive nuclear weapons program, and warned that any such efforts must not be allowed to flourish "for the sake of world peace." The NIE noted that Iran continues to enrich uranium, which can be turned toward making a weapon if the country wanted to pursue that end.

"Iran is dangerous," Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. "We believe Iran had a secret military weapons program, and Iran must explain to the world why they had such a program. ... Iran has an obligation to explain to the IAEA why they hid this program from them.

"Iran is dangerous, and they'll be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium," Bush said. "So I look forward to working with the president," Bush said, referring to Napolitano, the Italian leader, "to explain our strategy and to figure out ways we can work together to prevent this from happening for the sake of world peace."

Bush's remarks followed a press conference by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praising the latest NIE as "a step forward" for U.S.-Iranian relations, and suggesting an "entirely different" situation could be created between the United States and Iran if more steps like the report followed.

"We consider this measure by the U.S. government a positive step. It is a step forward," Ahmadinejad said. "If one or two other steps are taken, the issues we have in front of us will be entirely different and will lose their complexity, and the way will be open for the resolution of basic issues in the region and in dealings between the two sides."

But Jafarzadeh said Iran can't be trusted, and suggested that the U.S. intelligence community was duped by plants placed by the Islamic regime to provide disinformation about its programs.

"There are two extremes" for explaining the NIE's reversal from 2005, the last report on Iran's weapons program, said Jafarzadeh. One, career types in the Bush administration issued the analysis for purely political reasons, like wanting to hurt the administration, keeping rapprochement open or removing the military option from the table.

"The other one is it's not political at all, it's just basically deceit ... by the regime â?? that they managed to get so-called 'defectors' to make the Americans and the intelligence community believe that what happened in late 2003 was actually a decision to totally halt the program. They sold it that way to the Americans. ... They are like a fox, the animal is famous in Iran for being tricky. So it's very possible that it was well-orchestrated by Tehran, and they succeeded in at least getting that sentence from the intelligence community in the report."

In August 2002, Jafarzadeh, then-spokesman for the National Council of Resistance on Iran, revealed the name of the Natanz nuclear site, which the Iranian government since has acknowledged and which is subject to IAEA inspections.

Because of its integral relationship to Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian resistance group, NCRI is deemed a terrorist organization in the United States, despite calls by several members of Congress to remove its designation from the State Department list.

NCRI also is on the British and European Union terrorist list, placed there at the start of the decade by Western countries trying to improve relations with Tehran. Last week a British judge ordered NCRI to be removed from the British list. Pressure also is on the EU to drop MEK.

Nonetheless, NCRI and Jafarzadeh, working independently, have concluded that Iran did shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but restarted it a year later, moving and hiding equipment to a variety of sites.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told The Wall Street Journal in Tuesday's editions that some of the equipment was moved to another military compound known as the Center for Readiness and Advanced Technology, to Malek-Ashtar University Isfahan and to a defense ministry hospital in Tehran.

The facility was broken into 11 fields of research, including projects to develop a nuclear trigger and shape weapons-grade uranium into a warhead, the paper reported.

"They scattered the weaponization program to other locations and restarted in 2004," Mohaddessin said.

"Their strategy was that if the IAEA found any one piece of this research program, it would be possible to justify it as civilian. But so long as it was all together, they wouldn't be able to."



FOXNews.com - Dissident: Iran's Top Commanders Are Nuclear Weapons Scientists - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316442,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iran)

mfqr
12-12-2007, 10:30 PM
Shoot the messenger, brilliant, you can't change the facts with propaganda or dirty words.:thumbsup:



FOXNews.com - Dissident: Iran's Top Commanders Are Nuclear Weapons Scientists - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316442,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iran)

I'm sure you are kidding when you are posting this article from FOX News, which is a response to the report that came out from Al Jazeera. You really believe that FOX is telling the truth? I don't buy it for one minute. I've been pretty suspicious of this whole Iran thing for quite some time now, and I've just been waiting for the real news on it to get out (the Al Jazeera article). This is just a fighting response, so that the Bush administration can eventually invade Iran. The other article from Al Jazeera would make it very difficult for them to justify going to war with Iran, and thus this piece of propaganda comes out to lie to you, in support of going to war with Iran. Isn't the fact that this article was posted on December 11th, 2007 just a bit strange to you? It's obviously an article to combat the other one. Maybe if this article came out before the Al Jazeera one it wouldn't be so obvious that someone is pissed off about the article from Al Jazeera, because it won't allow them to invade Iran.

Go ahead and support the war... because war is great and glorious, right? This is from FOX News for christ's sake... I'd trust Al Jazeera over FOX News.

Did you not learn from the lies that they used to get into Iraq? Were there any nukes there? I'm very sorry that they've swayed you to believe their lies... really, I am. But because there are so many people like you who are swayed by their propaganda... they will eventually invade Iran, which is a beautiful country by the way, and keep waging their war against Islam. Learn from the previous lies! There's nothing to show you that they are creating nukes in Iran! It's all just propaganda. Where's your proof, FOX News?

Ozarks
12-13-2007, 03:26 AM
You can read the same story from several different news sites if the "FOX NEWS" boogey man is the part that scares you.

snowblind
12-13-2007, 04:59 PM
/\/\/\/\ erm do you know what propaganda is? for if you did you would realise how retarded it is to say "you can't change the facts with propaganda or dirty words"

Ozarks
12-13-2007, 06:03 PM
/\/\/\/\ erm do you know what propaganda is? for if you did you would realise how retarded it is to say "you can't change the facts with propaganda or dirty words"

Show me something in the article that isn't true, some facts, other than name calling and you say so.

snowblind
12-13-2007, 07:44 PM
Well the whole article is propagnaderous as it is questionning the motives for IRAN's nuclear defense program.

Yet in the cold war america battled with russia over the PERCIVED THREAT, it created at russias nuclear capability.

It mentions no where in the article AMERICA's own nuclear weapons programs and the reasons it has them .

We all know the main reason that a country has a nuclear weapon is front, started by America and their dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We all know the destructive power these weapons hold, yet countries still choose to make them, why is that. It is becuase other countries still have them and so the threat is still there.

How can america justify invading a country because the have WMD when they have them themselves. The only way we will truly get rid of all WMD would be for ALL countries to get rid of them.

Is that going the happen, no.

so we will continue to be subject to this, till one of them drops one and we all pay.

Ozarks
12-13-2007, 09:35 PM
Well the whole article is propagnaderous as it is questionning the motives for IRAN's nuclear defense program.

So, you also believe Iran is lying when they say they don't want the bomb and it's only about energy.




Yet in the cold war america battled with russia over the PERCIVED THREAT, it created at russias nuclear capability.

America didn't create A "nuclear Russia" Stalin did that so he could in prison eastern Europe for 50 years (kill millions of people) and as a deterrent to stop freedom.



It mentions no where in the article AMERICA's own nuclear weapons programs and the reasons it has them .

The part that keeps getting by all who try and rationalize it. America (and all existing nuclear powers) have not threatened to "wipe" anybody off the face of the earth, nor have they called any country or race of people "an insult to humanity"




We all know the main reason that a country has a nuclear weapon is front, started by America and their dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


1 We bombed Japan only AFTER they refused to surrender, knowing that the war was lost. The bombing saved 100 of thousands of American lives.

2 The guy who starts the fight doesn't get to cry "foul" if he gets beat up.

3 If Japan hadn't attacked us, the odds of us bombing them is about 4 billion to 1.

4 And most important, If Japan hadn't attacked us there would have never been a "Manhattan Project"




We all know the destructive power these weapons hold, yet countries still choose to make them, why is that. It is becuase other countries still have them and so the threat is still there.


Actually America (and Russia) are dismantling there stockpiles, almost 50% so far, and niether country is building "new" bombs to replace the existing old ones.




How can america justify invading a country because the have WMD when they have them themselves.

Who says we're invading Iran ?



The only way we will truly get rid of all WMD would be for ALL countries to get rid of them.

And stop more countries from getting them




Is that going the happen, no.

so we will continue to be subject to this, till one of them drops one and we all pay.

When one of them nukes London, Paris, or NY in the name of their God, all of this nonsense about trying to justify/rationalize letting them have the bomb will stop, sad but that's what it's going to take for some people.

Psycho4Bud
12-13-2007, 10:14 PM
When one of them nukes London, Paris, or NY in the name of their God, all of this nonsense about trying to justify/rationalize letting them have the bomb will stop, sad but that's what it's going to take for some people.

Iran just tested a missile that has the potetial of reaching Eastern Europe. But hey, no big deal right?

Have a good one!:s4:

mfqr
12-13-2007, 11:18 PM
You can read the same story from several different news sites if the "FOX NEWS" boogey man is the part that scares you.

Yes, and mostly all of them share the same propaganda, but maybe worded differently.

mfqr
12-13-2007, 11:24 PM
Iran just tested a missile that has the potetial of reaching Eastern Europe. But hey, no big deal right?

Have a good one!:s4:

Wait, where did you hear that? I just checked most of the main news sources, and I see nothing about that... not even on FOX News. And is that supposed missile that was tested a nuclear missile? Wouldn't this have been breaking news, P4B?

snowblind
12-13-2007, 11:25 PM
Ozarks, you missed the whole crux of what i was saying.

Wood for trees

Ozarks
12-14-2007, 12:00 AM
Ozarks, you missed the whole crux of what i was saying.

Wood for trees

I believe I addressed your statement point by point, if I missed something please let me know.

Psycho4Bud
12-14-2007, 12:10 AM
Wait, where did you hear that? I just checked most of the main news sources, and I see nothing about that... not even on FOX News. And is that supposed missile that was tested a nuclear missile? Wouldn't this have been breaking news, P4B?

Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile last week, on the day the U.S. held a summit on Mideast peace at Annapolis, Md.

The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, U.S. Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow, said reports.

The new missile is an improvement on the existing Shahab-3 missile, said reports.

Called the Ashoura, it uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, which gives the missile a faster launch sequence, making it harder to detect.

Political experts said the timing of the launch was significant, given Iran's opposition to it.
Iran Tests 2,000km Missile (http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=403115)

Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.


Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.
Photo: AP [file]
The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities.

According to the report, the new missile is an improvement to the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, giving it a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not specified whether it had actually been tested.
'Iran tested new missile during summit' | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847322495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

It'll probably be out in the larger news agencies tomarrow. I actually heard about this on FOX this morning.

Have a good one!:s4:

L Rag
12-14-2007, 12:14 AM
Ozarks, if the war was lost, then is it really likely that hundreds of thousands of Americans were in danger?

mfqr
12-14-2007, 12:16 AM
Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile last week, on the day the U.S. held a summit on Mideast peace at Annapolis, Md.

The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, U.S. Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities, including Moscow, said reports.

The new missile is an improvement on the existing Shahab-3 missile, said reports.

Called the Ashoura, it uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, which gives the missile a faster launch sequence, making it harder to detect.

Political experts said the timing of the launch was significant, given Iran's opposition to it.
Iran Tests 2,000km Missile (http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=403115)

Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.


Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.
Photo: AP [file]
The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities.

According to the report, the new missile is an improvement to the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab's liquid fuel, giving it a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Muhammad-Najjar had announced the development of the new missile on the day of the summit, but had not specified whether it had actually been tested.
'Iran tested new missile during summit' | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847322495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

It'll probably be out in the larger news agencies tomarrow. I actually heard about this on FOX this morning.

Have a good one!:s4:

I see. Thanks for posting this, I can't wait to see the mainstream media spin on it... should be very interesting.

My opinion on this, however, is that Iran is preparing for an invasion by the US. They probably have been for awhile.

Staurm
12-14-2007, 12:30 AM
Excellent point. Basically America is saying "Stop defending yourself or we'll attack you!"

Ozarks
12-14-2007, 12:51 AM
Ozarks, if the war was lost, then is it really likely that hundreds of thousands of Americans were in danger?

Those were the casualty estimates of invasion of Japan. which would have necessary if Japan hadn't surrendered.

Ozarks
12-14-2007, 12:55 AM
Excellent point. Basically America is saying "Stop defending yourself or we'll attack you!"

Defending themselves from who ? they are the ones threating to attack someone.

Ozarks
12-14-2007, 12:59 AM
Excellent point. Basically America is saying "Stop defending yourself or we'll attack you!"

Defending themselves from who ? they are the ones threatening to attack someone.

mfqr
12-14-2007, 11:53 PM
Defending themselves from who ? they are the ones threatening to attack someone.

Defending themselves from us (the US). I really don't know who they threatened, or when they threatened anyone with nuclear missiles. In fact, that would make absolutely no sense, considering they have denied having them many times over.

I think what you're refering to is Ahmadinejahd saying something about Israel being wiped off the face of the planet (which him saying that can be debated). However, the only place I've seen this is from places like FOX News and CNN. Also, if he did actually say such a thing (again, it is not necessarily true that he said such a thing, or even in that context--the media loves to take quotes out of context to manipulate you into thinking certain things), you might be right about him implying such a thing, but as we both know, you could not prove that; because, like I said, quotes like that are usually taken out of context to manipulate you. And neither could you prove that they actually are making nukes (unless you want to hand over to us the real CIA intelligence report that you have). As for Israel, maybe you've watched/read too much FOX News and have become sympathetic towards Israel. The truth is, Israel is tyrannical towards other nations... as is the US.

L Rag
12-15-2007, 12:52 AM
Defending themselves from who ? they are the ones threating to attack someone.
Who have they threatened? America is the one threatening THEM.



My opinion on this, however, is that Iran is preparing for an invasion by the US. They probably have been for awhile.
Why would Iran want to attack America? What chance would they have of winning? Are you trying to say that Iran basically wants to kill itself?

mfqr
12-15-2007, 01:00 AM
Why would Iran want to attack America? What chance would they have of winning? Are you trying to say that Iran basically wants to kill itself?

Hehe, you got that quote wrong, bro. I said that :). But I didn't mean that Iran is preparing to attack the US. Re-read it, I said that Iran is probably preparing to be invaded BY the US. :thumbsup:

L Rag
12-15-2007, 01:06 AM
Hehe, you got that quote wrong, bro. I said that :). But I didn't mean that Iran is preparing to attack the US. Re-read it, I said that Iran is probably preparing to be invaded BY the US. :thumbsup:

Haha my bad bro! Sorry I did the multiquote thing and somehow the QUOTE=blahblah wasn't there so I just assumed Ozarks said it since he's pretty much arguing against everybody haha. Sweet, I'm with you on this one haha:jointsmile:

mfqr
12-15-2007, 01:13 AM
Haha my bad bro! Sorry I did the multiquote thing and somehow the QUOTE=blahblah wasn't there so I just assumed Ozarks said it since he's pretty much arguing against everybody haha. Sweet, I'm with you on this one haha:jointsmile:

Hehe, it's ok. Not a big deal anyway, as I think it would have been funny for everyone to think that Ozarks changed his mind. LOL just kidding

Ozarks
12-15-2007, 02:13 AM
Who have they threatened?

They have threatened "to wipe Isreal off the map"

Ozarks
12-15-2007, 03:01 AM
Haha my bad bro! Sorry I did the multiquote thing and somehow the QUOTE=blahblah wasn't there so I just assumed Ozarks said it since he's pretty much arguing against everybody haha. Sweet, I'm with you on this one haha:jointsmile:

Lier !!!:D

snowblind
12-15-2007, 04:29 AM
America is the one threatening them yet they have the power. They have the power because they have the nukes. So if i was iran and my religon was being slain and surrounding countires being invaded, if i saw all the calamity that was in the world and the type of society that is portryed of america in its own society and media, i would think fuck that im getting the nukes then im gettin the power then if they come at me i can hit em back. my neighbours have already been raped, bombed and pilaged i am not the same.

the easiest way to lay this out is if you have a gun a little revolver say and i have a nice desert eagle. i say to you put your fucking gun down or i am going to shoot you because you shouldn't have a gun. what are you gonna do ?

Ozarks
12-15-2007, 01:12 PM
America is the one threatening them yet they have the power. They have the power because they have the nukes. So if i was iran and my religon was being slain and surrounding countires being invaded, if i saw all the calamity that was in the world and the type of society that is portryed of america in its own society and media, i would think fuck that im getting the nukes then im gettin the power then if they come at me i can hit em back. my neighbours have already been raped, bombed and pilaged i am not the same.

the easiest way to lay this out is if you have a gun a little revolver say and i have a nice desert eagle. i say to you put your fucking gun down or i am going to shoot you because you shouldn't have a gun. what are you gonna do ?


To use your metaphor, criminals shouldn't have guns, that's why Iran isn't going to be allowed to have one.

epxroot
12-15-2007, 02:21 PM
To use your metaphor, criminals shouldn't have guns, that's why Iran isn't going to be allowed to have one.

Now they're criminals?

thcbongman
12-15-2007, 02:31 PM
They have threatened "to wipe Isreal off the map"

Honestly, why should America give a damn about Israel?

Just watch, once America establishes their mega bases in Iraq, they'll dump Israel like yesterday's trash.

Israel causes more problems for America than helps. If Israel continue to perpetuate policies that create hostility in the middle east, their on their own. Big brother won't save them.

Ozarks
12-15-2007, 05:03 PM
Now they're criminals?

Yes, recognized by the UN who has already passed 2 rounds of sanctions and is currently debating a 3rd,they are world wide sponsors of terrorists, Hamas & Hesbol to name two.




Honestly, why should America give a damn about Israel?

For a long time there were the only democracy in the middle east, civilized society should be supported.



Just watch, once America establishes their mega bases in Iraq, they'll dump Israel like yesterday's trash.


:D:D The 2 counties have been allies for over 50 years.






Israel causes more problems for America than helps.


Standing up for what's right causes problems sometimes



If Israel continue to perpetuate policies that create hostility in the middle east,

Like defending themselves ? they built a wall so Palatines couldn't kill them, what happens, the Palations spend their time killing each other


Big brother won't save them.
Their kicking ass just fine on their own:thumbsup:

snowblind
12-15-2007, 06:31 PM
To use your metaphor, criminals shouldn't have guns, that's why Iran isn't going to be allowed to have one.

In your eyes, in alot of peoples eyes americans are criminals.

yet again you miss the wood for the trees, being the big fucking irony in saying you can't have a gun because we think you are criminals.

yet why do criminals carry guns because cops carry guns and if your gonna go down you want to go down shooting.

yet it is in your constitution as a right to bare arms. its no wonder that this is happening when the founding words of your country is based on people allowing to carry weapons.

thcbongman
12-15-2007, 08:32 PM
In your eyes, in alot of peoples eyes americans are criminals.

yet again you miss the wood for the trees, being the big fucking irony in saying you can't have a gun because we think you are criminals.

yet why do criminals carry guns because cops carry guns and if your gonna go down you want to go down shooting.

yet it is in your constitution as a right to bare arms. its no wonder that this is happening when the founding words of your country is based on people allowing to carry weapons.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say Americans are allowed to carry weapons. The 2nd amendment is about not allowing federal government to infringe on the States' right to decide whether it's citizens shall be allowed arms.

It's a states' right issue.

Ozarks
12-15-2007, 08:42 PM
In your eyes, in alot of peoples eyes americans are criminals.

yet again you miss the wood for the trees, being the big fucking irony in saying you can't have a gun because we think you are criminals.

It was your metaphor, I speak to you in your own language and you still miss it, The 190 nation UN "thinks" they are "criminals", I guess the whole world is wrong....wood for trees you said.



yet why do criminals carry guns because cops carry guns and if your gonna go down you want to go down shooting.


No, criminals carry guns because they are criminals intend on doing bad things, just like Iran. Cops carry guns to protect them selves and the public at large.



yet it is in your constitution as a right to bare arms. its no wonder that this is happening when the founding words of your country is based on people allowing to carry weapons.

Yes, unlike you I am a "citizen", not a "subject" but I don't think that explains (fully) why you insist on being an apologist for these evil people.

thcbongman
12-15-2007, 08:44 PM
Yes, recognized by the UN who has already passed 2 rounds of sanctions and is currently debating a 3rd,they are world wide sponsors of terrorists, Hamas & Hesbol to name two.




For a long time there were the only democracy in the middle east, civilized society should be supported.



:D:D The 2 counties have been allies for over 50 years.




Standing up for what's right causes problems sometimes



Like defending themselves ? they built a wall so Palatines couldn't kill them, what happens, the Palations spend their time killing each other


Their kicking ass just fine on their own:thumbsup:

Treating their arab citizens like 2nd class citizens is civilized? Drawing their map to take all water sources from Palestine is civilized? Israel has no intention of making peace. Their goal is to get all arabs and Palestinians off their soil.

America comes first, not Israel. Too many domestic problems that need to be solved. America should not be responsible for administrating and monitoring republics. With all the economic turmoil, increasing inflation, do we really need to subsidize Israel's security situation, so they can have a pure jewish state?

Standing for what's right? So was going to war with Germany was wrong? Other than implementing the final solution, and taking over other countries, there is no difference between the situation in Germany and Israel.

If the jews want to create their own state, there's alot of land in the Antarctic. Until that day, they must do more to reach peace with their neighbors. Obviously, that's not their intention.

It's funny you say, they been doing fine on their "own." Let's see how they well they do without American aid?

PharmaCan
12-16-2007, 12:36 AM
It's pretty easy to criticize something, like Israeli politics, but criticism without any constructive suggestions on how to rectify the perceived problems is really just posturing. Reading many of the above posts, it would seem that some people have a problem with the very existence of Israel, as they have done nothing but condemn Israel; barely leaving the door open to any other solutions to their grievances other than that Israel should just disappear.

While I could spend hours typing criticism of Israeli politics, I would still defend their right to exist. It seems like much of the above debate is skirting that one basic issue; whether or not Israel has the right to exist. Those who question Israel's right to exist should have the courage to do so openly, and debate that issue instead of dancing around the subject.

To those who want to take the politically correct position of kissing muslim ass, I would say that, at this point in time, Islam has absolutely no defense for its existence. It is not acceptable for some members of a society (and Islam is a society) to turn a blind eye to the evil of another segment of their society, do nothing to stop the evil, and then claim that they are good people That's total bullshit. Until all muslims unite to stop the evil within their religion, they have no right to exist in even the quasi-civilized societies of the world. Islam brings with it barbaric seventh-century values that have no place in today's world. The fact that many muslims are good people does not give them the right to tacitly support a scourge upon the world. In that respect, almost all muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting the fanatics within their ranks.

JMO

PC :smokin:

mfqr
12-16-2007, 12:51 AM
The fact that many muslims are good people does not give them the right to tacitly support a scourge upon the world. In that respect, almost all muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting the fanatics within their ranks.


You usually bring up good points, and a good argument, but on this statement you are so wrong it hurts. Evangelical Christianity is not much different. The real thing about Islam is that Islam is actually battling against itself. The Islamic Extremists wage war against the "fake muslims," because they believe that their version of Islam has become too westernized. So no, almost all muslims are not guilty of aiding and abetting the fanatics within their ranks. In fact, the extremist version of Islam is actually a minority among the rest. What you say is a baseless generalization which I'm sure you yourself can see.

Like I said, Islam mostly fights against itself. This is well-known.

r0k
12-16-2007, 12:59 AM
You usually bring up good points, and a good argument, but on this statement you are so wrong it hurts. Evangelical Christianity is not much different. The real thing about Islam is that Islam is actually battling against itself. The Islamic Extremists wage war against the "fake muslims," because they believe that their version of Islam has become too westernized. So no, all muslims are not guilty of aiding and abetting the fanatics within their ranks. That is a baseless generalization which I'm sure you yourself can see.

Like I said, Islam mostly fights against itself. This is well-known.

You are correct indeed, the Sunnis(majority) and the Shi`ites.

Humboldt215
12-16-2007, 01:01 AM
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in Washington for the Annapolis talks which was also attended by US intelligence; a intel officer who had for several years been giving the US intelligence of Iran's nuclear program. The next day after the Annapolis talks this intelligence officer immediately switched his tune to "IRAN HAS NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM". This intel officer changed his mind because of results he wanted were not obtained at the Annapolis conference.

So the person crying IRAN NUKE program for the past 4 or 5 years suddenly switches his statement 1 day after the talks when things didnt go his way.

It isnt Bush or the neo-cons doing this folks

Ozarks
12-16-2007, 01:51 AM
America should not be responsible for administrating and monitoring republics.


Isreal is a sovereign State we don't"administrating and monitoring"
anything


have a pure jewish state?


Are you also opposed to pure Arab States ?


]
Standing for what's right? So was going to war with Germany was wrong? Other than implementing the final solution, and taking over other countries, there is no difference between the situation in Germany and Israel.

Is that all,:rolleyes: do you know what the word
"obtuse" means ?



If the jews want to create their own state, there's alot of land in the Antarctic.

They already have state called Israel, created by the UN


It's funny you say, they been doing fine on their "own." Let's see how they well they do without American aid?

America gives money to lots of countries, and Israel will continue to be one of them.

Do you realize what anti-semitic bigoted things you post ? or are you simple repeating things you have heard ?



If you wish to debate fine but, regardless of what we say 3 things are going to happen.

1 Iraq will be a free country with an elected Government.

2 Iran (like Syria) will not be allowed to create a nuclear weapon

3 Israel will make peace when,

A The majority of Palestinians (who want peace by the way) rise up and kick the murdering thugs (hamas & fatah) out

B Form a civilian authority, sit down and negotiate, then there will be a Palestine and a "chance" for peace.


Remember, you heard it here on Cannibus.com 1st :thumbsup:

thcbongman
12-16-2007, 02:53 PM
Isreal is a sovereign State we don't"administrating and monitoring"
anything


Are you also opposed to pure Arab States ?


Is that all,:rolleyes: do you know what the word
"obtuse" means ?


They already have state called Israel, created by the UN


America gives money to lots of countries, and Israel will continue to be one of them.

Do you realize what anti-semitic bigoted things you post ? or are you simple repeating things you have heard ?



If you wish to debate fine but, regardless of what we say 3 things are going to happen.

1 Iraq will be a free country with an elected Government.

2 Iran (like Syria) will not be allowed to create a nuclear weapon

3 Israel will make peace when,

A The majority of Palestinians (who want peace by the way) rise up and kick the murdering thugs (hamas & fatah) out

B Form a civilian authority, sit down and negotiate, then there will be a Palestine and a "chance" for peace.


Remember, you heard it here on Cannibus.com 1st :thumbsup:

Any argument that in opposition to the policies of Israel is "anti-semantic?" Grow the hell up. This issue is pretty personal because of your roots. Otherwise, you wouldn't throw something out there so slanderous and insulting.

If America does not administer and monitor the situation, why are we in the middle of this Israel-Palestinian conflict? Why is the USA involved in conflict resolution? So when you say "they don't monitor anything," it's a load of crap. America has spies in Israel and Israel has spies on them.

Arab areas in Israel are not developed properly, have faulty, unmaintained infrastructure, and access to water resources denied, schools underfunded In the Israeli city, their infrastructure and development is incredibly maintained, and jewish citizens have access to the best of the best. Obtuse? Think not.

It's funny how you throw all this insults. I did nothing to insult you, so stop with your emotional dramatic branding shit.

How Arabs fare as a whole society is an entirely different issue to the policies that Israel perpetuate. Just because they are wrong in many issues doesn't mean Israel is right in their justification to their actions. None of the Arab states were formed under the assumption that everyone must be an Arab. If arabs operate in the same lines of racism as Israel, they shouldn't get aid either.

Yes you are right, America gives plenty of money to different countries. One thing I don't agree with giving money to a society that segregates it's arab citizens, and treats them so poorly.

In my opinion, none of the countries in the middle east should be given aid other than Iraq, because we utterly destroyed that country and must help them rebuild.

1 will be true. US isn't leaving Iraq, mega-bases are established there for years to come. We will develop a strong economic partnership which will benefit both countries for years to come. While I do not agree on the moral reasons for war, I acknowledge the economic benefits of the Iraqi war.

2 will be true as well. The Iran threat has been exaggerated, while they are able to extract uranium, they aren't close to making a nuclear bomb. The situation should be dealt through multi-national combination of diplomacy, and sanctions. There is no need to throw threats until there is irrefutable proof that Iran is *this close* to a nuclear bomb.

3 will not happen until Israel starts treating it's arab citizens equally to their own. Palestinians will rise if they realize Israel isn't racist, and treat similar race equally, then this majority you speak up would have a reason to rise: for prosperity, for everyone to live in peace, and live a high-quality life.

There's a load of propaganda being perpetuated by Hamas and Fatah. The fact Hamas was elected by a majority is a reflection of how Israel is handling the situation. Not well I might add.

As for Pharmacam who believes I was skirting the issue of Israel's right to exist, I'll address it right now. I believe forming the state of Israel was a mistake. However, this mistake cannot be retracted, and they have a right to exist. Simply not to get subsidized security from the US. Which is simply my entire point.

As for your point in kissing Muslim ass, I don't take sides with either one. I agree with you the barbarism on their culture. However, before you accuse me of posturizing, and not offering solutions, I did. No aid for Israel. That's the solution to get America out of the Israel solution, and let them resolve their own situation with the arab world unless Israel's enacts policies that'll facilitate the curb of violence. So point out in my post where I said that Israel should not have a right to exist? Or is this a mere acknowledgment of how dependent Israel is on the US?

The US should do everything to minimize involvement in the middle east.

PharmaCan
12-16-2007, 04:46 PM
You usually bring up good points, and a good argument, but on this statement you are so wrong it hurts. Evangelical Christianity is not much different. The real thing about Islam is that Islam is actually battling against itself. The Islamic Extremists wage war against the "fake muslims," because they believe that their version of Islam has become too westernized. So no, almost all muslims are not guilty of aiding and abetting the fanatics within their ranks. In fact, the extremist version of Islam is actually a minority among the rest. What you say is a baseless generalization which I'm sure you yourself can see.

Like I said, Islam mostly fights against itself. This is well-known.

mfgr - I truly believe that all religious societies have an obligation to "police" their members and clergy. The perpetration of evil, though, is not limited to muslims - they just happen to have been the topic of discussion here. Personally, I think that all religions are inherently evil.

PC :smokin:

PharmaCan
12-16-2007, 04:49 PM
While I do not agree on the moral reasons for war, I acknowledge the economic benefits of the Iraqi war.

ROFLMAO - Which economic benefits would those be? The $100/barrel oil or our trillion dollar debt?

PC :smokin:

Ozarks
12-17-2007, 12:51 PM
Any argument that in opposition to the policies of Israel is "anti-semantic?" Grow the hell up. This issue is pretty personal because of your roots. Otherwise, you wouldn't throw something out there so slanderous and insulting.

So you don't really understand what you are saying, and you assume I'm a Jew:D




If America does not administer and monitor the situation, why are we in the middle of this Israel-Palestinian conflict? Why is the USA involved in conflict resolution?
The US is trying to broker a peace deal to stop the killing, you are opposed to that too, I see.




So when you say "they don't monitor anything," it's a load of crap. America has spies in Israel and Israel has spies on them.

Every country has spies,now who needs to "grow up"



Arab areas in Israel are not developed properly, have faulty, unmaintained infrastructure, and access to water resources denied, schools underfunded In the Israeli city, their infrastructure and development is incredibly maintained, and jewish citizens have access to the best of the best. Obtuse? Think not.

It's called "corruption" within the PLO the world has given BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to the Palestinian Authority for roads,water, economic development etc.
So,you are simply repeating things you have been told. Even the Palestinian Authority acknowledges the corruption.



It's funny how you throw all this insults. I did nothing to insult you, so stop with your emotional dramatic branding shit.

Anyone so obtuse to compare the murder of 6 million people by the nazis, to whats going on in Israel/Gaza Strip/west Bank today should be insulted, publicly and often.



If arabs operate in the same lines of racism as Israel, they shouldn't get aid either.

They do, thats why jews don't live in arab countries, the arabs kill them.



I acknowledge the economic benefits of the Iraqi war.

There are none.




The situation should be dealt through multi-national combination of diplomacy, and sanctions.

That's whats happening.

Bong30
12-17-2007, 03:03 PM
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not halt uranium enrichment even with delivery of fuel from Russia for its first nuclear power plant, a senior Iranian official said on Monday, adding he could not yet confirm Iran had received the fuel.


"There is no talk of halting enrichment. Nothing is related to freezing enrichment. The delivery (of fuel) is not in the framework of the (U.N.) resolutions or the framework of talks," the senior official told Reuters.

Asked if Iran would halt enrichment under any condition, he said: "No, not at all."




front page drudge.....Im just saying

greg420
12-17-2007, 05:09 PM
just read all this thread...quite interesting, but what i really don't understand, is why is iran a 'criminal'?
even if, and its a big if, they do have nuclear weapons, what are they gonna do with them?
they're not stupid, they know that if they used a nuclear weapon on anyone, then everyone would smack down hard on their candy asses. their country would be destroyed if they used one. they're not gonna use it even if they do have one.
which is why i don't get why the US feels it has to get involved when really its not a huge problem and not really much to do with them *coughs* Oil *cough*

420izzle
12-17-2007, 06:25 PM
just read all this thread...quite interesting, but what i really don't understand, is why is iran a 'criminal'?
even if, and its a big if, they do have nuclear weapons, what are they gonna do with them?
they're not stupid, they know that if they used a nuclear weapon on anyone, then everyone would smack down hard on their candy asses. their country would be destroyed if they used one. they're not gonna use it even if they do have one.
which is why i don't get why the US feels it has to get involved when really its not a huge problem and not really much to do with them *coughs* Oil *cough*

While the Iranian government is no good either, America is acting shameful and is acting the 'criminal' in this case. Meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations and threatening World War! We continue to isolate ourselves and upset the world climate with neo-con rhetoric and threatening more war - this sequential war garbage. And the lie of century (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm) is perpetrated by the rogue criminals in our government. Iran's President Did Not Say "Israel must be wiped off the map". And yet the Bought and Paid for Media continue to spew these lies! And we all know Israel has enough nuclear capability to defend themselves and destroy half the globe. The US gets involved to secure power and the fuel of for our pretend prosperity, and, as the PNAC agenda itself states, spread peace through strength. Not to mention, the elitists agenda is only perpetrated by the strength of the American Empire.

RP08 (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

thcbongman
12-18-2007, 04:38 AM
So you don't really understand what you are saying, and you assume I'm a Jew:D



The US is trying to broker a peace deal to stop the killing, you are opposed to that too, I see.



Every country has spies,now who needs to "grow up"


It's called "corruption" within the PLO the world has given BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to the Palestinian Authority for roads,water, economic development etc.
So,you are simply repeating things you have been told. Even the Palestinian Authority acknowledges the corruption.


Anyone so obtuse to compare the murder of 6 million people by the nazis, to whats going on in Israel/Gaza Strip/west Bank today should be insulted, publicly and often.


They do, thats why jews don't live in arab countries, the arabs kill them.


There are none.



That's whats happening.

I applaud you for your intellectual dishonesty. You would make an excellent politician.

You accuse me of hating jews because of the position I desire for the US to take on Israel, isolationism. This equates to hating jews? Can you point out where I wanted jews to die? Or discriminate against them?

That's like me saying your racist against muslims because of the positions you take. Not only is there no foundation, it's simply idiotic to play the "prejudice" card in a debate. Don't like their opinion? Smear them as a bigot. Classy.

I only assume you are a jew because you threw out such a slanderous term and you felt offended. Perhaps you used this word in too many debates that you lost sense of this powerful accusation. In fact, I remember pointing this out to you when you accused someone else of being anti-semantic. It's safe to say if I went through your history, you threw out this term plenty of times.

But you seem to not get my argument and go straight to the anti-semantic card. Let me boldface it for you. The US should not be involved with any country in the Middle East with the exception of Iraq and for trade. That includes being a major player in brokering peace deals. This does not equate me not wanting peace between Israel and Palestine. There are domestic issues in America that need to be solved, especially on the economic front. The UN should take a more active role in the negotiations, and another country that bears an attitude towards peace take over. US involvement is a little more than figurehead, considering the positions they take towards foreign policy. All the progress made under Clinton ceded when Bush came to office. US involvement is not the answer.

When you mention that all countries have spies, you contradict your initial point that the US takes no position in administering and monitoring other countries activities. Rather, you choose to further slander me with a direct personal attack. Do you usually lose track of your arguments? Just because they monitor other countries means I'm oppose to having intelligence agencies? Do you really see things so black-white?

Your point on your Palestinian Authority is invalid. I'm refering to Arab Israeli citizens, which the PLO has no authority over, Israel does. And boy do they mistreat them. Everyone knows the PLO is corrupt. You don't seem to recognize the corruption on Israel. Which only strengthens my position on why the US should not be involved with this mess.

You also don't seem to recognize the rampant racism in Israel. When I compared this racism to the nazis the comparison. I should specify the era before kristelnacht happened. The climate is no different, jews were denied access to infrastructure, and were treated like 2nd class citizens. Much of the policy of Israel was inspired upon the suffering they suffered in Nazi Germany. Violence committed against arabs in the Israeli population. I could predict what your next argument would be, "oh so you want the jews to be bombed by palestinians?" Absolutely not, but I simply don't condone these actions perpetuated by either side.

And to the point where some arabs are racism against jews, thanks captain obvious, tell me something I didn't know. So it goes back to the consistant point in my argument: we should not administer aid to any of these middle eastern countries except Iraq.

And you say the Iraqi war didn't bring any economic benefits? Damn you are sure naive. If this country had no oil, do you honesty think the US would come save the day? Look no further than a 7 year sample on the US economic data. Notice the downward trend from 2003 up until the precise moment Bush decided let's go into Iraq. Then notice it steadily climbing. Using war as a economic stimulus. Gosh, wouldn't that qualify as a economic benefit? Why were companies happy that we went into Iraq? Simply there is money to be made!! 2nd, America helped build a pipeline to get oil out of Iraq. I wonder why? Ah.....secure resources. Partnership with Iraq so we can have priority over the resources. Then when the violence in Iraq dies down: Reconstruction contracts, potential economic development in Iraq. Foreign investment. What a concept. There is plenty of cash to be made on Iraq. The downside to this of course is a weakening dollar, decreasing purchasing power. If Bush didn't go into Iraq, America was headed into a recession. He kept the economy afloat for a while longer.

To the point where "that's what they are already doing." Yes, but minus the US would be a lot cooler.

The alliance with Israel has caused nothing but trouble in bringing anti-American sentiment around the world. In Europe they report both sides of the crimes committed by both Palestine and Israel. And they stay out of it. That's what the US should do, and let someone else take over. There are bigger priorities the US should deal with, rather than give Aid to Israel.

L Rag
12-18-2007, 05:11 AM
I applaud you for your intellectual dishonesty. You would make an excellent politician.

You accuse me of hating jews because of the position I desire for the US to take on Israel, isolationism. This equates to hating jews? Can you point out where I wanted jews to die? Or discriminate against them?

That's like me saying your racist against muslims because of the positions you take. Not only is there no foundation, it's simply idiotic to play the "prejudice" card in a debate. Don't like their opinion? Smear them as a bigot. Classy.

I only assume you are a jew because you threw out such a slanderous term and you felt offended. Perhaps you used this word in too many debates that you lost sense of this powerful accusation. In fact, I remember pointing this out to you when you accused someone else of being anti-semantic. It's safe to say if I went through your history, you threw out this term plenty of times.

But you seem to not get my argument and go straight to the anti-semantic card. Let me boldface it for you. The US should not be involved with any country in the Middle East with the exception of Iraq and for trade. That includes being a major player in brokering peace deals. This does not equate me not wanting peace between Israel and Palestine. There are domestic issues in America that need to be solved, especially on the economic front. The UN should take a more active role in the negotiations, and another country that bears an attitude towards peace take over. US involvement is a little more than figurehead, considering the positions they take towards foreign policy. All the progress made under Clinton ceded when Bush came to office. US involvement is not the answer.

When you mention that all countries have spies, you contradict your initial point that the US takes no position in administering and monitoring other countries activities. Rather, you choose to further slander me with a direct personal attack. Do you usually lose track of your arguments? Just because they monitor other countries means I'm oppose to having intelligence agencies? Do you really see things so black-white?

Your point on your Palestinian Authority is invalid. I'm refering to Arab Israeli citizens, which the PLO has no authority over, Israel does. And boy do they mistreat them. Everyone knows the PLO is corrupt. You don't seem to recognize the corruption on Israel. Which only strengthens my position on why the US should not be involved with this mess.

You also don't seem to recognize the rampant racism in Israel. When I compared this racism to the nazis the comparison. I should specify the era before kristelnacht happened. The climate is no different, jews were denied access to infrastructure, and were treated like 2nd class citizens. Much of the policy of Israel was inspired upon the suffering they suffered in Nazi Germany. Violence committed against arabs in the Israeli population. I could predict what your next argument would be, "oh so you want the jews to be bombed by palestinians?" Absolutely not, but I simply don't condone these actions perpetuated by either side.

And to the point where some arabs are racism against jews, thanks captain obvious, tell me something I didn't know. So it goes back to the consistant point in my argument: we should not administer aid to any of these middle eastern countries except Iraq.

And you say the Iraqi war didn't bring any economic benefits? Damn you are sure naive. If this country had no oil, do you honesty think the US would come save the day? Look no further than a 7 year sample on the US economic data. Notice the downward trend from 2003 up until the precise moment Bush decided let's go into Iraq. Then notice it steadily climbing. Using war as a economic stimulus. Gosh, wouldn't that qualify as a economic benefit? Why were companies happy that we went into Iraq? Simply there is money to be made!! 2nd, America helped build a pipeline to get oil out of Iraq. I wonder why? Ah.....secure resources. Partnership with Iraq so we can have priority over the resources. Then when the violence in Iraq dies down: Reconstruction contracts, potential economic development in Iraq. Foreign investment. What a concept. There is plenty of cash to be made on Iraq. The downside to this of course is a weakening dollar, decreasing purchasing power. If Bush didn't go into Iraq, America was headed into a recession. He kept the economy afloat for a while longer.

To the point where "that's what they are already doing." Yes, but minus the US would be a lot cooler.

The alliance with Israel has caused nothing but trouble in bringing anti-American sentiment around the world. In Europe they report both sides of the crimes committed by both Palestine and Israel. And they stay out of it. That's what the US should do, and let someone else take over. There are bigger priorities the US should deal with, rather than give Aid to Israel.

QFT +rep

Are you in a debating team man?:jointsmile:

thcbongman
12-18-2007, 12:46 PM
QFT +rep

Are you in a debating team man?:jointsmile:

Nope, but thanks for the compliment! I just enjoying debating. Might be premature to compliment tho! I'm waiting for Ozark, this is only starting to heat up. :)

mfqr
12-18-2007, 01:42 PM
mfgr - I truly believe that all religious societies have an obligation to "police" their members and clergy. The perpetration of evil, though, is not limited to muslims - they just happen to have been the topic of discussion here. Personally, I think that all religions are inherently evil.

PC :smokin:

And I would agree with you on that, except for the policing part... because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. I do agree with you on the part of all religions being inherently evil... at least that is how it is used. These Christian leaders, Muslim leaders, etc, are all taking advantage of people's ignorance. The only religion (and actually, some would say it's not a religion) I think is inherently good and peaceful would be Buddhism. The Buddhist monks in Tibet have never retaliated against China for its tyrannical reign over Tibet, mostly against the Buddhist monks. They always have remained peaceful.

I think Christianity and Islam actually oppresses the spiritual being (mostly Christianity, though, as I see it), as opposed to releasing it and letting it thrive. Buddhism, however, focuses on letting it thrive, to become enlightened.

The fundamentalist Christians are possibly the most ignorant people I've seen... it's a huge cult... they even brainwash their kids with this shit from the beginning. Complete indoctrination, to the point where the children cannot even begin to imagine a life without a higher being, and to the point where the child is completely ignorant about other views on life. Mental enslavement. That is how I see it.

Ozarks
12-18-2007, 01:51 PM
I applaud you for your intellectual dishonesty. You would make an excellent politician.

You accuse me of hating jews because of the position I desire for the US to take on Israel, isolationism. This equates to hating jews? Can you point out where I wanted jews to die? Or discriminate against them?


I haven't "accused" you of anything, except not knowing the the difference between mass murder and self defense, and being a bigot.



That's like me saying your racist against muslims because of the positions you take. Not only is there no foundation, it's simply idiotic to play the "prejudice" card in a debate. Don't like their opinion? Smear them as a bigot. Classy.




If the jews want to create their own state, there's alot of land in the Antarctic.


^^^^
YOU

You are a bigot, look at your posts, take out the word jew and insert any other word, black, gay, disabled, take your pick.




I only assume you are a jew because you threw out such a slanderous term and you felt offended. Perhaps you used this word in too many debates that you lost sense of this powerful accusation.
In fact, I remember pointing this out to you when you accused someone else of being anti-semantic. It's safe to say if I went through your history, you threw out this term plenty of times.

I call a spade a spade, and these people, like you don't like it.



But you seem to not get my argument and go straight to the anti-semantic card. Let me boldface it for you. The US should not be involved with any country in the Middle East with the exception of Iraq and for trade. That includes being a major player in brokering peace deals. This does not equate me not wanting peace between Israel and Palestine.


I get it, I just think you are wrong, we are supporting a peace and democracy in the region.


All the progress made under Clinton ceded when Bush came to office. US involvement is not the answer.


What progress ? Arafat WALK AWAY and refused to sign the deal



When you mention that all countries have spies, you contradict your initial point that the US takes no position in administering and monitoring other countries activities.


Perhaps a dictionary would help, spying has nothing to do with "Administrating or monitoring".



You also don't seem to recognize the rampant racism in Israel. When I compared this racism to the nazis the comparison. I should specify the era before kristelnacht happened. The climate is no different, jews were denied access to infrastructure, and were treated like 2nd class citizens. Much of the policy of Israel was inspired upon the suffering they suffered in Nazi Germany. Violence committed against arabs in the Israeli population. I could predict what your next argument would be, "oh so you want the jews to be bombed by palestinians?" Absolutely not, but I simply don't condone these actions perpetuated by either side.

There is difference here that you seem to miss, the jews didn't attack Germaney, Israels policies are based on security not racism



And to the point where some arabs are racism against jews, thanks captain obvious, tell me something I didn't know.




If arabs operate in the same lines of racism as Israel, they shouldn't get aid either.

^^^^^^^^
You Again




And you say the Iraqi war didn't bring any economic benefits? Damn you are sure naive. If this country had no oil, do you honesty think the US would come save the day? Look no further than a 7 year sample on the US economic data. Notice the downward trend from 2003 up until the precise moment Bush decided let's go into Iraq. Then notice it steadily climbing. Using war as a economic stimulus. Gosh, wouldn't that qualify as a economic benefit? Why were companies happy that we went into Iraq? Simply there is money to be made!! 2nd, America helped build a pipeline to get oil out of Iraq. I wonder why?


The only country that Iran exports to is France, we build the pipeline because Iraq needs the money from the oil. 5,10 years from now, I hope you're right.

Right know we're losing money.




The alliance with Israel has caused nothing but trouble in bringing anti-American sentiment around the world.

Doing the right thing and standing with our friends has made us stronger and more respected, I don't care if they like us or not, this isn't a popularity contest.

L Rag
12-19-2007, 12:09 AM
You are a bigot, look at your posts, take out the word jew and insert any other word, black, gay, disabled, take your pick.

Is anyone else completely in the dark as to how he is a bigot? You took his sentence completely out of context.




I get it, I just think you are wrong, we are supporting a peace and democracy in the region.

I dont know how you can say America is supporting peace in the region with a straight face. :wtf:




Perhaps a dictionary would help, spying has nothing to do with "Administrating or monitoring".

Actually I'd say spying is very similar to monitoring.

thcbongman
12-19-2007, 12:47 AM
I haven't "accused" you of anything, except not knowing the the difference between mass murder and self defense, and being a bigot.





^^^^
YOU

You are a bigot, look at your posts, take out the word jew and insert any other word, black, gay, disabled, take your pick.



I call a spade a spade, and these people, like you don't like it.



I get it, I just think you are wrong, we are supporting a peace and democracy in the region.



What progress ? Arafat WALK AWAY and refused to sign the deal



Perhaps a dictionary would help, spying has nothing to do with "Administrating or monitoring".


There is difference here that you seem to miss, the jews didn't attack Germaney, Israels policies are based on security not racism




^^^^^^^^
You Again




The only country that Iran exports to is France, we build the pipeline because Iraq needs the money from the oil. 5,10 years from now, I hope you're right.

Right know we're losing money.



Doing the right thing and standing with our friends has made us stronger and more respected, I don't care if they like us or not, this isn't a popularity contest.

This reply is laughable. My first thought of coming back was you'd provide an eloquent argument on why America should support Israel.

Instead, you provide more ignorance and shit.

Your only evidence that I'm a bigot is based on a statement that if jews want their own country, there plenty of land in Antarctic. The creation of Israel was for these displaced jews. How does this make me a bigot? When the British drew the map of Palestine, it was a mistake. They failed to recognize the history of the region and the conflict. Solution? Move somewhere else. This is a bigot statement? This only confirms my initial thoughts, that you simply smear people you disagree with.

You claim you call a spade a spade. But you are unable to provide more ample evidence. Simply looking a sample of your posts, you swung this accusation on practically everybody that disagreed with you on your position on Israel.

The US is not capable of supporting peace and democracy in the middle east. 1. We are not a peaceful nation, we are aggressive, and 2. We are not a democracy. The only scent of democracy we have are at the local level, when the population votes on bonds and referendums. That's it. Otherwise we are a constitutional republic.

The progress you don't seem to recognize? That while there was violence there was far less than there is today. Plus relations between Israel and Palestine could not be more unstable.

You should really stop with this 1-line shit, and articulate your points. You are way too emotionally invested in this argument that you forgot to remember that monitoring is apart of spying. So is administrating since you have to use the intel to manage the situation. It's time for YOU to look at the dictionary, not I.

And to inform you because you seemed to miss the point on the climate before kristelnacht. Nazis as a state didn't attack jews before this occasion. Apparently your reading comprehension, or knowledge in history sucks. Either one, take your pick.

Didn't get the point this reply. You took two statements that did not relate to one another, and again, try to smear me as a hypocrite. You failed miserably. Since the Iranian President made statements wanting to nuke Israel, they shouldn't get aid. However, not all arab countries want to destroy Israel. Countries like the UAE, prosperous, and does not want to destroy Israel. Get that through your thick ass head.

Yes, the US government is losing money. However, I hold a portfolio of some of the companies that benefit from Iraq, and might I add, they performed real well. The reason? They are profiting from the situation. Sometimes to make money, you lose a little bit in the beginning. It's all about calculating risk.

And obviously, you'd rather be allied with a few, than get along with many. I don't see any countries that are respecting us, made us stronger. All I see is a weak dollar, and a military that is over stretching it's resources, has struggling to recruit. Is this what you call "stronger?"

Now, I will warn you now. If I see a reply like this again, without any scent of eloquence, I will not respond. I will not waste any more of my energy to debate a person who put in a quarter-ass effort in his reply, and made too many emotional errors. I know you are capable of more than 1-line bullshit.

Psycho4Bud
12-19-2007, 04:53 AM
Well, this thread has crossed lines. Personal attacks are NOT permitted on the forums. Don't let the debate get the best of ya.

If a few of ya would like to continue this with cooler heads....start another thread.

Have a good one!:jointsmile: