NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: And saber-rattling begts more saber-rattling. The Iranians need to get a frakking GRIP! :(


End nuke program or else, Bolton warns (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060406-111308-6447r.htm)


By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 7, 2006

Iran has until the end of April to abandon its nuclear-weapons program and comply with international atomic energy agreements or face increased international sanctions, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

The U.N. Security Council's ability to come together and bring pressure on Tehran would reflect whether the international forum would play a major role in protecting the United States and its allies, Ambassador John R. Bolton told reporters at a State Department Correspondents Association breakfast meeting yesterday.

"Iran is a good test case," he said.

If Iran refused to conform to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, Mr. Bolton said, the likely next step would be a U.N. resolution that would be legally binding on Iran, followed by a resolution that would consider sanctions.

Mr. Bolton described the U.S. approach as "calibrated, gradual and reversible," but warned that if the U.N. council failed to deal effectively with Iran, Washington would have to look at alternatives.

"We are pursuing a variety of options outside the Security Council right now," he said, echoing statements he made to The Washington Times in November. "It is simply prudent planning to be looking at other options," he said yesterday.

Mr. Bolton said the United States could tighten sanctions against Iran that were eased under the Clinton administration, allowing for the import of Persian rugs and pistachio nuts.

Additional steps could include sanctions such as those Washington has taken against North Korea, and "looking at the illicit financial transactions by the Iranian government," he said. The United States would work with other countries on sanctions on the Iranian leadership's "financial transactions, their travel opportunities and the economic relations these countries themselves have with Iran," he said.

A U.N. Security Council presidential statement issued March 29 urged Iran to suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing, to be verified by the IAEA in a report due in 30 days -- or by April 28. Follow-up resolutions could require Tehran to comply.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful and not weapons-based. The United States and the European Union dispute that.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that several issues in Iran remained outstanding.

"The picture is not very clear; the picture is hazy," he told reporters in Madrid after a meeting of U.N. agency chiefs, the Reuters news agency reported. The IAEA has led inspections of Iran's nuclear program for three years.

[ This article is 2 pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060406-111308-6447r_page2.htm). ]

It's all about China.

If China holds firm with us in demanding Iranian compliance, I doubt any other SC member will complain too loudly.

The only question then is, just how far will Iran go to keep it's nuke program?

I fear it will be too far. :(

"Iran is a good test case," he said.

If Iran refused to conform to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, Mr. Bolton said, the likely next step would be a U.N. resolution that would be legally binding on Iran, followed by a resolution that would consider sanctions.

*raises eyebrow*
As far as anyone can prove Iran IS obeying the non proliferation treaty - a fact the Iranian government repeatedly emphasises since countries like Israel and India are not, but do get a fiat.

Why is it necessarily that Iran needs to get a grip? From Iran's point of view, getting nukes is the only prudent course of action. Hussein didn't have nukes, and look at him. Kim Jong Il has them, and look at him. What the hell else is Iran supposed to think? Shit, if I were in charge of Iran right now, I couldn't get them fast enough, especially since the US has limited its potential responses thanks to that stupid war in Iraq.

And saber-rattling begts more saber-rattling. The Iranians need to get a frakking GRIP! :(


The Iranians need to?

The Iranian government is revolutionary, and thus, not bound by the treaties of their predecessor regime.

Despite that, Iran has not 'proliferated' nuclear technology.

On the other hand, the US is a non-proliferation signee... and yet, we are trading Nuclear technologies with India, a NON-treaty signee.

Why is it necessarily that Iran needs to get a grip? From Iran's point of view, getting nukes is the only prudent course of action.

Well.. that, or the complete removal of all nukes from the middle east. Something Iran has been pleading for for ages now, but naturally Israel refuses to comply.
However, while I personally do think it is Irans aim to eventually construct nuclear weapons, the fact remains that Iran has a right to build nuclear powerplants - since it has signed the NPT. Otherwise the whole NPT is a worthless piece of paper.

It's all about China.

If China holds firm with us in demanding Iranian compliance, I doubt any other SC member will complain too loudly.

The only question then is, just how far will Iran go to keep it's nuke program?

I fear it will be too far. :(
Me too. They don't seem to be real ... uh ... rational. :(

Sorry, I can't take Bolton seriously ever since he said the UN building in New York should have a few floors blown off. The guy is a dumbass and a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

*raises eyebrow*
As far as anyone can prove Iran IS obeying the non proliferation treaty - a fact the Iranian government repeatedly emphasises since countries like Israel and India are not, but do get a fiat.
India and Israel don't have a history of supporting terrorists or acting like total idiots. :rolleyes:

India and Israel don't have a history of supporting terrorists or acting like total idiots. :rolleyes:
Erm, Israel was founded on the back of terrorism, and its first PM was a former terrorist. Also, both acted like total idiots on quite a few occasions.

Sorry, I can't take Bolton seriously ever since he said the UN building in New York should have a few floors blown off. The guy is a dumbass and a hypocrite. :rolleyes:
Which, of course, isn't what he said. Damn you're good at misquoting people. He said that if the UN were to have a few floors blown off, no one would be able to tell the difference. A very, very different statement contextually, and IMHO, perfectly valid.

Erm, Israel was founded on the back of terrorism, and its first PM was a former terrorist. Also, both acted like total idiots on quite a few occasions.
I guess our definitions of "terrorist" are at variance. :p

Why is it necessarily that Iran needs to get a grip? From Iran's point of view, getting nukes is the only prudent course of action. Hussein didn't have nukes, and look at him. Kim Jong Il has them, and look at him. What the hell else is Iran supposed to think? Shit, if I were in charge of Iran right now, I couldn't get them fast enough, especially since the US has limited its potential responses thanks to that stupid war in Iraq.

It may well be that Iran's construction of nuclear weapons is understandable from their point of view. That doesn't mean that it is desirable from everyone else's perspective.

Frankly though, the horse escaped when India developed them. This is trying to shut the barn door thirty years too late.

India and Israel don't have a history of supporting terrorists or acting like total idiots. :rolleyes:

So ? The fact remains that Iran is obeying the letter of the treaty, while Israel and the USA wipe their arses with it and India hasn't even bothered to sign. There is therefor no legal reason to attack Iran - no matter how wise it may be - and Boltons comments are therefor baseless.

Which, of course, isn't what he said. Damn you're good at misquoting people. He said that if the UN were to have a few floors blown off, no one would be able to tell the difference. A very, very different statement contextually, and IMHO, perfectly valid.
The comments were bullshit. Making comments like that about government buildings tends to be investigated by the security services. The fact that he was able to advocate what is in effect a second September 11 and allowed to progress in his career, is a double-standard. But I guess it's OK if you're only talking about foreigners. :rolleyes:

The comments were bullshit. Making comments like that about government buildings tends to be investigated by the security services. The fact that he was able to advocate what is in effect a second September 11 and allowed to progress in his career, is a double-standard. But I guess it's OK if you're only talking about foreigners. :rolleyes:
Except for the fact that he didn't use the words blown off. That was my own wording. His was There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Ooooh yes, he would soo be investigated for remarking like that about a US building.

Except for the fact that he didn't use the words blown off. That was my own wording. His was

Ooooh yes, he would soo be investigated for remarking like that about a US building.
An ordinary citizen would. I think his meaning is pretty clear.

It may well be that Iran's construction of nuclear weapons is understandable from their point of view. That doesn't mean that it is desirable from everyone else's perspective.

Frankly though, the horse escaped when India developed them. This is trying to shut the barn door thirty years too late.
I guess my point is that the US likes to talk a good game about the importance of self-determination. Well, this is the ultimate in self-determination for a government, and yet everyone in the US is acknowledging that our government would consider nuking Iran to keep them from getting nukes themselves.

We can either support democracy and self-determination, or we can try to dominate the world scene and keep smaller nations in line with what we want, but we can't do both--they are mutually exclusive goals.

The thing is, they have not proven to the IAEA that it is only for peaceful purposes. That's the key. They are not cooperating with the IAEA and under the NPT they have to.

An ordinary citizen would. I think his meaning is pretty clear.
That the UN is a beaurocratic monster? But of course being critical of something is the same as wishing that it should be murdered.

The thing is, they have not proven to the IAEA that it is only for peaceful purposes. That's the key. They are not cooperating with the IAEA and under the NPT they have to.
The burden of proof is not on Iran, but on the IAEA.

Sorry, I can't take Bolton seriously ever since he said the UN building in New York should have a few floors blown off. The guy is a dumbass and a hypocrite. :rolleyes:
I agree. The stupidity of this administration shown once again. Having already severly damaged the U.S.'s reputation in the world, specifically with regards to it's willingness to be a part of the international community, what does shitface do? He sends a guy with a seriosu reputation as an arrogant asshole to be our representative to the UN. It's just amazing how increibly incompetent this bunch in the White House is. There's no question in my mond that if Bush were not president Iran would not only not be pursuing nukes right now, but probably would have elected another moderate rather than the fanatic they have now.

The burden of proof is not on Iran, but on the IAEA.

Kinda hard when Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA.

The burden of proof is not on Iran, but on the IAEA.
No it isn't. If yo are a signee of the NNPT then it is up to you to prove your compliance. Inspections are part of the treaty.

The Iranians need to get a frakking GRIP! :(They need to?

Nah.. I say: You and idiot(Bolton) need to get a Grip.. :D :D ;) :D

They need to? Rally?

Actually.. You and idiot(Bolton) need to get a Grip..

:confused:

Bolton's letting more hot air out of his anus again as usual. What's the United States going to do if Iran doesn't stop with its nuclear program? Give Bin Ladin and every other Islamist in the region the biggest orgasm of their lives by invading or nuking Iran and spreading our forces out thinner than a Chinese Condom in the process?

:confused:oh sorry... I forgot Bush..

so its Eutrusca + Dumb + Dumber. (Thay need-to-get-a-grip) :D :D :p :D

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes1203/dumb123.jpeg

It's all about China.

If China holds firm with us in demanding Iranian compliance, I doubt any other SC member will complain too loudly.

The only question then is, just how far will Iran go to keep it's nuke program?

I fear it will be too far. :(Russia...

I guess my point is that the US likes to talk a good game about the importance of self-determination. Well, this is the ultimate in self-determination for a government, and yet everyone in the US is acknowledging that our government would consider nuking Iran to keep them from getting nukes themselves.

We can either support democracy and self-determination, or we can try to dominate the world scene and keep smaller nations in line with what we want, but we can't do both--they are mutually exclusive goals.

*shug* That's the problem with conducting foreign policy in a democracy, you have to say things in public that are at complete odds with actual policy in order to get elected.

Everyone does it however. Though you are probably right. Governments should ditch the high minded sounding atlantic charter drivel, and actually say what they mean. It would make things a lot easier.

odd how a nations quest for clean (ish) renewable power can lead to such a situation either way I doubt Iran cares about U.N sanctions since there more than prepared for them considering the U.N-Iranian History

I think Iran will build a reactor pretty soon no matter what the U.N does too bad the reactor will be so crappy and expensive that it will be de-commissioned as soon as its built but still I think its worth the cost to stick it to the world and remind us that there not god dam thing we can do to Iran

The IAEA has not been able to prove that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, or had the ability to do so. Iran is, however, within their rights to operate a civilian nuclear energy programme, and so is allowed to have a uranium enrichment programme.

so its Eutrusca + Dumb + Bumber. (Thay need-to-get-a-grip) :D :D :p :DBumber? Do you mean "Dumber"?

The IAEA has not been able to prove that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, or had the ability to do so. Iran is, however, within their rights to operate a civilian nuclear energy programme, and so is allowed to have a uranium enrichment programme.

Kinda hard when Iran is not letting the IAEA do their jobs.

*shug* That's the problem with conducting foreign policy in a democracy, you have to say things in public that are at complete odds with actual policy in order to get elected.

Everyone does it however. Though you are probably right. Governments should ditch the high minded sounding atlantic charter drivel, and actually say what they mean. It would make things a lot easier.
Something else no one wants to talk about on this issue--nukes can actually bring stability to a region. MAD worked, not once, but twice. The second time was between India and Pakistan. Before both sides had nukes, they were constantly at the brink of war. Since then, they talk a lot, but there hasn't been much in the way of real saber-rattling. (Friedman says it also has to do with their relative places in the global supply chain.) Iranian nukes could serve as a counterbalance to Israeli nukes in the region.

Something else no one wants to talk about on this issue--nukes can actually bring stability to a region. MAD worked, not once, but twice. The second time was between India and Pakistan. Before both sides had nukes, they were constantly at the brink of war. Since then, they talk a lot, but there hasn't been much in the way of real saber-rattling. (Friedman says it also has to do with their relative places in the global supply chain.) Iranian nukes could serve as a counterbalance to Israeli nukes in the region.Neither India nor Pakistan have extremist religious governments and we know for a fact that Israel has never used its nukes. There wouldn't be much of a "balance" if the Iranians had them.

Bumber? Do you mean "Dumber"?LOL..
yes.. my mistake (corrected)

Neither India nor Pakistan have extremist religious governments and we know for a fact that Israel has never used its nukes. There wouldn't be much of a "balance" if the Iranians had them.
Ummm...Musharraf rules at the pleasure of the mullahs right now--they could topple him in a heartbeat if they wished--and their government was one of the very few that recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban. Are they Iran? They're not far off.

...we know for a fact that Israel has never used its nukes...No country has ever used its Nukes.. Any country that ever uses his nukes (first) should be declared a Terrorist Nation .. with economic sanctions and trade bans designed to put that Country to its knees..

Ummm...Musharraf rules at the pleasure of the mullahs right now--they could topple him in a heartbeat if they wished--and their government was one of the very few that recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban. Are they Iran? They're not far off.

May I see proof of this statement?

No country has ever used its Nukes.. Any country that ever uses his nukes (first) should be declared a Terrorist Nation .. with economic sanctions and trade bans designed to put that Country to its knees..

Wouldn't be a probem as that nation won't exist.

Something else no one wants to talk about on this issue--nukes can actually bring stability to a region. MAD worked, not once, but twice. The second time was between India and Pakistan. Before both sides had nukes, they were constantly at the brink of war. Since then, they talk a lot, but there hasn't been much in the way of real saber-rattling. (Friedman says it also has to do with their relative places in the global supply chain.) Iranian nukes could serve as a counterbalance to Israeli nukes in the region.

Possibly. Though given the Iran's proximity to Pakistan and Pakistan's position in the muslim world, I would imagine that a sort of MAD is already operating.

I also can't imagine that Jordan, Syria or Lebanon would view it as particularly stabalizing in this case either. Nuking isreal would doubtless effect them to a great extent.

Really, I think the failure here is that western policy has been one of intervention and destablization, all the while pursuing a non-proliferation stance. If the rest of the world actually started to guarantee the soveriegn integrity of other nations - like we are supposed too - then the case for independantly developing nuclear weapons would be non-existant. Further, it would be far easier to make a case for insisting on disarmament.

May I see proof of this statement?
First thing (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359724/site/newsweek/from/RL.4/) that came up from google.

Ummm...Musharraf rules at the pleasure of the mullahs right now--they could topple him in a heartbeat if they wished--and their government was one of the very few that recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban. Are they Iran? They're not far off.They're off far enough. Musharaff is still a benevolent dictator to some degree and has managed to balance it so far, though on a precarious edge.

No country has ever used its Nukes.. Any country that ever uses his nukes (first) should be declared a Terrorist Nation .. with economic sanctions and trade bans designed to put that Country to its knees..So Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened?

Wouldn't be a probem as that nation won't exist.I agree. The Vegas Odds of any country using his Nukes on a preemtive attack are close to 0.0%

That Why I Do not mind Iranian, Pakistan or Indian Nukes... or the others

Wouldn't be a probem as that nation won't exist.

True that. The nice thing of nukes is that using them as a country is signing your own deathwarrant. Giving every country nukes could therefor be a great help to world peace... in theory. If only those pesky terrorists with no homeland to destroy wouldn't be able to get them then...

So Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened?I forgot that..

All I can say is.. the US is going to pay for that one.. sooner or later.

So Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened?

That was a special case, for a number of reasons. We were in the middle of a major war, we thought it would be better than a full scale invasion of Japan, and we didn't have to worry about other nations turning us into radioactive goo in retaliation.

True that. The nice thing of nukes is that using them as a country is signing your own deathwarrant. Giving every country nukes could therefor be a great help to world peace... in theory. If only those pesky terrorists with no homeland to destroy wouldn't be able to get them then...


I would guess that the people who think everyone should carry a gun to keep criminals scared of what they might encounter would also feel that every country having nukes would keep the baddies at bay as well.

(about US nuking Hiroshima) we didn't have to worry about other nations turning us into radioactive goo in retaliation.In another words.. You are proving them right.. the ones advocating for Nukes-for-all

if every Country has Nukes.. noone will use them Right?

In another words.. You are proving them right.. the ones advocating for Nukes-for-all

if every Country has Nukes.. noone will use them Right?
All it takes is one country who thinks they can get away with it either through plausible deniability or because they think their nuclear deterant and their alliances will protect them. Plus it increases the chance that a nuclear weapon will be stolen, lost, or given to terrorists.

That was a special case, for a number of reasons. We were in the middle of a major war, we thought it would be better than a full scale invasion of Japan, and we didn't have to worry about other nations turning us into radioactive goo in retaliation.
Not to mention we didn't know about radiation and all of that. hell, during the tests back then we killed our own researchers because we didn't understand how harmfull radiation was or how long it stuck around.

"Bolton pissed"? Presumably in the American sense...

Did a subordinate offer an opinion?

"Bolton pissed"? Presumably in the American sense...


I got an image of Bolton going hulk-like and wandering around the UN going "Bolton Pissed! Bolton Smash!" and so on and so fourth.

"Bolton pissed"? Presumably in the American sense...

Did a subordinate offer an opinion?:D reminds me about..
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp

http://www.slantpoint.com/mt/photos/bush_urinal_sticker.jpg

I got an image of Bolton going hulk-like and wandering around the UN going "Bolton Pissed! Bolton Smash!" and so on and so fourth.

Yep...but in a strangely querulous high pitched tone....

That was a special case, for a number of reasons. We were in the middle of a major war, we thought it would be better than a full scale invasion of Japan, and we didn't have to worry about other nations turning us into radioactive goo in retaliation.Wasn't the point though. I was merely refuting the statement that nukes had never been used.

COMMENTARY: And saber-rattling begts more saber-rattling. The Iranians need to get a frakking GRIP! :(


End nuke program or else, Bolton warns (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060406-111308-6447r.htm)


By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 7, 2006

Iran has until the end of April to abandon its nuclear-weapons program and comply with international atomic energy agreements or face increased international sanctions, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.

The U.N. Security Council's ability to come together and bring pressure on Tehran would reflect whether the international forum would play a major role in protecting the United States and its allies, Ambassador John R. Bolton told reporters at a State Department Correspondents Association breakfast meeting yesterday.

"Iran is a good test case," he said.

If Iran refused to conform to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, Mr. Bolton said, the likely next step would be a U.N. resolution that would be legally binding on Iran, followed by a resolution that would consider sanctions.

Mr. Bolton described the U.S. approach as "calibrated, gradual and reversible," but warned that if the U.N. council failed to deal effectively with Iran, Washington would have to look at alternatives.

"We are pursuing a variety of options outside the Security Council right now," he said, echoing statements he made to The Washington Times in November. "It is simply prudent planning to be looking at other options," he said yesterday.

Mr. Bolton said the United States could tighten sanctions against Iran that were eased under the Clinton administration, allowing for the import of Persian rugs and pistachio nuts.

Additional steps could include sanctions such as those Washington has taken against North Korea, and "looking at the illicit financial transactions by the Iranian government," he said. The United States would work with other countries on sanctions on the Iranian leadership's "financial transactions, their travel opportunities and the economic relations these countries themselves have with Iran," he said.

A U.N. Security Council presidential statement issued March 29 urged Iran to suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing, to be verified by the IAEA in a report due in 30 days -- or by April 28. Follow-up resolutions could require Tehran to comply.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful and not weapons-based. The United States and the European Union dispute that.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that several issues in Iran remained outstanding.

"The picture is not very clear; the picture is hazy," he told reporters in Madrid after a meeting of U.N. agency chiefs, the Reuters news agency reported. The IAEA has led inspections of Iran's nuclear program for three years.

[ This article is 2 pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060406-111308-6447r_page2.htm). ]
Yeahyeahyeah. I heard about that. Targeting their rugs and nuts. That will teach them. Although I think a company like ALDI could hurt Iran more in that regard then Bolton can.

I forgot that..

All I can say is.. the US is going to pay for that one.. sooner or later.

What do they have to pay for? They did what was the best option at the time.

I agree. The Vegas Odds of any country using his Nukes on a preemtive attack are close to 0.0%

That Why I Do not mind Iranian, Pakistan or Indian Nukes... or the others

When will you wake-up and realize that all nations are not the same and thus don't need to be treated as such. We don't treat Iran the same as Israel and India because they are not a democracy and they are a rogue nation.

With a whole world armed with nuclear weapons it would only take one mistake to wipe out all of humanity.

When will you wake-up and realize that all nations are not the same and thus don't need to be treated as such. We don't treat Iran the same as Israel and India because they are not a democracy and they are a rogue nation.

With a whole world armed with nuclear weapons it would only take one mistake to wipe out all of humanity.
"Rogue" nation. I wouldn't consider the US any less of a "rogue" nation by any realistic definition of the word.

When will you wake-up and realize that all nations are not the same and thus don't need to be treated as such. We don't treat Iran the same as Israel and India because they are not a democracy and they are a rogue nation.

There are no democracies on this planet. However, Iran actually is a constitutional republic. Like the USA, though with Islam as state religion.

"Rogue" nation. I wouldn't consider the US any less of a "rogue" nation by any realistic definition of the word.

Then, you sir, are a dumbass whose posts I see no reason to consider valid anymore.

There are no democracies on this planet. However, Iran actually is a constitutional republic. Like the USA, though with Islam as state religion.

You know very well I meant nations that give everyone the right to vote for their government.

You know very well I meant nations that give everyone the right to vote for their government.

And Iran does not fit that description because.... ?

And Iran does not fit that description because.... ?

Because Ahi Khamenei is actually the one in charge. Plus, there is reason to doubt Iran's "elections".

Then, you sir, are a dumbass whose posts I see no reason to consider valid anymore.
And why then is Iran a rogue nation?
Is it because it threatens other nations? Invaded Iraq? Is run by a lunatic who believes God is on his side?

The US covers all those pretty damn well.

And why then is Iran a rogue nation?
Is it because it threatens other nations? Invaded Iraq? Is run by a lunatic who believes God is on his side?

The US covers all those pretty damn well.

Because you can't see the difference, I pity you.

Because you can't see the difference, I pity you.
Obviously there is no difference because you avoid pointing it out to me and making an ass of me and instead hurl substanceless insults.

There are no democracies on this planet. However, Iran actually is a constitutional republic. Like the USA, though with Islam as state religion.
Except for the fact that they make the election rigging that goes on in chicago look like peanuts compared to what they do.

Because Ahi Khamenei is actually the one in charge. Plus, there is reason to doubt Iran's "elections".

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1021-01.htm

Except for the fact that they make the election rigging that goes on in chicago look like peanuts compared to what they do.

The FACT that there is reason to doubt the results is enough.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1021-01.htm

Ugh...you just don't get it.

Ugh...you just don't get it.
No you don't get it. Look in your own backyard before spouting your mouth off.

Ugh...you just don't get it.

Ugh, you fail to explain it adequately.

Ugh...you just don't get it.


perhaps you could explain - are international observers just jealous of the US?

Ugh...you just don't get it.
What we get is that you lose.
You havn't even tried to explain your position, which shouldn't be hard if you are "right," and instead sit there and go "you all are dumber than me because you don't agree lololol."

What we get is that you lose.
You havn't even tried to explain your position, which shouldn't be hard if you are "right," and instead sit there and go "you all are dumber than me because you don't agree lololol."
Novoga suffers from a case of US elitism, not surprising since so many suffer from it. The symptoms include foot-in-mouth disease and an inability to fathom that US shit stinks just like everyone elses.

When will you wake-up and realize that all nations are not the same and thus don't need to be treated as such. We don't treat Iran the same as Israel and India because they are not a democracy and they are a rogue nation.

With a whole world armed with nuclear weapons it would only take one mistake to wipe out all of humanity.

Since when does a democracy flaunt the Non-Proliferation Treaty and get rewarded for it? Since when does a democracy continue to practice an oppressive caste system and mysogynistic abortions that have no medical necessity whatsoever?

If Iran wanted to beat the United States at its own game, it should withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Novoga suffers from a case of US elitism, not surprising since so many suffer from it. The symptoms include foot-in-mouth disease and an inability to fathom that US shit stinks just like everyone elses.

The Nazz suffers from a case of US hatred, not surprising since so many suffer from it. They symptoms include foot-in-mouth disease and an inability to fathom that the US may actually be right some of the time.

The Nazz suffers from a case of US hatred, not surprising since so many suffer from it. They symptoms include foot-in-mouth disease and an inability to fathom that the US may actually be right some of the time.

Good for you. You're unable to come up with your own insults and instead must copy others. You must be proud of your complete lack of creativity.

Good for you. You're unable to come up with your own insults and instead must copy others. You must be proud of your complete lack of creativity.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

So why don't people learn to deal with people like Bolton? Just ignore him, and he'll go away.

He's got nothing to add to the discussion, the only one's worth talking to are Condi Rice or GWB.

So why don't people learn to deal with people like Bolton? Just ignore him, and he'll go away.

He's got nothing to add to the discussion, the only one's worth talking to are Condi Rice or GWB.

You know that guy whose solution to the fact that no one is listening to him is to just talk louder and louder?

John Bolton.

The Nazz suffers from a case of US hatred, not surprising since so many suffer from it. They symptoms include foot-in-mouth disease and an inability to fathom that the US may actually be right some of the time.
Let me let you in on a little secret--I don't hate the US. I just hate what you fuckwits have done to it.