NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 (Xinhua) -- There is no evidence that Iran is actively building nuclear weapons, said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an interview with CNN on Sunday.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear program going on right now," ElBaradei said.

"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss," he said.

The IAEA chief said he will continue to work through "creative diplomacy" to try to resolve Iran's nuclear issue. "I do not see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," he said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/29/content_6968976.htm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKBLA92981320071029
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/29/top12.htm

I have to admit, I am thankful that some intelligent discussion and diplomacy can be brought to this situation to cool down the dancing around the campfire with spears approach we are hearing from the White House and conservatives.

IAEA looks way too much like IKEA (http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/2003/03/30/shanghai-ikea-flag.poles.jpg) for me... :P

IAEA looks way too much like IKEA (http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/2003/03/30/shanghai-ikea-flag.poles.jpg) for me... :P

What´s wrong with IKEA?:confused:

I'd like to point out that the Bush Adminisration's long standing policy concerning the IAEA has been to stick it's fingers in it's ears and go, "LALALALALALALA!!!" Until they stop talking.

Mohamed ElBaradei? Sounds Iranian to me.

Didn't that German guy - Hans Whateverschmidt - say there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

It means nothing, nothing I tell you!

What´s wrong with IKEA?:confused:

Weapons of Mass Construction.

Weapons of Mass Construction.

Oh, that. It´s just another step in our plan for taking over the wor... furniture market. :p

Oh, that. It´s just another step in our plan for taking over the wor... furniture market. :p

It has something to do with those $2 lunches, doesn't it? *eyes narrow*

I'd like to point out that the Bush Adminisration's long standing policy concerning the IAEA has been to stick it's fingers in it's ears and go, "LALALALALALALA!!!" Until they stop talking.

So if we put a recording next to him of IAEA's information on auto repeat, he'll keep it up until he suffocates?

So if we put a recording next to him of IAEA's information on auto repeat, he'll keep it up until he suffocates?

I like the way you think. :)

It has something to do with those $2 lunches, doesn't it? *eyes narrow*

You got it. Now I have to eliminate you. :mp5:

What´s wrong with IKEA?:confused:
Nothing. It's just confusing sometimes.
I'd like to point out that the Bush Adminisration's long standing policy concerning the IAEA has been to stick it's fingers in it's ears and go, "LALALALALALALA!!!" Until they stop talking.
Hai, which is why I seriously doubt anyone will listen. I really hope more and more we don't go to war with Iran...it's going to be hard enough staying out of Iraq as a sailor in the Navy...I don't even want to consider having to fight a war I'd be wholly against with someone who actually has a coastline and a navy of their own...

If there were any chance, at all, that the US was likely to move militarily against Iran, then this would be a big deal, but the likelihood of such a move is damn near zero.

If there were any chance, at all, that the US was likely to move militarily against Iran, then this would be a big deal, but the likelihood of such a move is damn near zero.

Indeed but you know how these people are. They think Bush is a warmonger bent on taking over the entire Middle East. Now if this was a video game, it can be done. Maybe Bush has been hitting the Superpower 2 game just a tad to hard :D

Anyways...Elbaredi is at least saying there is no evidence right now and that's a good start in the diplomatic process.

You got it. Now I have to eliminate you. :mp5:

You have to catch me first. :)

*disappears in a sudden burst of cotton candy scented smoke*

You have to catch me first. :)

*disappears in a sudden burst of cotton candy scented smoke*

Smoke? Not a sudden mud shower from nowhere that covers everyone?

Smoke? Not a sudden mud shower from nowhere that covers everyone?

*from behind the couch* That power is still recharging.

*from behind the couch* That power is still recharging.

Ah.

You have to catch me first. :)

*disappears in a sudden burst of cotton candy scented smoke*

Damn. So much for that plan. Have to find another. One day I will get my revenge! :mad:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/29/content_6968976.htm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKBLA92981320071029
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/29/top12.htm

I have to admit, I am thankful that some intelligent discussion and diplomacy can be brought to this situation to cool down the dancing around the campfire with spears approach we are hearing from the White House and conservatives.I was not aware of this topic, I created a similar one.
My mistake.

Do you want me to ask the mods to delete or lock my thread?
I dont mind.

I was not aware of this topic, I created a similar one.
My mistake.

Do you want me to ask the mods to delete or lock my thread?
I dont mind.

Maybe a merger. *nod*

They think Bush is a warmonger bent on taking over the entire Middle East.
They don't just think that Bush is a warmonger, they know it!! Everyone knows it by now to be true.

Maybe a merger. *nod*I dont mind that either, its up to Eureka Australis.
I will accept his call.

Mohamed ElBaradei? Sounds Iranian to me.

Didn't that German guy - Hans Whateverschmidt - say there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

It means nothing, nothing I tell you!

He was Swedish actually and his name is Hans Blix.

Mohamed ElBaradei? Sounds Iranian to me.

Didn't that German guy - Hans Whateverschmidt - say there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

It means nothing, nothing I tell you!

Hans Blix. [/nitpick]

They don't just think that Bush is a warmonger, they know it!! Everyone knows it by now to be true.

If that were true then bombs would already be falling. Apparently not as bombs were not dropped over North Korea nor so far over Iran. Seems to me he is going for peaceful measures in both instances.

Didn't that German guy - Hans Whateverschmidt - say there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?
Hans Blix. Who is Swedish and not German.

Anyway, woohoo or something, not that much will be changed.

He was Swedish actually and his name is Hans Blix.

Hans Brix! Oh no! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7355556521411143107&q=hans+blix+team+america&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Hey could a Mod merge this one with OD's other thread.

Also, I find it interesting that myself on OD were the only ones to post this important news item, and that it has been totally avoided by the plague by the conservanazis on NSG.

Hey could a Mod merge this one with OD's other thread.

Also, I find it interesting that myself on OD were the only ones to post this important news item, and that it has been totally avoided by the plague by the conservanazis on NSG.

Beyond the basic fact that calling someone "Conservanazis" is polemics and flamebaiting, the reason why no one else posted this is because you posted it, and excluding Occeandrive, no one else on this forum exercises sufficiently poor form as to tack up a topic duplicating thread.

It's not like this forum is populated by right-wing nutjobs, far from it.

So if we put a recording next to him of IAEA's information on auto repeat, he'll keep it up until he suffocates?
Only if he breathes through his ears.

He was Swedish actually and his name is Hans Blix.

Hans Blix. [/nitpick]

Hans Blix. Who is Swedish and not German.

Anyway, woohoo or something, not that much will be changed.

Thanks - I was parodying George Bush' reaction to be honest, though if I think that's going to fool people into thinking I could actually remember Hans Blix' name or nationality then the only person I'm fooling is myself.

If that were true then bombs would already be falling. Apparently not as bombs were not dropped over North Korea nor so far over Iran. Seems to me he is going for peaceful measures in both instances.
Going for peaceful measures? Spoken like a true Bush apologist and fellow warmonger:

'Murderous activities' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6967502.stm)

In his speech to the American Legion, Mr Bush hit back, accusing Iran's Revolutionary Guards of funding and arming insurgents in Iraq.

And he said Iran's leaders could not avoid some responsibility for attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.

"I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities," he said.

The BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says this looks like a conscious effort by the White House to elevate the tension between Washington and Tehran to a new level.

Such an effort might be designed to avoid the need for armed conflict or might equally be an effort to bring that conflict about, our correspondent says.
And this article was post only 2 months ago.

Bush = warmonger

Going for peaceful measures? Spoken like a true Bush apologist and fellow warmonger:


And this article was post only 2 months ago.

Bush = warmonger

Um yea...if you truly want to believe that then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco. Iran has been funding the insurgency and thus we have a statement by Bush about it.

Grow up CH. You are starting to sound like a leftist political hack and that has never been you.

If that were true then bombs would already be falling. Apparently not as bombs were not dropped over North Korea nor so far over Iran. Seems to me he is going for peaceful measures in both instances.

...some maybe. However as Dougie Feith was arseing around with Iranian dissidents, researching for "regime change", its more than likely others - Dick Cheney being the one that comes most to mind - aren't.

Um yea...if you truly want to believe that then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco. Iran has been funding the insurgency and thus we have a statement by Bush about it.
This is what defines you as a Bush apologist and warmonger. You see Bush's comments about Iran as a simple "statement", when they are in fact a threat to Iran. There is no diplomacy there whatsoever.

Bush warns Iran "Nuclear Holocaust" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwxcdLTQDkA)

Grow up CH. You are starting to sound like a leftist political hack and that has never been you.
I have a son the same age as you and even though he doesn't have a degree in political science, he is astute enough to recognize that Bush's foreign policy on Iraq and Iran has been terribly flawed and is made of fail. The last thing that the US, the Middle East and the world needs is another bloody, baseless war against Iran.

Call it political hackery if you wish, but it (the warmongering) is the reality of the day.

This is what defines you as a Bush apologist and warmonger. You see Bush's comments about Iran as a simple "statement", when they are in fact a threat to Iran. There is no diplomacy there whatsoever.

Bush warns Iran "Nuclear Holocaust" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwxcdLTQDkA)

In other words, a warning! This is why many people call you a left wing hack!

I have a son the same age as you and even though he doesn't have a degree in political science, he is astute enough to recognize that Bush's foreign policy on Iraq and Iran has been terribly flawed and is made of fail. The last thing that the US, the Middle East and the world needs is another bloody, baseless war against Iran.

I agree with that last sentence. And that is why there will not be a war with Iran anytime soon. Probably not for a long time either. And everyone, INCLUDING Bush is trying to prevent one. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize that.

Call it political hackery if you wish, but it (the warmongering) is the reality of the day.

Bullshit.

In other words, a warning! This is why many people call you a left wing hack!
It is not a "statement", nor is it a "warning", ..... it is a threat!! Bush used the exact same words regarding Iraq before invading that country. Your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes as to your support for the staunch ideology that continues to emanate from the White House. If anything, Bush should be censured by Congress, before even graver mistakes are made.

I agree with that last sentence. And that is why there will not be a war with Iran anytime soon. Probably not for a long time either. And everyone, INCLUDING Bush is trying to prevent one. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize that.
Bush is fomenting war with Iran. That is the reality!!

Bullshit.:rolleyes:
Nice!!

It is not a "statement", nor is it a "warning", ..... it is a threat!! Bush used the exact same words regarding Iraq before invading that country. Your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes as to your support for the staunch ideology that continues to emanate from the White House. If anything, Bush should be censured by Congress, before even graver mistakes are made.

Ever heard of good-cop, bad-cop? It's been the policy of the United States towards Iran since before the invasion of Iraq. While playing the belligerent our European allies are playing along as the nice guys.

Bush is fomenting war with Iran. That is the reality!!

No more than Iran is fomenting war with the US: Not at all.

.. excluding Occeandrive, no one else on this forum exercises sufficiently poor form as to tack up a topic duplicating thread.Sue.Me©

or
Cry.me.a.River©


either (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13174131&postcount=20) way works for me ;)

It is not a "statement", nor is it a "warning", ..... it is a threat!!

The same kind of "threat" that French President Sarkozy said as well. Do you condemn him for saying it or is this just a Bush thing?

Bush used the exact same words regarding Iraq before invading that country.

Except for the fact that there were numerous other reasons that we invaded Iraq for which were stated in Congress's declaration of war. This is was a warning.

Your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes as to your support for the staunch ideology that continues to emanate from the White House.

Oh brother. Are you a piece of work :rolleyes:

If anything, Bush should be censured by Congress, before even graver mistakes are made.

Let them. It really means nothing. If you really want Congress to do something, let them impeach him even though he did jackshit to be impeached on.

Bush is fomenting war with Iran. That is the reality!!

Oh brother. Bush is not fomenting anything. He does not want a war with Iran anymore than the UN wants to enforce its rules.

No more than Iran is fomenting war with the US: Not at all.

THANK YOU!! Hopefully this will sink into his mind.

Ever heard of good-cop, bad-cop? It's been the policy of the United States towards Iran since before the invasion of Iraq. While playing the belligerent our European allies are playing along as the nice guys.
Let's face facts in that current events go way beyond the "good-cop, bad-cop" scenario, especially since Russia is backing Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7046258.stm).

No more than Iran is fomenting war with the US: Not at all.
The US has been too obvious in the destablizing of the Middle East and as a direct result, a second nuclear arms race (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29islam.html)is unfolding before our eyes.

Bush has been fomenting war ever since he came into office. By focusing on Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil", Bush has allowed the real terrorists (al-Queda) to exist and flourish. That is the true tragedy of all of this.

The same kind of "threat" that French President Sarkozy said as well. Do you condemn him for saying it or is this just a Bush thing?
Sarkozy's dream of being a Bushevik puppet is finally coming true.

Except for the fact that there were numerous other reasons that we invaded Iraq for which were stated in Congress's declaration of war.
Yeah, and the main reasons? Unsubstantiated fear. That and oil wells. Oh and a huge windfall for Bush's business buddies. :eek:

Let them. It really means nothing. If you really want Congress to do something, let them impeach him even though he did jackshit to be impeached on.
Impeaching Bush at this time would not be advantageous for the Dems. Censuring Bush would certainly be the better way to go.

Oh brother. Bush is not fomenting anything. He does not want a war with Iran anymore than the UN wants to enforce its rules.
See my reply to Andaluciae.

Sarkozy's dream of being a Bushevik puppet is finally coming true.

I love these phrases that you use.

Yeah, and the main reasons? Unsubstantiated fear. That and oil wells. Oh and a huge windfall for Bush's business buddies. :eek:

Somehow I do not think that made it into the declaration

Impeaching Bush at this time would not be advantageous for the Dems. Censuring Bush would certainly be the better way to go.

Won't happen due to politics.

See my reply to Andaluciae.

I did. It makes you look like an idiot.

I did. It makes you look like an idiot.
I don't believe that you posses the acumen to make such judgements. :p

Actually, I believe that your overuse of the word reflects on your limited ability to respond to the debate in a reasoned manner.

I don't believe that you posses the acumen to make such judgements. :p

Actually, I believe that your overuse of the word reflects on your limited ability to respond to the debate in a reasoned manner.

Nice try at flamebaiting.

Somehow I do not think that made it into the declaration


And do you honestly think "We're going to war so I can make American taxpayers pump lots of money into my pals at Haliburton" would fly? Or "I want to finish what daddy started."

pfft.

He's a politician. Did you expect honesty?

He's a politician. Did you expect honesty?

I never expect honesty from ANY politician regardless of political party.

Nice try at flamebaiting.
It was a polite reply to your obvious flamebait. :D

Um yea...if you truly want to believe that then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco. Iran has been funding the insurgency and thus we have a statement by Bush about it.

Grow up CH. You are starting to sound like a leftist political hack and that has never been you.
Proof. Now. Or go home.

I have a son the same age as you

...

WHAT?! I thought you were twenty-two, not forty-five! (Or possibly older, given your son would be twenty-five.)

Ah.

Even then, it can only be activated when someone else says "I don't know."

Even then, it can only be activated when someone else says "I don't know."

Sort of like the Spanish Inquisition?

Sort of like the Spanish Inquisition?

Yes, but nowadays everyone expects that.

I never expect honesty from ANY politician regardless of political party.

So why are you putting any weight on that declaration of reasons when you know it's a bunch of lies?

Yes, but nowadays everyone expects that.

I don't.

I never expect honesty from ANY politician regardless of political party.

LOL, from someone who is effectively the equivalent of the neocon wetdream I find that statement comic.

Proof. Now. Or go home.

At the same time, sources within the hard-line Iranian revolutionary made plain that restraint in Iraq was contingent on international treatment of Iran in other aspects of policy, such as Iranian nuclear ambitions. internationally isolated, Iran maintains links with dissidence groups, such as the Lebanese Hizballah, as useful levers in foreign policy negotiation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A Shiite Muslim militia involved in the warfare between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq has received "millions of dollars" and an assortment of weaponry from Iran, a senior U.S. military official says.

The official said Iran -- which is overwhelmingly Shiite and largely Persian -- tries to spread its largess to other militants as well, but can wield only so much influence throughout Iraq -- which, while predominantly Shiite, is largely Arab.

He said Iran is not trying to fuel civil war in Iraq, but rather is trying to make sure it retains some influence with whichever group comes out on top in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq says Iran is giving advanced weaponry to militias in Iraq, Reuters reported Saturday.

"They are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers," Gen. David Petraeus said Saturday, stepping up accusations that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq.

and further down that same article:

But Iraq National Security Adviser Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie told NPR during a visit to Washington, D.C., last week that Iran is meddling in Iraq's affairs and setting up a proxy war in his country.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15084571

LOL, from someone who is effectively the equivalent of the neocon wetdream I find that statement comic.

You would but if you ask any of my friends (both democrat and republican) they would tell you exactly the samething.

...

WHAT?! I thought you were twenty-two, not forty-five! (Or possibly older, given your son would be twenty-five.)
Where the heck did you get the idea that I was only twenty two? My oldest son just turned 24 in September.

BTW, I have never divulged my age here on NSG.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html

and further down that same article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15084571
Since when should we believe US forces? These may be allegations only? Where is the actual proof?

Where the heck did you get the idea that I was only twenty two? My oldest son just turned 24 in September.

BTW, I have never divulged my age here on NSG.

The same way I got the idea that Whereyouthinkyougoing was eighteen before she revealed she was actually thirty-four: you both act much younger than you really are. I don't mean a lack of maturity...just a feeling of youth.

Since when should we believe US forces? These may be allegations only? Where is the actual proof?

I see you ignored what the iraqis are saying. That's fine. Just ignore it. I already knew you would not believe it because you are blinded.

You know what really baffles me about this whole matter here?

It's not that there's any debate as to the appropriateness of a war with Iran, there's practically agreement that it's a bad idea. No, what's weird is the fact that the NSG "Hawks" seem to be far more convinced that there won't be a war with Iran than the NSG "Doves". It's really odd, isn't it?

You know what really baffles me about this whole matter here?

It's not that there's any debate as to the appropriateness of a war with Iran, there's practically agreement that it's a bad idea. No, what's weird is the fact that the NSG "Hawks" seem to be far more convinced that there won't be a war with Iran than the NSG "Doves". It's really odd, isn't it?

Very very odd. Its funny really :D

You know what really baffles me about this whole matter here?

It's not that there's any debate as to the appropriateness of a war with Iran, there's practically agreement that it's a bad idea. No, what's weird is the fact that the NSG "Hawks" seem to be far more convinced that there won't be a war with Iran than the NSG "Doves". It's really odd, isn't it?Your idea of Hawks/Doves is an opinion.. your opinion is probably in line with the Republican party concept of Doves/Hawks.

I have some non-US or non-Republican friends whose concept of "Dove".. is quite different..

.. because you are blinded.Patriotism blinds. Obviously I am not talking about him.. because he is NOT the blind one
:D

Thanks - I was parodying George Bush' reaction to be honest, though if I think that's going to fool people into thinking I could actually remember Hans Blix' name or nationality then the only person I'm fooling is myself.

Heh heh.

Patriotism blinds. Obviously I am not talking about him.. because he is NOT the blind one
:D

Irrationality and ideology blind, actually.

Patriotism, though, need not necessarily blind.

Your idea of Hawks/Doves is an opinion.. your opinion is probably in line with the Republican party concept of Doves/Hawks.

I have some non-US or non-Republican friends whose concept of "Dove".. is quite different..

Oh, and what might that be, or is this just more of your "it's only acceptable if it's not from the US" tripe?

The same way I got the idea that Whereyouthinkyougoing was eighteen before she revealed she was actually thirty-four: you both act much younger than you really are. I don't mean a lack of maturity...just a feeling of youth.
Thanks. :)

Well I guess we are only as old as we feel and sometimes I do feel much younger than I am.

You know what really baffles me about this whole matter here?

It's not that there's any debate as to the appropriateness of a war with Iran, there's practically agreement that it's a bad idea. No, what's weird is the fact that the NSG "Hawks" seem to be far more convinced that there won't be a war with Iran than the NSG "Doves". It's really odd, isn't it?
That is because the "doves" will remain highly skeptical until George W has to hand over the keys to White House.

Although the "Hawks" may be convinced that there won't be a war with Iran, there are many that would love to see it happen ASAP.

Although the "Hawks" may be convinced that there won't be a war with Iran, there are many that would love to see it happen ASAP.

Except that they are not in power nor controling the military. Nothing can be done without A)Presidential Authority or B)a declaration of war by Congress. Other than that...nothing will happen and nothing will happen for quite sometime.

Nothing can be done without A)Presidential Authority.
This is the biggest problem and to think that you helped him achieve that "authority".......

Except that they are not in power nor controling the military. Nothing can be done without A)Presidential Authority or B)a declaration of war by Congress. Other than that...nothing will happen and nothing will happen for quite sometime.
Your success rate as a prognasticator is extremely poor, and I believe that your take on this whole situation is way off the mark.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece)

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
Bush is a warmonger. He doesn't issue statement or warnings, he issues threats!!

Bush’s War Heating Up—Attack on Iran Imminent (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20RO20070108&articleId=4384)

For at least a year the Bush administration has been fomenting and financing terrorist groups within Iran. Seymour Hersh and former CIA officials have exposed the Bush administration’s support of ethnic-minority groups within Iran that are on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Last April US Representative Dennis Kucinich wrote a detailed letter to President Bush about US interference in Iran’s internal affairs. He received no reply.
Perhaps you will be able to get your pompoms out of the closet sooner than you thought? :eek:

That is because the "doves" will remain highly skeptical until George W has to hand over the keys to White House.

That sounds kinda like...fearmongering ;)

Although the "Hawks" may be convinced that there won't be a war with Iran, there are many that would love to see it happen ASAP.

Thank God those folks aren't in authority positions, then, no? After all, the neocons either got booted (Rumsfeld, Pearl, Feith, Wolfowitz, et. al) and replaced by realists (Gates is the obvious example) or converted (Darth Cheney) back to realism. The Congress would never authorize action against Iran, and the administration is the lamest lame duck admin in decades. The neoconservative ideology is dead, and its influence is nil.

Your success rate as a prognasticator is extremely poor, and I believe that your take on this whole situation is way off the mark.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece)

Even more members of the defense community who are thoroughly opposed to a war with Iran.


Bush is a warmonger. He doesn't issue statement or warnings, he issues threats!!

Bush’s War Heating Up—Attack on Iran Imminent (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20RO20070108&articleId=4384)

Let's disregard the mere possibility that he's trying to intimidate Iran, and focus on the claims that there's been a ramp-up to war with Iran. In fact, let's look at the fact that people have been running about these forums claiming that there is an oncoming ramp-up to war since February of 2005, when a thread was started with a very similar article claiming that there would be a war by June 2005. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399985) I was right then, wasn't I?

Or how about this one from three years ago? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347320)

Or how about this one? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392793)

Or this one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390371)

Face facts. It's not amusing anymore. It's not original, creative or particularly intelligent to keep going on about how the US is going to launch an attack on Iran. It's boring, lame, wrong and stupid. Stop it. It's fearmongering, just like Bushie does with terrorism. It's the bogeyman of the left.

Perhaps you will be able to get your pompoms out of the closet sooner than you thought? :eek:

I am opposed to war with Iran under virtually all circumstances.

Iran is not Iraq, there are more people, and the people of Iran are different from the people of Iraq.

I think the IAEA needs to inspect US nuclear facilities, I think they are proliferating weapons and need to be stopped with unilateral actions.

Iran is not Iraq, there are more people, and the people of Iran are different from the people of Iraq.
Not to mention the sheer amount of Basij insurgents they would have to fight, something like 20 million upwards, and that's only if they get through the conventional forces.

Mohamed ElBaradei? Sounds Iranian to me.

Didn't that German guy - Hans Whateverschmidt - say there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

It means nothing, nothing I tell you!



uh, Iraq didn't have any wmds before the US invaded.

of course, maybe you type-o'd, so i apoligize before hand.

The US already knew Saddam had no WMD's, he used them all on the Kurds and Iranians after US chemical industrial companies sold the gas to him.

That sounds kinda like...fearmongering ;)
Actually, this is the fear mongering (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/28/bush-fear-mongers-iranian-nuclear-holocaust/):

Fear-mongering Bush warns of Iranian ‘nuclear holocaust.’In his speech about Iraq to the American Legion today, President Bush warned that allowing Iran to pursue “technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”
Where did we hear this stuff before?

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Bush in his speech, uses the word "nuclear" 20 times regarding Iraq's capabilities.

That was 5 months before the US started dropping bombs on Iraq.

Damn... What is it with the 'H' word being blurted out so much.

This is the biggest problem and to think that you helped him achieve that "authority".......

Kerry did far more to put Bush in office than Bush himself unfortunately.

That sounds kinda like...fearmongering ;)

Something the left is very good at.

Thank God those folks aren't in authority positions, then, no? After all, the neocons either got booted (Rumsfeld, Pearl, Feith, Wolfowitz, et. al) and replaced by realists (Gates is the obvious example) or converted (Darth Cheney) back to realism. The Congress would never authorize action against Iran, and the administration is the lamest lame duck admin in decades. The neoconservative ideology is dead, and its influence is nil.

THANK YOU Andaluciae.

Your success rate as a prognasticator is extremely poor, and I believe that your take on this whole situation is way off the mark.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece)

Thank you. You just proved my point.

Bush is a warmonger. He doesn't issue statement or warnings, he issues threats!!

Only in your mind my very young apprentice.

Bush’s War Heating Up—Attack on Iran Imminent (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20RO20070108&articleId=4384)

Really? WOW!!! No it isn't dude. Only a fearmonger like yourself and others on these boards think it is imminent

Perhaps you will be able to get your pompoms out of the closet sooner than you thought? :eek:

*snorts* grow up CH! Its obvious you are drooling for a war here while most of us rational folks do not want one.

Actually, this is the fear mongering (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/28/bush-fear-mongers-iranian-nuclear-holocaust/):

Nice try with that for it is obvious that it is a biased article. And besides, it betrays your previous point anyway.

That was 5 months before the US started dropping bombs on Iraq.

Still trying to say that we are going to attack Iran? *dies of laughter*

Corny, let's set aside what Canuck has said for a moment so you can answer me a couple questions. I have to truly wonder how you view President Bush. Please note there is no underlying assumptions to these questions...it is simple curiosity.

How do you feel President Bush has handled the Iraq War?

How do you feel he has handled domestic matters?

Would you call yourself a supporter and why or why not?

Do you believe that there will be a war with Iran? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you believe that Bush is dedicated to peace?

And finally, a somewhat unrelated question:

Who do you currently support for President in 2008, and why?

Corny, let's set aside what Canuck has said for a moment so you can answer me a couple questions. I have to truly wonder how you view President Bush. Please note there is no underlying assumptions to these questions...it is simple curiosity.

Seems fair to me. Hopefully this will set the record straight.

How do you feel President Bush has handled the Iraq War?

Badly!

How do you feel he has handled domestic matters?

He is doing ok but not as well as I had hoped.

Would you call yourself a supporter and why or why not?

I'm not a blind supporter of Bush. I support him on a few things but not alot.

Do you believe that there will be a war with Iran? If so, why? If not, why not?

No I do not believe so. There will only be a war if Iran starts something. No one wants a war with Iran.

Do you believe that Bush is dedicated to peace?

To a point yes.

And finally, a somewhat unrelated question:

Who do you currently support for President in 2008, and why?

No one at the moment for none of them have stood out for my support.

I think the IAEA needs to inspect US nuclear facilities, I think they are proliferating weapons and need to be stopped with unilateral actions.

There's actually a virtual library of international agreements pertaining to US-IAEA relations, an example is this mundane, commonplace agreement (http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/usiaea1.htm). IAEA inspectors do work in the US on a whole variety of issues, safety of civilian nuclear installations is not the least of them.

Actually, this is the fear mongering (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/28/bush-fear-mongers-iranian-nuclear-holocaust/):

Sounds more like a left-winger fear mongering the usual OMGLOLZORZ AM3R1KKKA W4RR!!11!!!!!shift1!!!!! tripe.


Where did we hear this stuff before?

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Bush in his speech, uses the word "nuclear" 20 times regarding Iraq's capabilities.

That was 5 months before the US started dropping bombs on Iraq.

Maybe, just maybe, nuclear issues are indeed at hand. You ever thought about that possibility?

Seriously, if I dig enough into the past of NSG I'm virtually guaranteed to develop a cycle of these sorts of threads, where people think the US is going to invade Iran. The US wants nothing to do with it, our military is threatening that if it happens, the leadership will resign, and the populace and the Congress loathe the idea. It's not going to happen, stop being irrational.

Maybe, just maybe, nuclear issues are indeed at hand. You ever thought about that possibility?

More likely not or he feels that Iran has a right to them even though it violates the NPT. The weapons that is.

Seems fair to me. Hopefully this will set the record straight.

Hopefully, though it will require both sides to stop accusing one of being something and actually be honest about both their opinions and the opinions of their opponents.

Now for follow up questions.


Badly!

Erm, how badly, exactly? Can you be specific?


He is doing ok but not as well as I had hoped.

Again, specifics on exactly what you mean.


I'm not a blind supporter of Bush. I support him on a few things but not alot.

What do you support him on, and why?


No I do not believe so. There will only be a war if Iran starts something. No one wants a war with Iran.

Fair enough.

To a point yes.

That point would be...?


No one at the moment for none of them have stood out for my support.
Okay, if you were required this instant to choose a candidate, who would you choose right now? (If you want, you can go ahead and name a candidate per party. That should make choices easier.)

I know this is probably becoming mildly annoying, but I figure it makes sense to do this to finally clarify where you stand so we don't misunderstand you in the future.

Only in your mind my very young apprentice.
There is absolutely no way that I could possibly be your apprentice. :p
You are a warmonger, and I believe in peace and diplomacy.

Really? WOW!!! No it isn't dude. Only a fearmonger like yourself and others on these boards think it is imminent
Who in their right mind expects Dubya to do the right thing? His mistakes are far too numerous for him to be trusted!!

*snorts* grow up CH! Its obvious you are drooling for a war here while most of us rational folks do not want one.
You consider yourself a "rational folk"?

I say nuke'em now. That way they can't nuke anyone if they are radioactive dust. :-D
That is the way that you want to resolve conflict with North Korea.

Might as well attack now since they have been threatening Israel.
That is the way that you want to resolve conflict with Iran.

There is absolutely no way that I could possibly be your apprentice. :p
You are a warmonger, and I believe in peace and diplomacy.

HAHA!! And yet you are the one running around like chicken little yelling "War with Iran is coming" Get off it. I'm not buying it.

Who in their right mind expects Dubya to do the right thing? His mistakes are far too numerous for him to be trusted!!

name me one politician that can be trusted.

You consider yourself a "rational folk"?

Yes!

That is the way that you want to resolve conflict with North Korea.

Wrong! Peace prevailed and I was very delighted that it did! So go blow that one out of your tailpipe.

That is the way that you want to resolve conflict with Iran.

Bullshit again!

HAHA!! And yet you are the one running around like chicken little yelling "War with Iran is coming" Get off it. I'm not buying it.
George Bush has proven that he cannot be trusted. Everyone needs to be wary of his failed foreign policy.

Wrong! Peace prevailed and I was very delighted that it did! So go blow that one out of your tailpipe.
Peace prevailed despite your stated desire to nuke North Korea. :)

Bullshit again!
Are you denying that you wanted to see Iran nuked? If so, your own words betray you:

Might as well attack now since they have been threatening Israel.

Hell we should just blow Iran up now and blame the EU for it but let the EU deal with it. They say they can so lets see them do it.

Wasn't that the reason that Israel went into Lebanon last summer because of a cross border attack to capture soldiers? To bad no one has the guts to attack Iran for doing the samething.

You can yell bullshit all you want and live in denial, but you aren't fooling anyone. I can find many more examples of your warmongering AND fear mongering.

One of the saddest days in recent history was when the US started dropping bombs on Baghdad in March of 2003. The world does not want to see a repeat of that in Iran. Vigilance is the responsibility of everyone. We can hear the words of war now....let's hope that saner minds prevail.

George Bush has proven that he cannot be trusted. Everyone needs to be wary of his failed foreign policy.

I am wary! However, I am not going to jump to the conclusion that he is going to attack Iran. Something you really should think about.

Peace prevailed despite your stated desire to nuke North Korea. :)

You really love to keep saying that except that, in reality, its not true I wanted North Korea nuked. The only way I would support that is if they actually detonated a nuke over Soeul, Tokyo, Honolulu, Juneau, or any other city.

Are you denying that you wanted to see Iran nuked?

Of course I do not want Iran nuked. Are you nuts or something? Oh wait...we already know that you are!

You can yell bullshit all you want and live in denial, but you aren't fooling anyone. I can find many more examples of your warmongering AND fear mongering.

And when actually taken with my personality, you must assuredly know that no one here is exactly as he appears. Remember CH, this is the internet.

One of the saddest days in recent history was when the US started dropping bombs on Baghdad in March of 2003. The world does not want to see a repeat of that in Iran. Vigilance is the responsibility of everyone. We can hear the words of war now....let's hope that saner minds prevail.

And saner minds will prevail. That's what we have been telling you but for some unknown reason, you are not listening.

You really love to keep saying that except that, in reality, its not true I wanted North Korea nuked. The only way I would support that is if they actually detonated a nuke over Soeul, Tokyo, Honolulu, Juneau, or any other city.
You stated:

I say nuke'em now. That way they can't nuke anyone if they are radioactive dust. :-D
What is the point of debating with you if you are going to outright lie?

Of course I do not want Iran nuked. Are you nuts or something? Oh wait...we already know that you are!
No you don't want to nuke Iranians, you just want to BBQ them. :eek:

SWEET! Warm up the missile silos boys. We're going to have ourselves a bbq.

Yup, you are Mr. Pacifist. :rolleyes:

If a foreign nation bombed the US Congress, there'll be nothing left of that foreign nation.

You stated:

Nice try for you forgot to look at the :D next to it. Did I mean the statement? Hell no!

What is the point of debating with you if you are going to outright lie?

Funny! I was about to ask you the samething!

No you don't want to nuke Iranians, you just want to BBQ them. :eek:

Once again...you are misrepresenting my statement. Do I want Iran to actually be nuked? No I don't.

Yup, you are Mr. Pacifist. :rolleyes:

Oh brother. Now you are trying to build a non-sequiter. If my nation is attacked, I expect to attack that nation right back. I never said I was a pacifist anyway.

Nice try for you forgot to look at the :D next to it. Did I mean the statement? Hell no!

Funny! I was about to ask you the samething!

Once again...you are misrepresenting my statement. Do I want Iran to actually be nuked? No I don't.

Oh brother. Now you are trying to build a non-sequiter. If my nation is attacked, I expect to attack that nation right back. I never said I was a pacifist anyway.
Whatever!! Talking out of both sides of your mouth = future ignore.

Corneliu 2 is funny.

Whatever!! Talking out of both sides of your mouth = future ignore.

Not my fault you have me figured out wrong.

Corneliu 2 is funny.

It's better than your absurdism. *shrug*