| Author | Message | ||
     tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4862 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just because one supported the war in 2003 doesn't mean one has to stubbornly, adamantly support the war until the end of time. Smart Dems understand they were sold a bill of goods, and the grounds on which they supported the war (WMDs, etc.) were not true. Congress isn't responding to the polling numbers. The people polled and the Dem congresspeople are reacting to the same information -- the war was a mistake. But foolish Republicans either convince themselves the the grounds were true, or mulishly insist they've got to continue supporting it anyway. I say foolish Republicans here to distinguish them from non-foolish ones like Buckley who say it's time to get out. There's nothing hypocritical about realizing you made a mistake and changing your mind. I mean, you leave a note for your wife that you're going out to buy a gallon of milk and she calls your cell and says "I bought some this afternoon." Do you buy one anyway, because to not do so would be hypocritical? There's no honor in driving off a cliff when instead you could be putting on the brakes and turning around. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1366 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops: In your last post, you wrote "In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. We expected Bush to use the UN not force. There were no WMDs, and therefore the whole resolution is based on a lie. Bush manipulated the dems and the 21 senators all democratic, plus Lincoln Chaffee, that refused to sign are the only ones that were right." Your logic becomes awfully muddled in the above. US Senate approval to attack Iraq based on UN Resolutions is very different from expecting Bush to use the UN to address the Iraqi issue. And it is not there were no WMDs but that there were no WMDs found. Another the big difference. The entire world thought Saddam had WMDs at the time of US military intervention, including the UN. And the resoution was based on a lie? Whose lie? You mean Bush came to the UN and fooled the entire world? And Bush "manipulated" the Dems into coming along for the ride? Do you honestly believe this? You don't see any political back-peddling being done by key Democrats? I really don't have to supplies you their remarks on the matter do I? And be careful, because you are giving little credit to the Dems and too much credit to Bush. As apparent from your previous posts, you are another Dem who hums along to the "Bush is dumb" tune. If Bush is dumb then how is he so capable of manipulating so many... Most of you on this board want to the Republicans to admit invading Iraq was a mistake and to change their minds but you won't hold Dems responsible for "changing their minds/positions" on Iraq's WMDs...Why? Because you agree with them? Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? -SLK Tom-I think you are the first person I ever heard refer to Buckley as a Republican...he is actually the father of modern conservatism...slight difference but still an important one.... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1002 Registered: 2-2004 |
Tom, Nice attempt at justifying your support for Dems who voted for war. You might as well vote for a Republican since those Dems are so easily manipulated by a half man, half monky President. For the dumbest President ever, he sure has found a way to make the Dems do whatever he wants. As for changing your mind here is how I see it - your wife asks you to buy some milk and reasons it is for the good of the family. You buy some, take it home, decide to take a sip, take off the cap, pour some in a glass, then open the refrig door and see another gallon already in there. So you, being a good Dem who just realized your wife already bought a gallon put the cap back on the milk and take it back to the store and confront the manager when he won't let you return it. You then proceed to call him names and make quite a scene all because you are mad at your own wife, but you take it out on the store manager. You anti-war Dems have no one to blame but your own darn party. Don't blame hawks for being hawks. Blame doves who pose as hawks. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1288 Registered: 9-2004 |
SLK-- "but you won't hold Dems responsible" Ehh not true, Ned Lamont has challenged Lieberman in Conn. If you read DU, you would see the hatered of DINOS like Hillary. DEMS like Fiengold, Pelosi, Kucinnich. They voted no on the IWR, IIRC But I also recall that Bush promised the us 2 votes, we never got the second vote. Bush just ordered the Invasion....Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? AS far as all intell that was given to Congress, it was all scrubbed, thru the Office of Special Planning, I will google it, if you like. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html yawn............. too friggin easy. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1368 Registered: 10-2005 |
FOJ- You use one of the most powerful search engines on the planet (Google) and you come up with Mother Jones? Really now.... And citing the DU is nothing I would do in public... -SLK | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1289 Registered: 9-2004 |
Heres the No votes in the House: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml ...seems like a lot of DEMs voted NO. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4863 Registered: 5-2001 |
well if you don't like Mother Jones read the friggin' Downing Street Memo. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1004 Registered: 2-2004 |
So can I assume you angry libs will go after those 81 Dem Reps who voted Yea? Something tells me you guys won't. I understand politics is a dirty game, but don't pretend you guys have any higher ground than we do. We are all doing what we have to do. If there is a Dem on this board planning to vote against an incumbent Dem based on their yea vote, I'd like to hear from you. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1290 Registered: 9-2004 |
Heres a lovely DU bit on the pro war DEMS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132 &topic_id=584473 From July 2004. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1297 Registered: 10-2004  |
tjohn - yes I was fully against the war before the invasion. SLK - youve already been answered. Bush knew prior to going in that there were no WMD because the inspectors on the ground told him so. It still did not deter him from going in. Please be careful in defending your beloved President Bust. He lied and lied and lied in order to get us into a conflict. tjohn is right in one respect - he cowed the senate into voting for war as all of them were scared not to stand behind Bust after 9/11. Too bad that they were fed the cherry picked intelligence not realizing until to late that President Bust and his whole administration are in it for alterior motives. SLK - I in my eyes you have lost all potential credibility as an independent thinker. The evidence is before you but you refuse to believe it. Please never again talk about how you think for yourself. Southerner - this is not about elections. This is about life and death and money. You can support whatever you please but your election rap is bs. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4864 Registered: 5-2001 |
Having that kind of reaction to a gallon of milk would be a bit excessive. Hardly worth the trip is it? On the other hand, the Iraq war is projected by some to ultimately cost a trillion dollars. How much milk would a trillion dollars buy? Picture Niagara falls, both the American and Canadian sides. Imagine it's milk instead of water. How long would it take for a trillion dollars of milk, at about $3 a pop, take to go over Niagara Falls? More than five days. It's also enough to fill Round Valley more than six times. For that, I might get a little snippy. And of course, that's just the money. There's a lot of dead american soldiers who didn't have to be that way. The Iraq war was a big mistake. BIIIGGG mistake. Unless Diebold works overtime, Republicans are going to pay. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1292 Registered: 9-2004 |
Southerner- do you read? Ned Lamont is running agianst Leiberman. Lieberman has stated if he loses the DEM Primary he will run as an Indie. Just an example of DEMS fighting amoungst themsleves, But you have to ignore this example, it doesn't fit your world view. You should know me by know, I will make my point, I will cite sources. SO when I tell you DEMs eat their young, trust me. They do... to a fault. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1005 Registered: 2-2004 |
Foj, I hear you. Tom, I understand your view. I think you are wrong but you have your viewpoint. Let me ask a non-partisan question then. Based on your last sentence, if the Dems fail to take back any part of Congress then what will you say? If you say the Repubs will pay for taking us into war and they are swept from power then I'll agree with your astute analysis. If, however, the Repubs once again win, will you be able to say that maybe the majority wanted to go to war and that you are in the minority. How will you reconcile a Repub victory? Or will you simply use the Americans are stupid way out? Or even Diebold? Hoops, You only think elections are bs because your team keeps losing them. Ask the Lakers if game 7's matter or not. Listening to Kobe's press conference was like listening to Kerry and Edwards. It didn't come close to Gore's concession however. That was one for the ages. The poor guy could not and still has not accepted a loss to the dumbest person who ever graduated from Yale. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4866 Registered: 5-2001 |
In all honesty I'm not sure how I'd reconcile the Republicans keeping both houses. There are too many variables. If the election were today, and they won, I would be convinced that it was fraudulent. Recent polls show that even one-third of Republicans don't believe they should keep the majority. Dems are highly motivated and mad as hell. If not fraudulent, the system would be deeply, seriously broken if it were that difficult for it to reflect the will of the people. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1009 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, You are reasonable so don't go Diebold on me yet. There will be plenty of time for you to enter Fojland and tulipworld. I'll agree with you. If the election were tody my boys would be in jeopardy of losing the House. Here's my view of the polls. You and most posters live about 24 miles from the deep bastion of Democratic liberalism of NYC. Don't you think that maybe the reporting is a little slanted, just slightly. I guarantee my papers down here are just as slanted the other direction. My advice to you is don't expect a NY/NJ paper to give you a proper perspective of the rest of the country. Would you say the Savannah Morning News or Macon Telegraph would give an accurate reflection of northeast political leanings? I doubt it. While I do see what polling says it doesn't give any indication of the results from these polls. I'll agree a lot of Repubs and Cons are not happy with certain things Bush has done. We all have our pet issues and often decide if we like or dislike someone based on a single issue or two. I just do not see a disapproval of Bush via the polls as an approval of Dems. The libs on this board continually point to polls that say Repubs are dissatisfied and have low approvals for Bush. I see this everyday, and I am part of it on certain issues. However, for you libs to make the giant step that disgruntled Repubs will vote Democratic is grossly wrong. And I already hear the argument that they won't vote Dem but they won't vote at all. Again, a total disregard for Red State America. In small town America, voting is a social event and those little stickers will make people come to the polls. No one wants to be the only one at work or at church dinner without a sticker. The big cities which are typically liberal is where most of the voter apathy appears. So, Tom, before you jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, keep an open mind and realize, why we Repubs may not be thrilled with Bush we have much deeper feelings about a Speaker Pelosi and going backwards (in our opinion). This is why I am confident the entire Congress stays red. We were the minority for so long that we don't want to go back even if our horse may not be the best. And if all of what I say is untrue, then I'll simply go with the hard to unseat incumbent theory. Either way, time will tell and one side will be right and one side will be wrong. And one side will yell fraud. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4869 Registered: 5-2001 |
Those are all really good points, it's going to be a very tight thing no matter what. But don't dismiss those of us who distrust Diebold as conspiracy theorists. Unlike alien abductions, second gunmen or radio transmitters implanted in your skull, election fraud is as American as apple pie and as common as dirt. I caught a little bit of "Gangs of New York" on cable yesterday evening. During the election scene towards the end, Boss Tweed tells one of his people that the first rule of politics is that it isn't the people who vote who decide, it's the people who count the votes. "Keep counting," he orders. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3498 Registered: 3-2004  |
"Tulipworld" may be your synonym for looney land, southerner, but at least it's not antebellum. (And that's the CIVIL war, nothing more current.) | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1015 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, Your right. What is kind of funny is if Gore would have got the favorable ruling from the SC, we neo-cons would have done the same thing (calling him appointed not elected and going after all kind of voter fraud including Diebold) and the libs would have been doing the same the same we did (discount the appointed angle and call us conspiracy nutjobs). I agree it will be close and in reality whoever controls Congress won't get anything done until after 2008. If the Repubs maintain they have proven they don't get much done (which is fine from my less government view). And if the Dems get power what will they really be able to do with a Repub Pres other than try and impeach. And there aren't enough lefty wacko libs in Congress to get this done (my redneck Dems won't let this happen). Part of my long term big picture view would say that it might do the Repubs some good to lose all or part of Congress this year. With a Repub Pres the Dems will be stalled and it would give us the "minority" moniker to blame everything on the Dems heading into 2008. It would really energize our base. My big concern as a con is that we maintain power this year and then just limp into 2008 which would really concern me with the Dems having a one shot chance to retake everything. If that were to happen they might actually be able to get some liberal legislation through which is my worst case scenario. Gridlock is acceptable but liberal laws is not acceptable and I would turn into a conservative tulip. I'm sure there are a few libs out there on MOL who probably hope the Repubs do keep Congress so they can have that all or nothing proposition in 2008. If the Dems win back the House or the Senate us conservatives are well prepared to play the blame game on a much higher level than the Dems have played for the last 6 years. And they have been pretty good. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1296 Registered: 9-2004 |
Damn, Southerner, 2 posts in a row, where you made sense. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1017 Registered: 2-2004 |
Foj, We are similar. We know what we believe and not afraid to let our opinion be known. Of course, I think you're a total wackjob who spends way too much time researching stuff that doesn't change anyone's mind, but at least you are passionate and understand the importance of not only having ideas (every breathing person on the planet has an opinion), but also gaining the power to put these ideas into use, by winning! Now, could you please give me a good old fashioned thread where you talk to yourself. Lately, it seems like tulip interferes in your conversation. I'll pick the topic - how about, a listing and discussion of all the previous Democratic Speakers of the House. I'd be interested to dredge up the hacks who screwed us conservatives for decades. And you could bask in the pure abuse of power by the Dems. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5591 Registered: 8-2003 |
tom -- if republicans win it doesn't necessarily follow that it's fraudulent. Poll your warm body that answers the phone who happens to be registered to vote and Democrats generically come out ahead. In 06, it will be about who turns out in an off-year election. Democrats aren't at all inspiring, and they'll have to work very very hard. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1298 Registered: 9-2004 |
My research is for Articles, and for "other purposes" I find it disgusting when DEMs in Congress dont keep up with Current events, and have to be told what to do by folks like me, roaming the halls trying to make appointments at a REPS office. My most recent visit was with Senator Lautenburg. My Censure Bush petion is just getting started and I will have to make an appointment with Russ Fiengold. Except for a few of my whackjob tirades which were MOL specific, I usually have the research lying around, when an MOLer brings up a germaine topic. Thanks for the effort on those recent posts, you sounded almost human there. It was a pleasure to read something from you with a modicum of intellect put into the post. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1372 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops- I appear to partisanly (sp?) defend Bush only because you partisanly (sp?) attack him. And why did Bush lie? Answer this question with even a remotely coherent answer and I will switch camps tomorrow. But I am confident you or anyone else can't. -SLK | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1300 Registered: 9-2004 |
SLK-- easy start here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ And then read my thread that I started just for you. Filling your requests. otherwise................ boring ......oh yeah its called one thing and one thing only: Hegemony | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1299 Registered: 10-2004 |
SLK - you are lying to yourself. If you havent surmised through the majority of the posts on this board and all the evidence previously submitted, I dont need to provide you with any more. Here is an image to make your heart soar with glee.  House of Bush, House of Saud bush lies Of course you wouldnt actually read, nor would you understand. Bush bashing, no. Administration criticizing, raising my voice against wrongs commited against the common citizen, protesting policies that will leave my children in debt. Love your president SLK. Your one of the very few left. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1611 Registered: 9-2004  |
Seems Iran wanted to talk diplomatically, however, as usual the US refused. Despite the bluster of its president, Iran's rulers appear inclined to echo the call for direct talks, having reportedly made a number of discreet approaches and also public statements expressing a willingness to negotiate. Senior former State Department and NSC officials have indicated that Tehran sought, in a message relayed via Swiss diplomats, to initiate talks on all matters of concern to Washington, with the blessing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in mid-2003, but were rebuffed by Bush administration hawks. Iranian leaders also reportedly made a similar call for secret negotiations on all matters of concern when Iraq's President Jalal Talabani late last year conveyed a U.S. proposal for talks specifically on Iraq. More recently, a number of former NATO foreign ministers who have recently visited Iraq have reported that "influential Iranian leaders" had expressed the desire to hold direct talks with Washington — last week even the bellicose President Ahmedinajad, during a press conference, indicated a willingness to negotiate with the U.S. if Iranian preconditions, which he did not specify, were met. Iran's leaders insist that their right to peaceful nuclear activity, including uranium enrichment, be respected. But that demand may translate into a renewed push for a compromise in which Iran accepts that its reactor fuel is enriched in Russia but is allowed to keep a small-scale facility under IAEA supervision for enrichment research purposes. The U.S. flatly rejected such a proposal in March (on the grounds that it would allow Iran to gain important nuclear know-how), but if the alternative is confrontation, it may begin to look more appealing to some of its allies. Both Germany and Russia previously hinted they could support such a plan. And as U.S. allies find themselves caught uncomfortably between Iran's defiance and a U.S. strategy that looks destined to end in confrontation, Tehran may see the advantage in launching diplomatic initiatives of its own. from: What's Behind Iran's Nuclear Bluster http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1190324,00.html?cnn=yes | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1614 Registered: 9-2004 |
Iran's Leader Writes to President Bush NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's leader has written to President Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian head of state to an American president in 27 years, a government spokesman said Monday. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki delivered the letter to the Swiss ambassador on Monday, ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told The Associated Press. The Swiss Embassy in Tehran houses a U.S. interests section. In the letter, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and the current fragile situation of the world," spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told a news conference. Elham declined to reveal more, stressing "it is not an open letter." Asked whether the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, he replied: "For the time being, it's just a letter." Elham did not mention the nuclear dispute — the main obstacle between Washington and Tehran. The United States is leading Western efforts to pass a U.N. Security Council motion censuring Iran for refusing to cease enrichment of uranium. It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his U.S. counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke off relations after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year. In Washington, Bush's National Security Adviser,Stephen Hadley, said Monday that he was not aware of any such letter, and he reiterated the administration's position on Iran's nuclear program. "The international community has been very clear to Iran what it needs to do," Hadley said on NBC's "Today" show. "It needs to return to the suspension of its nuclear activities in order to open the door for a diplomatic resolution." Before the announcement by Iran, Bush said he was paying close attention to threats made against Israel by Ahmadinejad, who recently questioned Israel's right to exist and said the country should be wiped off the map. "I think that it's very important for us to take his words very seriously," he told the German newspaper Bild on Friday, according to a transcript released Sunday. "When people speak, it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and take them seriously." Iran's top nuclear negotiator also said Monday that Tehran would like to see a peaceful solution to growing tensions with the United States. Ali Larijani was in Turkey as part of efforts to rally support for Iran's nuclear program ahead of possible Security Council action. Ahmadinejad arrives in Indonesia on Tuesday for a six-day trip to do the same. Last week, Larijani went to the United Arab Emirates to reassure its government about Iran's nuclear program, and last month former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani made a similar visit to Kuwait. The United States is backing efforts by Britain and France to win Security Council approval for a U.N. resolution that would threaten possible further measures if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity or material for nuclear warheads. The Western nations want to invoke Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter that would allow economic sanctions or military action, if necessary, to force Iran to comply with the Security Council's demand that it cease enrichment. But Russia and China, the other two veto-holding members of the Security Council members, oppose such moves. Iran claims its nuclear program is strictly for generating electricity and that it requires enrichment to be self-reliant in fuel for nuclear reactors. But the United States and its allies believe that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. On Sunday, Ahmadinejad renewed Iran's threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the Security Council imposes sanctions on Tehran. Ahmadinejad told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that Washington and its allies "don't give us anything and yet they want to impose sanctions on us." He called the threat of sanctions "meaningless." Elham said Monday that Iranians had endured sanctions before. "We're not concerned" about the prospect of U.N. sanctions, he added. Blair: Nuking Iran Would Be Absurd LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair says that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be "absolutely absurd," and said the issue had no bearing on his decision to demote his foreign secretary. Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, had described alleged U.S. contingency plans for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts." Blair previously had avoided any condemnation of the idea and defended the right of President Bush to hold all options in reserve in the showdown over Iran's nuclear program. Some analysts believed that differences over Iran led to Blair's decision on Friday to move Straw to the less-exalted position of leader of the House of Commons. Asked at a news conference whether he shared Straw's view of any thought of a nuclear strike, Blair said: "I don't know anybody who has even talked or contemplated the prospect of a nuclear strike in Iran and that would be absolutely absurd, which may be a different way of saying what you have just quoted to me. "But it (Straw's reassignment) has got nothing to do with that. Look, in the end I'm afraid as prime minister you do reshuffle your Cabinet from time to time." U.S. officials — from Bush on down — have left open the possibility of a military response if Iran does not end its nuclear ambitions. Several reports published Sunday said the administration was studying options for military strikes; one account raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites. The New Yorker magazine reported last month that the United States had intensified planning for a possible major air attack and that one option envisioned the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant. That report provoked Straw's strong response. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3029 Registered: 5-2004  |
FvF, I have posted my opinion previously, but things appear to have changed. The Iranians blinked. Previously, I did not see a way out. I did not believe the Iranians would soften their stance, and I am pretty sure the administration was unwilling to consider anything that would have allowed anything but a full scale attack. I hope the administration's strategy works. The alternative is painful to consider. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 865 Registered: 7-2003 |
Let's continue negotiating. I am sure the Iranians will honor their agreements as well as the North Koreans. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3240 Registered: 5-2001  |
Right, because their governments are comprised of people who are completely honorable, credible, honest, and forthcoming. Just like ours. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 358 Registered: 4-2006 |
If you believe the Iranians are seriously interested in resolving the issue with the US (versus buying more time) I have several bridges I would like to sell you. They really love you gullible westerners. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1031 Registered: 2-2004 |
You better sell those bridges soon. Once they get a nuke those bridges may not exist. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5369 Registered: 10-1999  |
Okay, but just to be devil's advocate - That's a volatile part of the world. We took down the old Iraqi government, but our long-term intention is for Iraq to have whatever government its people select. Afghanistan is up for grabs now, apparently. India and Pakistan have "the Bomb". Iran sits in the middle of all of this, and probably wants to be able to defend itself. Does anyone think that Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a "first strike"? And, if so, why? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 361 Registered: 4-2006 |
Nohero- It helps to read the news. Mr. Ahmadniejad has many interesting ideas and potential uses for a nuke. Where you been? The Memri web site has a lot of the Iranians happy ideas for nukes and genocidal applications. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 58 Registered: 2-2006  |
Fat- Foggo's resigned! This is like that scene in Titanic where Jack says "This is it, Rose" and starts taking her at the stern. The deck chairs will be underwater soon..... This is the end, start a spinnin' | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5371 Registered: 10-1999 |
FvF - Yes, I have read the news. Thanks for the helpful suggestion, though. I know what's been reported, about the Iranian president's bombastic speeches. I also know what's been reported about who really runs Iran these days. I also know that Iran relies on the West, and India, and China, to buy their oil (almost as much as the West, India and China rely on that oil). They're planning a pipeline into Pakistan and India, to increase those sales. So, that's why I asked my question. What is the basis for the conclusion that Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a "first strike"? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1033 Registered: 2-2004 |
ae, Apparently you are just another wingnut. Good luck in hunting. Let me know when I should expect your version of Fitzmas. Or are you just Travis in disguise. Maybe this will be bigger than watergate. Then again, maybe it will just be Watergate. Or it will be nothing at all. Again the libs reach for the golden ring. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 59 Registered: 2-2006 |
This is it, Southerner.............. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 60 Registered: 2-2006 |
Besides Southerner, who did you think I was, John Birch? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 403 Registered: 4-2006 |
Excellent article in today's Post by Iranian writer Amin Taheri about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush. Basically Taheri notes that the intent of the letter is in the traditional vein of muslim leaders calling on the non-believer to convert to islam. Essentially we and Bush should become believers or... else. Especially relevant to our discussion here is: " His letter contains a crucial message: The present regime in Iran is the enemy of the current intenational system, and is determined to undermine it, and if possible, destroy it. " Further: "...Ahmadinejad believes that the "Hidden Imam" is about to return, and that it is the duty of the Islamic Republic (of Iran) to provoke a " clash of civilizations" to hasten that return." Great guy to have a nuke, don't you liberal, secular types think? |
