So now Iran don't have nuclear weapons.
I'm a little disappointed.
Did ye ever see anything as stupid as War Criminal Bush today trying to think of something to say about this subject.
Iran never had any. They had to con the Americians into beliving they were developing them so America would think twice about invading them, which is what the next step will be now that their little spys have done all there work. Iran is the main goal for this war on terror, it is the middle of the "middle east" and if Bush doesn't get a hold of it soon his world dominatation is over.
The yanks are fast becoming less believable than the british govt and that takes some doing.
So how can we believe them now when they say Iran don't have Nukes?
Quote from: stew on December 04, 2007, 11:58:05 PM
The yanks are fast becoming less believable than the british govt and that takes some doing.
I think they long passed that point Stew
Big deal if any country has nukes anyway- they know they're gonna be fucked if they use them
Quote from: Rav67 on December 05, 2007, 11:18:41 AM
Big deal if any country has nukes anyway- they know they're gonna be fucked if they use them
How so?
Quote from: Zapatista on December 05, 2007, 12:13:42 PM
Quote from: Rav67 on December 05, 2007, 11:18:41 AM
Big deal if any country has nukes anyway- they know they're gonna be fucked if they use them
How so?
Mutually Assured Destruction -eg if Iran acquired nuclear capabilities and (as American government propaganda would have us believe) wanted to nuke Israel, then either Israel or the US would send one right back at them. Which is one reason they definitely wouldn't bother.
Then it is a big deal.
On a slightly different note... What is the craic with the value of the American Dollar? Great for Holiday goers and american exports but must be hard for them to import anything? Will it gain value when Bush goes? ???
check out a peoples history of the united states by Howard Zinn
American foreign policy is incredibly ridiculous
expansion expansion expansion
protect small countries where it benefits america to do so
attack small countries or fund a dictatorship or support another army attacking a small country if it benefits america to do so
all in the name of freedom
Iceman I cant quite make it out, is that himself of the murders and suicide on your avatar?
no - its The Ice Man Chuck Liddell - he's a UFC fighter (i fancy myself as a bit of an MMA man) ;) I taught candyman everything he knows
As has been quoted and cliched many times, the only really dangerous nuclear power is the US and still the only outfit to use nukes on civilian populations. Hereiam is absolutely correct. For example, If Bush had really believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he would never have invaded, too f@ckin risky. His da conned Saddam into invading kuwait the first time round ffs!!
Notice he hasn't made too many moves on Korea...much as he'd like to. Scared shitless of them, that's why. I've no big time for Iran, but i hope they do have nuclear capabilities, if thats what it take to keep those money hungry, corrupt animals from gaining absolute power.
I think it was Orwell (though i'm open to correction here) that said, one thing worse than 2 super powers, is 1 super power.
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 01:13:44 AM
As has been quoted and cliched many times, the only really dangerous nuclear power is the US and still the only outfit to use nukes on civilian populations. Hereiam is absolutely correct. For example, If Bush had really believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he would never have invaded, too f@ckin risky. His da conned Saddam into invading kuwait the first time round ffs!!
Notice he hasn't made too many moves on Korea...much as he'd like to. Scared shitless of them, that's why. I've no big time for Iran, but i hope they do have nuclear capabilities, if thats what it take to keep those money hungry, corrupt animals from gaining absolute power.
I think it was Orwell (though i'm open to correction here) that said, one thing worse than 2 super powers, is 1 super power.
Saddam was conned into invading Kuwait? Please do elaborate!
I think you need your head examined if you want to see a regime like Iran gain nuclear weapons capability. It will also be interesting to see if it was a coincidence that Iran suspended their programme around the time Bush invaded Iraq. If so, its about the only benefit to be gained from that debacle.
Regarding North Korea, they're in the process of dismantling their nuclear weapons programme in exchange for aid, after they reached an agreement with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Thankfully after all Bush's bravado in the early years of the decade regarding Kim Jung Il, saner heads prevailed in his administration.
It will be a long time before a US president does again what Bush did in invading Iraq. For starters, they're probably going to be stuck there for years trying to fix the mess. Second, barring another major terrorist attack, I doubt very much if the US public is going to be cowed and manipulated again by an administration in the manner that they were in the years following 9/11. Even if the threat is very real (and ignoring it potentially very costly), its going to take a hell of a lot more than "classified intelligence" and "freedom fries" to raise support amongst the American public, although the drumbeat has already started in the right-wing media that Iran is still very much a threat! Thank f**k there is only 13 months of one of the worst administrations in US history left!
There is a much more serious issue which is being completely overlooked. The US and British where imposing sanctions and calling for more sanctions against Iran. The most vulnerable people of Iran have been suffering for years due to sanctions. Now they say there are no nukes there needs to be some sort of punishment for the US and British to show how serious this issue is and if you get things that wrong you must be punished in order to prevent it in the future.
Quote from: Zapatista on December 06, 2007, 08:35:19 AM
There is a much more serious issue which is being completely overlooked. The US and British where imposing sanctions and calling for more sanctions against Iran. The most vulnerable people of Iran have been suffering for years due to sanctions. Now they say there are no nukes there needs to be some sort of punishment for the US and British to show how serious this issue is and if you get things that wrong you must be punished in order to prevent it in the future.
You can't police the world police unfortunately. Unless we get Nuala O'Loan in as a US/British ombusman.
Quote from: J70 on December 06, 2007, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 01:13:44 AM
As has been quoted and cliched many times, the only really dangerous nuclear power is the US and still the only outfit to use nukes on civilian populations. Hereiam is absolutely correct. For example, If Bush had really believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he would never have invaded, too f@ckin risky. His da conned Saddam into invading kuwait the first time round ffs!!
Notice he hasn't made too many moves on Korea...much as he'd like to. Scared shitless of them, that's why. I've no big time for Iran, but i hope they do have nuclear capabilities, if thats what it take to keep those money hungry, corrupt animals from gaining absolute power.
I think it was Orwell (though i'm open to correction here) that said, one thing worse than 2 super powers, is 1 super power.
Saddam was conned into invading Kuwait? Please do elaborate!
I think you need your head examined if you want to see a regime like Iran gain nuclear weapons capability. It will also be interesting to see if it was a coincidence that Iran suspended their programme around the time Bush invaded Iraq. If so, its about the only benefit to be gained from that debacle.
Regarding North Korea, they're in the process of dismantling their nuclear weapons programme in exchange for aid, after they reached an agreement with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Thankfully after all Bush's bravado in the early years of the decade regarding Kim Jung Il, saner heads prevailed in his administration.
It will be a long time before a US president does again what Bush did in invading Iraq. For starters, they're probably going to be stuck there for years trying to fix the mess. Second, barring another major terrorist attack, I doubt very much if the US public is going to be cowed and manipulated again by an administration in the manner that they were in the years following 9/11. Even if the threat is very real (and ignoring it potentially very costly), its going to take a hell of a lot more than "classified intelligence" and "freedom fries" to raise support amongst the American public, although the drumbeat has already started in the right-wing media that Iran is still very much a threat! Thank f**k there is only 13 months of one of the worst administrations in US history left!
J70, Dunno if you takin the p!ss or just as naive as f@ck. In general, your stance on the bush administration, I agree with, but lets be clear, the US under both Republican and Demoract
regimes in one way or another have been either complicit or fully active in terror campaigns since wwII.
To get to the con. After saddam (who i also consider to have been a evil b@st@rd) kept the Ayatolla busy for eight years or so, on behalf of the Reagan/Bush Snr administations, they cut him loose.
The agreement had been that when the US give the go ahead, Saddam would cease fire and would be treated favourably in subsequent trade. With Iraqs infrastructure shot to sh!t, he set about restoring it with Oil sales.
However, Kuwait at the same time went into 300% production and hammered the price of Oil ( many believe, under the instruction of the CI A). Saddam appealed to the US (who also have heavy influence in Kuwait) to intervene for months and received assurance after assurance, but no action. When he finally proposed taking matters into his own hands, they shrugged and didn't advise him either way.
when he moved in, they hammered him.
Not saying he was right, but he was a bit like a vicious semi-rabid pit bull, set against a smaller terrier an when he was winning the fight, having won many before for the same handler, they beat the sh!t out of him.
He gave them the excuse to exterminate him. But they're still the scum handlers and they orchestrate and choreograph 90% of the worlds conflicts under a cloak of respectability. The victors write history...........
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 11:38:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 06, 2007, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 01:13:44 AM
As has been quoted and cliched many times, the only really dangerous nuclear power is the US and still the only outfit to use nukes on civilian populations. Hereiam is absolutely correct. For example, If Bush had really believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he would never have invaded, too f@ckin risky. His da conned Saddam into invading kuwait the first time round ffs!!
Notice he hasn't made too many moves on Korea...much as he'd like to. Scared shitless of them, that's why. I've no big time for Iran, but i hope they do have nuclear capabilities, if thats what it take to keep those money hungry, corrupt animals from gaining absolute power.
I think it was Orwell (though i'm open to correction here) that said, one thing worse than 2 super powers, is 1 super power.
Saddam was conned into invading Kuwait? Please do elaborate!
I think you need your head examined if you want to see a regime like Iran gain nuclear weapons capability. It will also be interesting to see if it was a coincidence that Iran suspended their programme around the time Bush invaded Iraq. If so, its about the only benefit to be gained from that debacle.
Regarding North Korea, they're in the process of dismantling their nuclear weapons programme in exchange for aid, after they reached an agreement with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Thankfully after all Bush's bravado in the early years of the decade regarding Kim Jung Il, saner heads prevailed in his administration.
It will be a long time before a US president does again what Bush did in invading Iraq. For starters, they're probably going to be stuck there for years trying to fix the mess. Second, barring another major terrorist attack, I doubt very much if the US public is going to be cowed and manipulated again by an administration in the manner that they were in the years following 9/11. Even if the threat is very real (and ignoring it potentially very costly), its going to take a hell of a lot more than "classified intelligence" and "freedom fries" to raise support amongst the American public, although the drumbeat has already started in the right-wing media that Iran is still very much a threat! Thank f**k there is only 13 months of one of the worst administrations in US history left!
J70, Dunno if you takin the p!ss or just as naive as f@ck. In general, your stance on the bush administration, I agree with, but lets be clear, the US under both Republican and Demoract regimes in one way or another have been either complicit or fully active in terror campaigns since wwII.
Perhaps so, and I'm not defending it, but there was a hell of a lot more involved throughout those years than just the greedy, evil United States.
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 11:38:30 PM
To get to the con. After saddam (who i also consider to have been a evil b@st@rd) kept the Ayatolla busy for eight years or so, on behalf of the Reagan/Bush Snr administations, they cut him loose.
The agreement had been that when the US give the go ahead, Saddam would cease fire and would be treated favourably in subsequent trade. With Iraqs infrastructure shot to sh!t, he set about restoring it with Oil sales.
However, Kuwait at the same time went into 300% production and hammered the price of Oil ( many believe, under the instruction of the CI A). Saddam appealed to the US (who also have heavy influence in Kuwait) to intervene for months and received assurance after assurance, but no action. When he finally proposed taking matters into his own hands, they shrugged and didn't advise him either way.
when he moved in, they hammered him.
Not saying he was right, but he was a bit like a vicious semi-rabid pit bull, set against a smaller terrier an when he was winning the fight, having won many before for the same handler, they beat the sh!t out of him.
I honestly had never read up on the specifics of what led to Saddam invading Kuwait. Thanks for that starting point.
Quote from: jodyb on December 06, 2007, 11:38:30 PM
He gave them the excuse to exterminate him. But they're still the scum handlers and they orchestrate and choreograph 90% of the worlds conflicts under a cloak of respectability. The victors write history...........
Where is this cloak of respectability? Much of the world hates them, and explicitly or secretly (depending on where you are) roots for the likes of Al Qaida and Iran and so on against them. America is seen as the cause of all the ills in the world in Europe especially, but if the day comes when Islamic terrorists mount a serious campaign there, or if a serious Russian threat somehow arose again, who will they look to for protection? Its easy to sit there and point fingers, while at the same time enjoying the benefits that the Americans' particular method of handling the scum has brought to all of our lives. America and its corporations may be destroying the world manipulating governments and exploiting workers, but they keep the oil flowing and allow us to sit back and enjoy our affordable Dell/Microsoft computers, listen to our iPods, watch Hollywood films and programmes, wear Levi's and Nike and umpteen other American brands, eat at McDonald's and Starbucks, drive to work in our Fords, fly off to far lands in cheap Boeing seats, get treated at the doctor with Pfizer drugs etc. etc.
[/quote]
Its easy to sit there and point fingers, while at the same time enjoying the benefits that the Americans' particular method of handling the scum has brought to all of our lives. America and its corporations may be destroying the world manipulating governments and exploiting workers, but they keep the oil flowing and allow us to sit back and enjoy our affordable Dell/Microsoft computers, listen to our iPods, watch Hollywood films and programmes, wear Levi's and Nike and umpteen other American brands, eat at McDonald's and Starbucks, drive to work in our Fords, fly off to far lands in cheap Boeing seats, get treated at the doctor with Pfizer drugs etc. etc.
[/quote]
Cant argue with you there J70. You've called me out on my fireside socialism. But fords are sh!te an lets not forget it ;D
Quote from: J70 on December 07, 2007, 02:57:12 AM
Its easy to sit there and point fingers, while at the same time enjoying the benefits that the Americans' particular method of handling the scum has brought to all of our lives. America and its corporations may be destroying the world manipulating governments and exploiting workers, but they keep the oil flowing and allow us to sit back and enjoy our affordable Dell/Microsoft computers, listen to our iPods, watch Hollywood films and programmes, wear Levi's and Nike and umpteen other American brands, eat at McDonald's and Starbucks, drive to work in our Fords, fly off to far lands in cheap Boeing seats, get treated at the doctor with Pfizer drugs etc. etc.
"The Americans particular method of handling the scum" - you sound like a redneck Texan or an old Tory like Normann Tebitt. I'm not sure who the official scum of the world are, but I don't attribute my comfortable lifestyle to America's particular method of handling them.
Quote from: Rav67 on December 08, 2007, 12:10:17 AM
Quote from: J70 on December 07, 2007, 02:57:12 AM
Its easy to sit there and point fingers, while at the same time enjoying the benefits that the Americans' particular method of handling the scum has brought to all of our lives. America and its corporations may be destroying the world manipulating governments and exploiting workers, but they keep the oil flowing and allow us to sit back and enjoy our affordable Dell/Microsoft computers, listen to our iPods, watch Hollywood films and programmes, wear Levi's and Nike and umpteen other American brands, eat at McDonald's and Starbucks, drive to work in our Fords, fly off to far lands in cheap Boeing seats, get treated at the doctor with Pfizer drugs etc. etc.
"The Americans particular method of handling the scum" - you sound like a redneck Texan or an old Tory like Normann Tebitt. I'm not sure who the official scum of the world are, but I don't attribute my comfortable lifestyle to America's particular method of handling them.
Maybe you should read the thread properly next time before offering your commentary. I was using jodyb's own words when replying to him:
QuoteHe gave them the excuse to exterminate him. But they're still the scum handlers and they orchestrate and choreograph 90% of the worlds conflicts under a cloak of respectability. The victors write history...........