Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on February 03, 2005, 12:06:48 AM
-
It's three hours after Bush's latest State of the Union and not a single Euro or Canadian has started a thread criticizing the speech.
Heck, not even the dyed-in-the-donkey Democrats have chimed in.
I am, like, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO disappointed.
I figured it'd be good for a day or two of entertainment.
One of the parts I liked, for your complaining pleasure:
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life.
Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace. (Applause.)
-
It's just one man talkin'. Who knows what to make of it? How much of it is real?
Plenty enough grist for the mill in his actions.
-
LOL.
Is that the "new" positon on SOTU speeches for the second term?
Seems like last term folks couldn't wait to chime in. Maybe it's just my bad memory though.........
-
Maybe... Or maybe words of a President have lost their currency.
Who knows.
-
I don't see how anyone could listen to the guy for that long. It is physically painful to listen to the man attempt to speak.
-
He actually did really well tonite, in a relative sense.
He didn't sound like the usual tongue-tied Bush. He sounded pretty much like joe-average politician. Very few speech trip-ups that I noticed.
Lost their currency?
To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. (Applause.)
Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.
I think you can bank on these words.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He actually did really well tonite, in a relative sense.
He didn't sound like the usual tongue-tied Bush. He sounded pretty much like joe-average politician. Very few speech trip-ups that I noticed.
Lost their currency?
I think you can bank on these words.
Hey Toad, have you changed your mind about weather it was a good idea to got to war with Iraq?
-
No.
Had there been WMD, I could support it.
I've been over all this before, so anyone interested can search my position.
We're there now, however, and we're responsible for getting them on their feet and giving them their chance at freedom. They may make it, they may not. It's not an easy thing; look at our own history. But we owe them the chance now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lost their currency? I think you can bank on these words.
To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder.
Wait a second.... What?
Weapons of mass murder?
Is that what it is now?
Weapons of mass murder?
No matter how often he tries to reshape the language (and he does it all the time) it's still worth the same. Good example Toad, thanks for quoting it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No.
Had there been WMD, I could support it.
I've been over all this before, so anyone interested can search my position.
We're there now, however, and we're responsible for getting them on their feet and giving them their chance at freedom. They may make it, they may not. It's not an easy thing; look at our own history. But we owe them the chance now.
But Toad, there were WMD that has never been acounted for to this day.
-
Sorry Toad, we were asleep here :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
No.
Had there been WMD, I could support it.
I've been over all this before, so anyone interested can search my position.
We're there now, however, and we're responsible for getting them on their feet and giving them their chance at freedom. They may make it, they may not. It's not an easy thing; look at our own history. But we owe them the chance now.
Sorry to quote you again, but I just thought of this:
You say that had there been WMD. you could support it. Well, pre-war, did you think Iraq might have had WMD?
You can't have it both ways.
-
i fell asleep during the speech.
:cool:
let me guess.
propaganda...blah blah...freedom...blah blah...tear jerking story...blah blah blah...
social security (that the republicans raped) is in danger...blah blah...
freedom...blah blah...
ill believe it all when i see it.
if we get out of this iraq thing retaining any semblence of the free and honorable country that we once were, it wont be by the dry genius of our beloved retordotexan, it will be by the will of americans to letting him know that being a jerk isnt gonna fly with us...and perhaps a better crew of speech writers.
sounds like hes getting the message though.
good!
so much for a mandate you pandering wackjob.
:)
-
Two words...third rail.
-
All in all it was a very good address, one of the better addresses Ive seen in a while but it was subdued. I guess being a lame duck takes the edge off the thing. He spoke well, better than usual (which is really saying alot) but he didnt need to impress me anyway. Besides, Im so damned against liberal socialist democrats that Bush could be the moron the left pretends he is and I would still support him. Liberal socialist democrats are the bane of my existance. They truly suck commie balls!
-
as do neo fascist bullyboys who would erode the basic decency of a great civilization and then backpeddle in a vain attempt to look cute and justified.
not that i know any of those.
what some people call liberals, jefferson would have called americans.
-
The only part I really caught was his warning to syria. I thaught that was just the right amount of nudging and not too "axis of evil"
other than that I really had no desire to watch it. As you all know politics just really doesnt do it for me. ;)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
It's three hours after Bush's latest State of the Union and not a single Euro or Canadian has started a thread criticizing the speech.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/careometer.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's three hours after Bush's latest State of the Union and not a single Euro or Canadian has started a thread criticizing the speech.
Sorry but for me it's as interresting as a Castro speech.
But Bush as more humanity , he don't make 8 hours long speech :)
-
What happened? Did the paint dry in the end?
-
excellent speech, given better than average with outstanding goals for America and her allies for years to come
Bush
-
And at the same time it came about 1.2 meters of snow in Bjorli
"western part of norway" it is now 4.5 meters with snow there and it basickly suck for the people living there :D
-
I haven't seen any liberals that Jefferson would have called Americans except in a broad sense. He might have called them bad Americans... Jefferson wasn't an effeminate socialist busybody like todays liberals.
I am glad that you admit to hanging out with liberals tho 88.
lazs
-
did the socially digressive woman hating neo fascist bullyboy say something?
couldnt hear it.
been squelched for some time now.
ahhhh.
liberty at its finest.
:cool:
-
might wanna update your sarcastic input protocols to some more liberalandmoreinclusive version, wunderparanobot..
btw, got your backpeddle RIGHT HERE.
-
wow. small peddles ya got there.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/careometer.jpg)
What he said :)
-
Actually the neo-fascist bully boys are those who wired a frightened retarded kid with explosives and tried to use him to kill some voters.
-
LMAO. Today's conservatives would have been deemed far left liberals in Jefferson's time.
And today's liberals would have probably been considered complete nutjobs.
We, both the left and the right have become more liberal in the last 200+ years not less.
Imagine how the debates of today would have faired in the time of Jefferson.
For example.
Try telling them back then you want to make gay marriage legal and you would have been laughed at.
Same thing if you wanted all references to God taken out of schools and government places.
Try complaining then that you didn't get a job because of your nationality, race, sex, or religion and the response would have probably been along the lines of "So what"
Far as Im concerned both the diehard left and diehard right are pretty much braindead or at the very least brainwashed.
Each side being so self righteous and so blinded by their own party ideals they refuse to see or give credit for anything the other side says or does.
Neither side would like who was in office regardless of who is was so long as he wasn't from their party.
And BOTH sides are dragging us down.
Common sense is the least common of the senses in each of these camps.
I often feel one side takes a position over another side not because it right but simply so they can oppose the other side
As far as the State of the Union Speech I thought he did pretty good. And honestly I dont remember hearing him stumble at all in his delivery
I agreed with most of what he had to say particularly about Social Security and when he abandoned his Axis of Evil approach with regard to Iran. He separated That government from its people and addressed them as two separate entities.
Which is something I thought was a huge mistake in his original Axis of Evil speech when he just said "Iran" and didn't distinguish between the regime and its people. When its people at that time were becoming largely pro American.
The two most memorable moments were however the Iraqi Woman and The soldiers Mother and the Iraqi woman embracing.
Very moving.
-
BTW I feel that the claims of compairing conservatives to facists and Liberals to communists are largely pretty accurate.
And I do enjoy watching both camps stress this point on one another.
thank you for the entertainment :)
-
communism is hardly what i would consider appealling. nor is fascsm.
both systems, having been tried in thier respective experiments have wrought what i consider to be totalitarian, unyielding and oft murderous results.
niether is fine in my book and niether are american ideals.
fiscally i am conservative. i dont think that its okay for the republicans to raid social security and then claim bankruptcy so that they can pad the expense accounts of thier corporate buds, (i am not against allowing people to use thier money how they want, i am against them being asked to use it in a specific manner that benifits and already overblown corporate welfare state) or start a hugely expensive war under false pretenses that we are now trying to paint with the bright colors of freedom. the jury is still way out on that one.
socially i am liberal. i dont think that its anyones business what anyone else does so long as noone is getting seriously hurt.
i believe that torture is wrong. that it is beneath us.
i believe that persecuting someone for thier beliefs is wrong. period.
i dont believe in frivolous lawsuits, but niether do i believe in placing a cieling on penalties which corporations will factor into thier equasions when deciding what they can afford to let slide.
these are basic american values so far as i can tell.
i wouldnt call them either commie or fascist...as none of these beliefs actually impinge upon anothers freedom, allow for state control, or require that all strata of society be forced to share the fruits of thier labors unrewarded.
etc. etc.
-
Nuke, I think my position has been clearly stated and it hasn't changed.
If you care to refresh your memory:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129668&highlight=wmd
or
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119654&highlight=wmd
-
In german news reports the speech of Bush was mentioned at 3rd or 4th place. It was said that Bush told the same as everytime (you know - this "We fight for democracy and freedom"-stuff) and that at the end there were two crying women or something like that. They showed no pictures - so I dont know what was meant with these women. Maybe the 8pm-news will show more details.
Actually there is a great soccer scandal in Germany which is obviously much more important for the news than Bush.
In Iran the speech was considered as the next step of the coming military attacks against Iran.
I called one of my uncles in Teheran - who is definitivly one who dont like the mullahs - and he said that the part with Iran in Bush´s speech was extremely stupid and will only help the mullahs to get more support by the people and to get stronger in the inner-political fightings.
Also there are now rumors in Iran that the USA supports the MEK - an iranian terrorist organisation which once fought side by side with the arabs against iranians in the Iran-Iraq-War. They have military bases in Iraq and are now under US-control.
I just wait for western reports that these traitors are "true iranians" who want to liberate us.
-
Emotional hug electrifies speech (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/sotu.hug.ap/)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and the daughter of a man killed by Saddam Hussein's regime found some comfort in each other's arms in a private moment that electrified President George W. Bush's State of the Union address.
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/sotu.hug.ap/story.hug1.ap.jpg)
So... are you saying Iran has no nuke weapon program or that Iran has every right to have a nuke weapon program?
-
nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?
:rolleyes:
-
Stupid german TV - that they didnt show the pictures of the women. But I am sure there will be a more detailed report in the 8pm news.
About Iran and its nuclear program:
As an iranian I am supporting the built-up for a civilian iranian nuclear technology.
We will loose in 30 years our main export item - then our oil will run out. So we need a modern technology to support our industry.
Also we need to depose the mullahs.
But this must be done by iranians in Iran and neither by foreigners nor by iranian terrorists or traitors.
The sad thing is that the actual US-policy had stabilized the mullah-regime and if there will be really an attack against iranian targets the mullahs will be stronger than ever before.
Then the iranians will support the government against foreigners and stop the inner political fightings.
I also fear the result of the iraqi elections.
If the iraqi shiites under command of the iranian Grand Ajatollah Sistani have won the elections there will be again problems for Iran because such a result would help the conservative shiites in Iran too.
Lets see what the future will bring.
-
Originally posted by JB88
nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?
:rolleyes:
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure Janet Norwood was forced to attend the SOTU address and I'm sure the Marine security guard next to her maced her at the appropriate moment to get those tears.
Undoubtedly, Safia Taleb al-Suhail was merely acting. I'm sure her every move was pre-scripted by the PNAC guys.
Btw, did you ":rolleyes:" when every President since (and including) Reagan has included folks like these in the SOTU audiences and singled them out to highlight a point in the speech?
If so, good for you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wait a second.... What?
Weapons of mass murder?
Is that what it is now?
Weapons of mass murder?
No matter how often he tries to reshape the language (and he does it all the time) it's still worth the same. Good example Toad, thanks for quoting it.
If he'd said "weapons of mass destruction", instead, you'd have no problem with it? I see no difference in the two: they're synonymous as far as I'm concerened. I see no evidence of trying to reshape or disguise anything. The guy's a straight-shooter.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Btw, did you ":rolleyes:" when every President since (and including) Reagan has included folks like these in the SOTU audiences and singled them out to highlight a point in the speech?
oh, hell yes.
its THEATER! lol!
hey look at us! we brought the little people!
-
Originally posted by slimm50
The guy's a straight-shooter.
(gagging)
-
Originally posted by babek-
:
As an iranian I am supporting the built-up for a civilian iranian nuclear technology.
And you can make the case that Iran needs bomb grade enriched uranium for civilian uses?
-
Originally posted by JB88
(gagging)
Something in yer craw?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Something in yer craw?:rolleyes:
something deluded your basic sense of reasonable doubt?
(tapping on slimms skull)
ITS THEATER!
hello?!
tap tap tap
sigh.
-
Originally posted by babek-
In german news reports the speech of Bush was mentioned at 3rd or 4th place. It was said that Bush told the same as everytime (you know - this "We fight for democracy and freedom"-stuff) and that at the end there were two crying women or something like that. They showed no pictures - so I dont know what was meant with these women. Maybe the 8pm-news will show more details.
Actually there is a great soccer scandal in Germany which is obviously much more important for the news than Bush.
Explanation here. (http://medienkritik.typepad.com/)
-
what some people call liberals, jefferson would have called americans.
====
Not the people I call liberals. Jefferson would have referred to them as vestiges of the old world left behind in pursuit of a more perfect union. Nice try though, not.
-
one yeager does not the truth make, cool plane or not. sorry.
read up on your jefferson. not only will your lightbulb increase its meager wattage, but you may find out a little about what made this country a great experiment to begin with...try some hamilton, some franklin, some adams... hell, add a dash of your own...there are many.
or should we just toss that old garbage out and hand our government over to the nearest wal-mart?
ring ring. pick up the clue phone.
-
Bush Fails History...Jefferson Predicted Iraq
by Thom Hartmann
Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon thought they could bomb Vietnam into accepting democracy. George W. Bush thinks he can do it with Iraq.
But the first American president to consider how best to grow democracies - Thomas Jefferson - had some very different thoughts on the issue. LBJ and Bush would have done well to listen to his thoughtful words in a letter he wrote on February 14, 1815, to his old friend in France, the Marquis de Lafayette.
Discussing the French Revolution, the Terror that followed, and the reign of Napoleon, Jefferson noted that building democracy is an organic process: The democracy movement in the colonies had been fermenting for a century prior to Jefferson's birth.
"A full measure of liberty is not now perhaps to be expected by your nation," Jefferson wrote, about the democracy movement within France, "nor am I confident they are prepared to preserve it. More than a generation will be requisite, under the administration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge in the general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independent security of person and property, before they will be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation."
He added that it's nearly impossible to force democracy on a people, and the consequences of trying could be disastrous. "Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes, with an unprepared people, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or the one."
Lafayette, at the time of the French Revolution (1789), had expressed his concerns to Jefferson that the movement for democracy wasn't sufficiently widespread among the average people in France to take hold as it had in America, and they should thus make the transition via a constitutional monarchy much like today's United Kingdom. At the time, Jefferson had disagreed with his friend, but in this 1815 letter, he noted: "And I found you were right.... Unfortunately, some of the most honest and enlightened of our patriotic friends...did not weigh the hazards of a transition from one form of government to another."
Many in the revolutionary movement of France of that era opposed Lafayette's deliberate and careful push for an organic democracy, rather than a sudden lurch. "You differed from them," Jefferson noted. "You were for stopping there, and for securing the Constitution which the National Assembly had obtained. Here, too, you were right; and from this fatal error of the republicans, from their separation from yourself and the constitutionalists, in their councils, flowed all the subsequent sufferings and crimes of the French nation."
The lack of a truly widespread, average-citizen-based movement for democracy in France, Lafayette had privately argued to Jefferson two decades earlier, could simply lead to a transition from the tyranny of the king to another, perhaps worse, form of tyranny. While Jefferson had, at first, embraced the French revolution, in his letter to Lafayette he confessed that he had now come to agree that without a broader base of support, a sudden change of government was a disaster, and the primary beneficiaries would only be war profiteers and the rich, Frenchmen who were so opposed to democracy that they could even be called foreigners.
Thus, Jefferson wrote, "The foreigner gained time to anarchize by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans... and to turn the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order; and, in the end, the limited monarchy they had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre, and the equally unprincipled and maniac tyranny of Bonaparte."
Comparing France to America, Jefferson noted how - unlike France - we had overthrown an external occupier all by ourselves. For American colonists, the repression and occupation of the English in the Colonies "has helped rather than hurt us, by arousing the general indignation of our country, and by marking to the world of Europe the vandalism and brutal character of the English government. It has merely served to immortalize their infamy."
And now Arab leaders like Egypt's Mubarak say that, across the Arab world, our infamy is being immortalized by Bush's unprovoked invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq. America, Mubarak says, faces "a hatred never equaled" in the Middle East, even as Iraq totters on the edge of civil war.
It's as if the cycles of history are repeating themselves, and Iraq may now suffer the Terrors that racked France in the 19th Century.
When John Adams wrote to Jefferson on July 13, 1813 about a French politician, he could just as easily have been speaking of George W. Bush: "In plain truth, I was astonished at the grossness of his ignorance of government and history."
Adams added, speaking of those who think they can create empire and have a stable rule purely by military force, "Napoleon has lately invented a word which perfectly expresses my opinion, at that time and ever since. He calls the project Ideology; and... it was all madness."
But like Iraq with Saddam, Jefferson wrote that true democracy would take time in France because the overthrow of a tyrant had been done so hastily. "You are now rid of him, and I sincerely wish you may continue so. But this may depend on the wisdom and moderation of the restored dynasty. It is for them now to read a lesson in the fatal errors of the republicans; to be contented with a certain portion of power, secured by formal compact with the nation, rather than, grasping at more, hazard all upon uncertainty, and risk meeting the fate of their predecessor...."
As we "hazard all upon uncertainty" in the Middle East, Iraq is proving the prescience of our greatest presidents yet again. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said on September 22, 1936, "In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed, it must be achieved."
If only George W. Bush had paid attention during his study of history at Yale...
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is an award-winning best-selling author and the host of a nationally syndicated daily talk radio show. http://www.thomhartmann.com. His most recent book is titled "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and his newest book, based on Jefferson's writings, "A Return To Democracy: Reviving Jefferson's Dream," will be released on July 4th by Random House/Crown.
-
Originally posted by JB88
did the socially digressive woman hating neo fascist bullyboy say something?
couldnt hear it.
been squelched for some time now.
ahhhh.
liberty at its finest.
:cool:
that sounds like a personal attack
-
Originally posted by JB88
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said on September 22, 1936, "In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed, it must be achieved."
And it can rarely be achieved all in one moment.
One might view the recent large Iraqi election turnout, despite the threat to "wash the streets with blood" by the terrorists, as a first step towards achieving that freedom.
-
Originally posted by john9001
that sounds like a personal attack
against whom?
im sure if it was, they could take it. i would never level something like that against any imaginary person who wasnt well deserving of such a classification by virtue of thier own rantings.
but i dont know who that might be really.
and i honestly dont care.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And it can rarely be achieved all in one moment.
One might view the recent large Iraqi election turnout, despite the threat to "wash the streets with blood" by the terrorists, as a first step towards achieving that freedom.
yes toad, one might. but one might also remain reasonably skeptical without commiting acts of treason.
as i stated before, if we get out of this mess, it wont be by some grand virtue of george bush, i personally cant see that he has any real virtue. i believe that it will only happen by the grace of good americans cleaning up his mess and making it right.
remember, america isnt leading some grand freedom march where there isnt an economic gain. we have traditionally sided ourselves with the saudis who have no sense of democracy. there happens to be a family grudge match
(he wanted to kill my daddy)
and there is pretty good reason to believe that he wanted it one way or another irregardless.
playing upon the fears of the american people to wage a war while the actual aggressor runs free is, imho...ridiculous and unbecoming of a decent society who preaches the virtues of individualism and manifest destiny.
-
Actually, Bush will be the one to get us out of it. He's leading, after all. From the SOTU, it's pretty clear he intends to stay the course; we're not leaving until the Iraqis have a government in place that gives them a chance at it.
Note the part of the speech directed at the Saudis. In the careful world of politics, he took them on pretty openly. I'd say the gauntlet is down. Let's see if he follows through.
The actual aggressor is running, I agree. I don't think he's "running free" though. I think he's being pursued. From the e-mail I get from friends actually on duty in Afghanistan, I don't think the pursuit has been given up.
I think his luck will run out, too.
-
it damn well better.
at least we can agree on that.
-
We played drinking games to his speech last night. Had to take a shot every time he 1)said freedom 2)said liberty 3)said election 4) mispoke or mispronounced.
first 30 mins we were getting bored but that last 30 woo hoo man I got a helluva hangover. lol
-
I watched a show on bloodyridge called Turning point, made in canada it purported to be about the whole campaign but it was really just about bloody ridge.
Then I watched the Barbarians episode on the Goths. Interesting. The romans let the goths inside their outer defenses then armed them to use them as warriors against some other enemy then the goths turned on them and used their own weapons against them. Eventually sacking rome. Things sure where crazy way back then.
Did Bush say something? why listen he will just deny it later.
-
hey osama...wanna play with some flying candles? here have some of theeeeeese.
your my friend osama, youre not like the others, you understand me. - america. under reagan,
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, Bush will be the one to get us out of it. He's leading, after all. From the SOTU, it's pretty clear he intends to stay the course; we're not leaving until the Iraqis have a government in place that gives them a chance at it.
Do you think that's going to happen in the remaining years of Bush's presidency? We played drinking games to his speech last night. Had to take a shot every time he 1)said freedom 2)said liberty 3)said election 4) mispoke or mispronounced.
LOL Raider! Did he ever say "We will prevail"? :D
-
war is peace. - george orwell's 1984
bombs of peace. - george bush's 2004
-
not that I can remember. I do remeber he couldnt say nuclear right. he mispronouced tehran and there was something else but its kinda all a blur. lol
-
read up on your jefferson. not only will your lightbulb increase its meager wattage, but you may find out a little about what made this country a great experiment to begin with
====
lol what a fool tool.
Keep trying Im sure you will eventually find someone who GaS
-
I will admit to being just a little disapointed that in all these years the only person to put me on an ignore list is an obvious non thinker and all around tool.... jb88. Kind of like being told I don't know whats good for me by diane finestein or barbara boxer..
Am a little put off by the "woman hating" comment tho... wrote it off to him either not reading what I say or his general lack of understaning on all things.
lazs
-
Originally posted by babek-
In Iran the speech was considered as the next step of the coming military attacks against Iran.
I called one of my uncles in Teheran - who is definitivly one who dont like the mullahs - and he said that the part with Iran in Bush´s speech was extremely stupid and will only help the mullahs to get more support by the people and to get stronger in the inner-political fightings.
Also there are now rumors in Iran that the USA supports the MEK - an iranian terrorist organisation which once fought side by side with the arabs against iranians in the Iran-Iraq-War. They have military bases in Iraq and are now under US-control.
I just wait for western reports that these traitors are "true iranians" who want to liberate us.
Judging from what you just said. and assuming you are what you say you are and where you say you are. It sounds to me as though much of the speach has been mistranslated in both Germany and Iran.
-
Originally posted by JB88
nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?
:rolleyes:
There was no theater in that.
the mere accusation on your part is absurd
No way you could convince a mother of a child lost in war to act that out.
Not at any price
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
There was no theater in that.
the mere accusation on your part is absurd
No way you could convince a mother of a child lost in war to act that out.
Not at any price
true. i think that they were genuine.
i wasnt meaning to infer that they were "acting"
i was however inferring that the stage was set, the script was written in so much as chemicals react a certain way when mixed.
-
Since the state of the union speech interrupted Jeopardy, I boycotted it.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by JB88
hey osama...wanna play with some flying candles? here have some of theeeeeese.
your my friend osama, youre not like the others, you understand me. - america. under reagan,
:D
We were allies with and gave military equipment to Stalin at one time too.
-
Originally posted by JB88
true. i think that they were genuine.
i wasnt meaning to infer that they were "acting"
i was however inferring that the stage was set, the script was written in so much as chemicals react a certain way when mixed.
Ahhh I was under the impression that that is what you were suggesting.
Dunno if that reaction or interaction in particular could have been predicted though
-
"YEEEAH HAAAAAAA Lets go to war on Syria, Iran, Lebanon, sh*t the whole Irab, oops Arab world, oh and North Korea, Byelorussia, hell anyone who don't want to be free like we tell em to, and wants Nooclear, weapons of Mass murder like we have already got."
Is that what he said?
:confused:
In a nutshell I expect it was
:rolleyes:
Be afraid be very afraid.
-
No, it wasn't what he said.
But I expect you knew that.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ahhh I was under the impression that that is what you were suggesting.
Dunno if that reaction or interaction in particular could have been predicted though
DRED..He did..he's just back peddeling:lol
Couple of quotes there..........
ITS THEATER!
nothin like good old fashioned theater is there?
He won't admit it...but he thought that was staged. Won't convince me he meant otherwise.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
DRED..He did..he's just back peddeling:lol
Couple of quotes there..........
He won't admit it...but he thought that was staged. Won't convince me he meant otherwise.
not backpeddling redtop, clarifying.
and i still say it was theater.
:)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/careometer.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I need one of those!!!!
megadud
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Be afraid be very afraid.
As to the local tyrants, Damascus and Tehran, and of course the terrorists, *that* was more than implied.
-
zulu... as the world gets smaller you might have to go to all the countries you mentioned.. you might not allways be able to ignore the suffering of their people or even their economic impact on the world or their threat of developing weapons of mass destruction...
Simplistic I know but... the world is changing.. it is getting smaller and what happen far away in filth land that had no previous affect on us now seems to be getting harder and harder to ignore.
How much or little we do is of course, open for debate.
lazs
-
Originally posted by babek-
As an iranian I am supporting the built-up for a civilian iranian nuclear [/B]
Does this failure to answer mean babek HAS no answer?
Babek, why does Iran need bomb grade enriched uranium for civilian uses? I was hoping you'd explain it to me.
-
I've prolly learned more about present-day Iran from three or four babek posts than I have from anything else.
-
Yep. Now if he'll jus explain the dire need for peaceful bomb grade uranium.
-
They dont. LEU is fine for reactors. HEU is useful but can be made into nukes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/page.cfm?pageID=1387
-
Originally posted by Toad
Does this failure to answer mean babek HAS no answer?
No - it just means that I am not able to watch all forums I am reading so precisely that I can answer at the moment someone ask me something :)
Originally posted by Toad
Babek, why does Iran need bomb grade enriched uranium for civilian uses? I was hoping you'd explain it to me.
Were are the proofs that Iran has bomb grade enriched uranium or is building installations which generates them ?
And please - dont mention these super-accurate sources which told us, that Iraq had huge stockpiles of MDW and was only 45 away from invading the USA - so a immediate attack was necessary.
On the other hand - I will not deny that there is a possibility that our military and our politicians want to have a weapon which will give us a position to avoid attacks against Iran.
This is because of our history.
In the last 100 years we were attacked in both World Wars - despite our declared neutrality.
In WW2 our country was invaded and occupied by the allies, our Shah had to resign and to die in exile, we had to join the allies and the son of the Shah became a puppet who ruled our country with terror.
Then in the 50ties - when Iran was creating its own democracy by a peaceful and unbloody revolution - again foreigners intervened and deposed our prime minister and reinstalled the Shah and his SAVAK - and we got decades of much more terror.
Then we got the bloody revolution and Khomeini - and - yes: Even more terror.
In the Iran-Iraq-War the world accepted that 130.000 iranian soldiers were killed by gas-weapons. Geneva-Convention ? Who cared ? No one. That was again a lesson we learned.
Many european countries and even the USA helped Saddam and there was no single UN-resolution - even when Saddam used his gas weapons against the iraqi kurdish tribes which were allied with Iran.
Then Pakistan got the nuclear bomb. The same Pakistan which was in 90ties our enemy. The same Pakistan which supported the Taliban in Afghanistan while Iran was helping the anti-Taliban-forces.
And we also learned that - even if you dont have MDW and ebven without any UN-resolution - a superpower can invade, destroy and occupy your country and no one could stop them.
While another country defined as a member of the "Axis of Evil" is not touched. N-Korea has the same criminal terror-leader like Saddam - but it also has nuclear weapons.
So indeed I can understand iranian politicians to dream of having a nuclear weapon.
But allow me one question I miss in all these discussions:
Russia, China, european countries are building in Iran the nuclear sites. When there really are proofs that these installations are used for building a nuclear bomb, why there are no threats against these countries ?
Why they are not the Axis of Evil ?
Arent THEY - in the case that they are delivering the nuclear bomb - supporting terrorists ?
Wouldnt it be logical to threaten these countries with the might of the great superpower - so they stop building the sites in Iran ?
Strange that no one did.
I think that Iran is far away from having nuclear weapons.
We know desperately that in no more than 3 decades our main source for money will stop. Then we wouldnt have enough oil to export it to the world.
Meanwhile our population is growing. During the shah-time we had 40 millions iranians - today more than 60 millions.
And these are not primitive mullah fanatics. Iran has a good infrastructure of schools and universities. We have a growing industry - producing our own cars, trucks, jets, planes and so on.
But if run out of home-made energy to maintain this infrastructure - we wont have any future.
This was even seen by the Shah - who started to build the first nuclear sites in Bushir.
Today there are 15 nuclear installations in Iran. And there are no reliable proofs that we are trying to build the bomb.
There are many reason to do so - from the iranian point of view - but I still believe that we are going to build a civilian energy source.
The problem is, that because of the actual political situation, Iran will be the next target in this so called war against terrorists.
Iran is accused to support terrorists - like the Hamas.
But isnt it funny?
On the one hand the USA accuses us to support terrorists - and on the other hand it supports terrorists of Hamas-class by themself.
Just one example:
The USA has a list of terrorist organisations. So the names on these lists are terrorists by US-definition.
One of these organisations is the Mujaheddin-e-Khalk - the MEK.
During the Shah-reign the MEK killed many US-soldiers who were stationed in the imperial Iran.
Then the MEK was involved in the deposal of the Shah and in the innerpolitical fighting. They lost against Khomeini and fled.
They performed bomb attacks against iranian civilians - causing many deaths.
When Saddam attacked Iran the MEK formed to an army with bases in Iraq. Supported by money from exile-iranians and by Saddam they got tanks and other heavy weapons and attacked side by side with the arab hordes against iranians.
What happened with this MEK when the USA invaded and occupied Iraq?
Were they brought - as bad terrorists to Guantanamo-Bay?
No.
They are allowed to wear their light weapons, to live in their military camps in Iraq and are protected by US-soldiers.
Really funny. In the war against terrorists there are terrorists who are protected.
I am sure that these iranian terrorists will be used in a war against Iran. They can infiltrate our country, because they speak our language and look like iranians. They already had betrayed us and killed iranians for Saddam.
And I also know that this is normal in the political game.
But you have to understand on the other hand, that for me it sounds ridiculous when Bush blames us to support terrorist when he also does it at the same time.
Btw - actually there a political groups in the USA trying to get the MEK off the lists of the terrorists.
OK - so much about this.
Now - to avoid misunderstandings:
The majority of the Iranians want to depose the Mullah regime.
But we must do it alone - not with the open or covert help of foreigners. Then we have the best chance to create a true democracy and not such a thing like in Iraq, where a GrandAjatollah who hates democracy will become one of the most powerful politicians.
When Iran is under pressure - like by stupid speachis (Axis of Evil) or attacks against installations or even a full scale invasion - then the people will follow the ruling regime.
Its a fact - a sad fact - that Bush had helped to stabilze the Mullah regime by his political decisions.
He cant establish a democracy in Iran by threats or using MEK-terrorists.
9/11 was indeed a catastrophy - also for us in Iran. Because before this day we were pushing the Mullahs in the inner political struggle from one defeat to the next. Now they got stronger because of the politic of the Bush-regime.
But I am still convinced that the iranians will depose them without foreign help. It will last longer than we had expected - but finally it will happen.
And so - in our iranian history of 2500 years - the terror regimes of the Shah or the Mullahs will only be small episodes.
Thats what I hope.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Were are the proofs that Iran has bomb grade enriched uranium or is building installations which generates them ?
As Raider179 says, to produce a nuclear bomb requires weapons grade material, Uranium-238 - which actually absorbs another neutron to become Plutonium-239 - that's what's used in a nuclear warhead. To run a reactor needs Uranium that is only 3% pure. But enriched Uranium is needed for weapons construction, and is created by refining low grade fuel into high grade fuel using a nuclear centrifuge.
I've had to brush up on all this, and so spent some time Googling for information about Iran's nuclear program. One of the most interesting texts I found was an article published about a year ago in the American newspaper "USA Today".
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-02-19-iran-nukes_x.htm
Last week, U.N. inspectors looking through Iranian nuclear documents found drawings of a so-called P-2 gas centrifuge, twice as productive as a model Iran has acknowledged using to enrich uranium. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on Tuesday admitted Iran is doing research on the P-2, but for peaceful purposes.
Erm... you don't need enriched Uranium for "peaceful purposes", and the article also asks why Iran needs a nuclear program of any kind. Nuclear energy is expensive to produce, what with all the problems of nuclear waste. So why would Iran even need nuclear energy, when it has the world's fifth largest oil reserves?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I've prolly learned more about present-day Iran from three or four babek posts than I have from anything else.
agreed. very interesting.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I hope Iran gets the bomb.
Not surprising...
(http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/imgc/shihab.jpg)
THE TEXT WICH APPEARED ON THE “SHIHAB-3” MISSILE
LAUNCHERDURING MILITARY PARADE IN TEHERAN
("HOLY DEFENSE WEEK", SEPTENBER 22)
“ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY”
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/...hihab_11_03.htm
-
The last thing Iran would need, is the destruction of Israel.
It is too useful, because it keeps the traditional enemy of the iranians busy: The arabs.
There is a difference between official propaganda and the true politic.
The decisions of the iranian regime in the last 20 years should have proven this.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I've prolly learned more about present-day Iran from three or four babek posts than I have from anything else.
Same with Boroda :lol
-
Babek,
When did you last live in Iran?
-
So, the first round is denial? That really wasn't the question, was it?
Iran: IAEA Confirms Finding Weapons-Grade Uranium (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030827-rferl-172732.htm)
The UN's nuclear watchdog has confirmed that it has found particles of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium in environmental samples taken at an Iranian nuclear facility. Iran denies enriching the uranium itself and continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
Diplomats: Iran testing centrifuge parts (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/10809219.htm?1c)
Iran is testing some parts of machines that can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads, despite a pledge to freeze such activities, diplomats said Thursday. The revelations dealt a fresh blow to hopes Iran would scrap uranium enrichment.
ElBaradei Cites Progress by Iran, but Investigation Continues (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Iran_IAEAShowdown.asp)
Iran has admitted to testing centrifuges with nuclear material, but maintains that it only produced uranium enriched to a very low level and asserts that other types of enriched uranium particles originated from centrifuge components obtained from a procurement network run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Iran continues to say that it does not know the origin of the components.
According to the report, several unanswered questions about the particles remain. For example, the IAEA still does not know why Iran’s domestically manufactured centrifuge components have been contaminated with a different type of enriched uranium than their imported equivalents[/ or why uranium enriched to 36 percent U-235 has been found at some facilities where imported components were located, but not at other sites.
I don't really think there's much doubt that enrichment experiments have taken place.
So, again the question, if Iran's nuclear program is for "peaceful" purposes, why the need for weapons grade uranium and the attendant extremely high costs of producing same?
Perhaps the second half of your post is closer to the truth. Iran intends to have a nuclear arsenal because they feel they need one.
Thus, you are basically admitting Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and "peaceful purposes" is merely Bullshirt.
-
Toad, what would you expect when the USA allowed Israel and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ?
Why is it that you seem to be worried exclusuvely about other countries having nuclear capabilities, but not Israel and Pakistan ?
I don't like your crooked "logic", and I don't see you to be an advocate of nuclear non-proliferation.
Actually, you look like the advocate for nuclear proliferation among several chosen countries. :D
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Toad, what would you expect when the USA allowed Israel and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons ?
uhh.. maybe because they are not run by nutbag islamic cheekboness who stage "Death to America" dances in their streets...
all for allowing Israel to handle it, just like they did before with Iraq's nuclear program
-
Pretty much what Eagler said.
Also, note that we "allowed" NK to have nukes in the same way you suggest that Israel and Pakistan were "allowed" to have nukes.
If it gets noticed before they have the nukes the "world" may have a chance to do something. Like with Iran's peaceful enrichment of uranium to weapons grade uranium.
If it doesn't get addressed... well then NK, Israel and Pakistan get nukes, don't they?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bullshirt.
That expression cracks me up! :lol
:aok