Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SFRT - Frenchy on June 06, 2006, 10:44:32 AM
-
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
38 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium _ a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.
The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.
The package was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia _ the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, in a bid to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.
Link (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/06/06/407463.html)
:p Oil wins again ... Or it's a way to have a foot in the devil's den?
-
To paraphrase Bob Dole, we just can't win.
Go to war, all about oil.
Compromise for peace, all about oil.
-
once upon a time they gave Checkoslovakia to the germans...in hope of lasting peace
-
We built half of a reactor for North Korea in the hopes that they'd stop building nukes. That worked really well, and I'm sure we can expect similiar results from any similiar agreements with other countries.
-
I don't know what we can do to stop Iran from building a nuke. Iraq's oil for food program proved that sanctions won't work. Guess the best we can hope for is that they will become responsible members of the nuke owners club. Of course we should keep a couple hundred multi-megaton ICBMs pointed their way. Maybe surface one of those nuke subs off their coast occasionally to let 'em know we're thinking of 'em.
-
Hey, if you can't stop them, at least it's a way for United States, Britain, France, China and Russia to make money installing those plants, and off course, keeping an eye on what's going on.
I like the chain of event on CNN:
- Iran portrayed as the new big evil for months
- Announcement of the "No oil for you USA".
- Two days later, The Big Gay Debate.
- Next morning, US to give nuke tech to Iran.
:lol
-
Frenchy wrote;
I like the chain of event on CNN:
- Iran portrayed as the new big evil for months
- Announcement of the "No oil for you USA".
- Two days later, The Big Gay Debate.
- Next morning, US to give nuke tech to Iran.
Weapons of Mass Distraction.
I like how this gay marriage thing has played out over the long term;
2004- before election;
Vote republican or they'll be marrying sheep next!
2004- after election;
We have found that most americans don't want government in their bedrooms.
2006- before elections;
Illegal alien terrists seek gay marriage!
...
-
That is stupid. Didn't work when Clinton tried it.
-
I saw the headline & couldn't bring myself to read it. If they would print the agreement in it's entirety(sp?) I would be interested to see just what it contains.
We already put it on Iran once. I have always wondered why we had the navy blow up the Iranian oil platforms instead of occupying them & pumping them dry.
-
Basically they're just disguising a nuclear bomb in the shape of a reactor... I mean - it's the biggest ever nuclear tojan horse ever! Best diplomatic solution for us to nuke Iran. In the end..."man, I don't know what went wrong with that reactor....it's a tradegy" Then blame it on operator error. :)
That things gonna go up and take Iran with it....lol
-
The US sold 100's of F-14's to Iran. Strangely, they all stopped flying one day...
-
Originally posted by rpm
The US sold 100's of F-14's to Iran. Strangely, they all stopped flying one day...
:lol
-
thats fine..lets sell them everything..then blow it up
-
Originally posted by rpm
The US sold 100's of F-14's to Iran. Strangely, they all stopped flying one day...
Tomcats? I thought they were F-4's? Why would Iran need Tomcats? They're a fleet protection aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Tomcats? I thought they were F-4's? Why would Iran need Tomcats? They're a fleet protection aircraft.
Iran was sold Tomcats and still has some.
-
Iranian air force F-14 story (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml)
Also known for me as, you learn something new everyday...I thought it was only F-4's also.
-
i'm surprised nobody has piped in yet suggest the method of supplying nuclear technology or iran be bouncing a Castle Bravo off their turban. someone should do that, zOMG it would be teh funnuy ROfL:noid :noid :noid :furious
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Tomcats? I thought they were F-4's? Why would Iran need Tomcats? They're a fleet protection aircraft.
Prior Ayatolah Khomeini's reign, the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi), enjoyed full support from Western countries. He was interested in protecting Iran and its oil fields by purchasing either the F-14s (remember, this is the 60s/70s world politics)
--------------------------------------------
Look at these fine Persian Cats:D
(http://modelingmadness.com/others/features/f14page/FredShamusF-14iran.jpg)
(http://www.iiaf.net/archive/aircraft/images/iiaf80f14_jpg.jpg)
-
Rip. maybe they used the range of the radar as AWAC, like the Russians used to have a flight of 4 Mig31 cover a 1,000k+ border.
-
I would imagine these cats have been nuetered, much like the "castrated lightenings" we provided to Britain in WWII.
-
When the shah was deposed, Iran cancelled future American weapons contracts. The shah deposited $10 billion just prior to the overthrow for future purchases and maintenance contracts. When the new government called in the US ambassador to cancel the future contracts and return the $10 billion, the US response was to seize the money and dare Iran to do something about it.
One of the main reasons the US embassy was seized was in response to that dare. The $10 billion was returned to Iran and the hostages were released, as promised, but the timing was set as a final tweaking of the nose at the US State Department.
-
US offer's throat to Iran (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20925_US_Offers_Throat_to_Iran&only)
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
38 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium _ a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.
The US, and other countries for that matter, giving nuclear technology to Iran is not exactly a new idea.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html
From 1974:
The US Secretary of State tells the US ambassador to Iran that the United States is prepared to explore possibilities of cooperation with Iran and that the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission is prepared to go to Tehran with a group of experts to explore the best avenues for cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy.
Although his mouth may have been bigger, apparently the shah had big plans:
The Shah of Iran says that Iran will have nuclear weapons, "without a doubt and sooner than one would think." The statement is denied by Iran's embassy in France, and the Shah later backs off the statement, reaffirming that "not only Iran, but also other nations in the region should refrain from planning to gain atomic arsenals
Yeah.. right.
Shame about the revolution. He was such a nice guy too.
Excel
-
Clinton "gives" North Korea (a hard core wierdo-communist country lead by a psycho-pinko nutjob so horrible he makes Stalin look like an Oregonian tree hugging liberal) it's nuke capability and now Bush gives Iran, an Islamist fundies paradise, the same?
Now Islamic terrorists could soon use a nuke on some US city, cause so many of you neocons say it is absolutely going to happen, and it'll have "Merry X-Mas Ahmadinejad! Bestest Wishes, Georgey Bush" on it.
That's just super.
Isn't this appeasement? Isn't this "Peace in our time." all over again? Is ol'George really Chamberlain reincarnated? Since so many of you neo-cons say we're at war and Iran is a solid partner in the "Axis of Evil" wouldn't this be like giving Hitler the secret to splitting the atom back in '44?
Are Bush and the Western powers reenacting events from 1939 to set the stage for something bigger?
Er, where's the outrage?
-
Originally posted by Westy
Clinton "gives" North Korea (a hard core wierdo-communist country lead by a psycho-pinko nutjob so horrible he makes Stalin look like an Oregonian tree hugging liberal) it's nuke capability and now Bush gives Iran, an Islamist fundies paradise, the same?
Now Islamic terrorists could soon use a nuke on some US city, cause so many of you neocons say it is absolutely going to happen, and it'll have "Merry X-Mas Ahmadinejad! Bestest Wishes, Georgey Bush" on it.
That's just super.
Isn't this appeasement? Isn't this "Peace in our time." all over again? Is ol'George really Chamberlain reincarnated? Since so many of you neo-cons say we're at war and Iran is a solid partner in the "Axis of Evil" wouldn't this be like giving Hitler the secret to splitting the atom back in '44?
Are Bush and the Western powers reenacting events from 1939 to set the stage for something bigger?
Er, where's the outrage?
There's plenty of outrage here, but the left wasn't outraged at Clinton, they hailed him as a foreign relations masterpiece.
FYI, If memory serves me (I was 34 at the time...) Clinton was critisized by the right for giving money to NK knowing that it wasn't going to feed a starving civilian population, but help further expand NK's nuclear ambitions.... and it did, people continued to starve and NK got the money it needed to further develope the weapons it has today.
-
Maybe we should just gater up all politicians in all places, stand them against a wall and get it over with. They just keep f*ing up anyways..
-
Just to clarify - I didn't like Clinton. Didn't vote for him. And I certainly don't like Bush and absolutely didn't vote for him either. I am extremley anti-Bush (him and his whole administration) but never think for a moment I was a Clinton Clingon.
I find the hypocrisy and silence from the vast majority of "neo-cons" to be funny. They've made a joke of themselves imo. Well, they always have. This is just another good chuckle.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Just to clarify - I didn't like Clinton. Didn't vote for him. And I certainly don't like Bush and absolutely didn't vote for him either. I am extremley anti-Bush (him and his whole administration) but never think for a moment I was a Clinton Clingon.
I find the hypocrisy and silence from the vast majority of "neo-cons" to be funny. They've made a joke of themselves imo. Well, they always have. This is just another good chuckle.
Who is this "Vast majority"?
-
Vast majority? The other "neocons" on this webboard. You know who they are (you're one of them) and if you act like you don't then you're playing games.
"gater up all politicians in all places"
All? IMO I think that would be a good idea for the "career" politicians like the Bushes and the Kennedy's.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Vast majority? The other "neocons" on this webboard. You know who they are (you're one of them) and if you act like you don't then you're playing games.
"gater up all politicians in all places"
All? IMO I think that would be a good idea for the "career" politicians like the Bushes and the Kennedy's.
Name names. I'll show you what their political scores were on a couple different political tests. I've yet to meet a true neocon on this board.
-
wacha wanna do westy ? invade iran?
bush is just doing with iran what you wanted to do with iraq, cooperate with the rest of the world, negotiate, inspect iran nuke program.
you neo-lib peace mongers are so bloodthirsty.
-
The reason I ask Westy is that the term Neocon is subjective to the person using the statement. The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is a controversial term that lacks a coherent definition. While we can define "Liberal" and Conservative", Neoconservative" is probably the most mis-used term of the past 20 years.
Here is the roots of the term "Neoconservative"
It was prominently used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington in a manner similar to MacDonald's meaning, i.e. to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon." The "neoconservatives" thus described in this original sense tended to remain supporters of the welfare state, but had distinguished themselves from others on the left by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially in their anti-communism, their support for the Vietnam War, and strident opposition to the Soviet Union.
-
So it's games to get the subject changed? How unusual and unlike you. <---sarcasm>.
You certainly know how (and "who") the term neo-con has been applied in discussions on this webboard. Re-define it all or find some more specific meaning all you want.
The folks who I (and many would) consider neo-cons here are (off the top of my head) you, Nuke, eagler, gunslinger, John9000, JAB, Rude, Toad, Krusher, Mighty1, BGBMAW, Yeager and storch are examples. Just as people like Dowding and Silat were counter-labellled as "neo-lib"
John9001 yeah that's it. "We" liberals (neo-con and not) are so blood thirsty! lol. You truly are the neo-con who's knuckles drag in the mud.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
When the shah was deposed, Iran cancelled future American weapons contracts. The shah deposited $10 billion just prior to the overthrow for future purchases and maintenance contracts. When the new government called in the US ambassador to cancel the future contracts and return the $10 billion, the US response was to seize the money and dare Iran to do something about it.
One of the main reasons the US embassy was seized was in response to that dare. The $10 billion was returned to Iran and the hostages were released, as promised, but the timing was set as a final tweaking of the nose at the US State Department.
Where did you get that information. It isn't what I've been reading since 1980.
This is the story most accept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
"They also demanded that Iran's assets in the U.S. be released. The money had been frozen by the U.S. government in response to the hostage taking. The U.S. government refused to accept the demands."
Changed the link and added excerpt
-
Originally posted by Westy
So it's games to get the subject changed? How unusual and unlike you. <---sarcasm>.
You certainly know how (and "who") the term neo-con has been applied in discussions on this webboard. Re-define it all or find some more specific meaning all you want.
The folks who I (and many would) consider neo-cons here are (off the top of my head) you, Nuke, eagler, gunslinger, John9000, JAB, Rude, Toad, Krusher, Mighty1, BGBMAW, Yeager and storch are examples. Just as people like Dowding , Silat, Westy were counter-labellled as "neo-lib"
John9001 yeah that's it. "We" liberals (neo-con and not) are so blood thirsty! lol. You truly are the neo-con who's knuckles drag in the mud.
John's post of "Neo-Lib" is the first time I've heard that term. But I have heard you and many others mistakenly use the term "Neocon" to describe those on this board.
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
Its too bad you hate America, Westy. Its a nice place "to be from".
-
I hear ya but what your saying has turned stupid and you've veared out into left field as usual. Next will be a post saying, "BoOsh is HitLEr!" ?
Neo-lib? Wouldn't be a label I'd find offensive in the least. It'd be some good, intelligent, fine set of self-thinking people I'd be amongst (going by your list and my own of "neo-libs" here) even though I've only one foot on the liberal side of that fine line between liberal and conservative.
-
Originally posted by Westy
I hear ya but what your saying has turned stupid and you've veared out into left field as usual. Next will be a post saying, "BoOsh is HitLEr!" ?
Neo-lib? Wouldn't be a label I'd find offensive in the least. It'd be some good, intelligent, fine set of self-thinking people I'd be amongst (going by your list and my own of "neo-libs" here) even though I've only one foot on the liberal side of that fine line between liberal and conservative.
At least ya got part of it right. :p
-
Originally posted by lukster
At least ya got part of it right. :p
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Westy
I hear ya but what your saying has turned stupid and you've veared out into left field as usual.
An earlier post....
Originally posted by Westy I find the hypocrisy and silence from the vast majority of "neo-cons" to be funny. They've made a joke of themselves imo. Well, they always have. This is just another good chuckle.
yep, left field. ;)
-
Like I said, we can't win, at least in the eyes of world opinion.
It won't surprise me to find Iran turning their nose up at our offer. It would surprise me even less to learn that those making this offer expected Iran to reject it. At least we can say we tried to compromise as we force them to play nice.
-
well i guess neo con is better then limp wristed linguine spinned liberal
I would enjoy punching a hippie who calls a service member a baby killer
I think there are many people here who should have abortions
label away..lol
-
"well i guess neo con is better then limp wristed linguine spinned liberal
I would enjoy punching a hippie who calls a service member a baby killer
I think there are many people here who should have abortions - BGBMAW"
And wuh_lah. The poster child for "neo-con" shows up and with one post helps show who's the lesser of the species. lol.
So BGBMAW, what do you think of your hero signing off on giving the Islamic fundies NOO_QUEU_Lar technology?
-
i invented the term "neo-lib" just to upset the liberals and it works.
background; the prefix "neo" (which means new) has been used with the word "nazi", IE "neo-nazi" for so long that "neo" has taken on a bad connotation, the liberals want to label all conservatives "neo-cons" to try to make people think conseratives are really nazis.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i invented the term "neo-lib" just to upset the liberals and it works.
background; the prefix "neo" (which means new) has been used with the word "nazi", IE "neo-nazi" for so long that "neo" has taken on a bad connotation, the liberals want to label all conservatives "neo-cons" to try to make people think conseratives are really nazis.
Well, Westy is a "dry hook, no bait" type of biter anyway. No surprise. ;)
-
Some one say "neo-con" again.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Some one misuse the term "neo-con" again.
Fixed! :D
-
:lol