Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tigeress on December 05, 2007, 02:24:36 PM
-
The CIA and 15 other spy agencies of the US concluded that 4 years ago; Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program.
Bush apparently refused to accept that fact of four years ago and instead continues projecting a WWIII with Iran to this day.
With no WMD ever found in Iraq and now this... Bush is busted for good, it seems.
What is going on here? :confused:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work --> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?'_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy."
TIGERESS
-
And this is a surprise coming from a President who listens to what people are telling him with his ears plugged and screaming "LALALALALALALALA!" before going and doing whatever he wants?
If we could ever see into Dubya's thought process I'd imagine it must look something like the Pinky-Vision episode of Pinky and the Brain.
-
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes "
it says "A new assessment "
the new assessmant may be right or wrong.
Do we need to clean house at the CIA? Are there too many career bureaucrats working there? Valerie Plame was a career bureaucrat at the CIA.
-
I don't know about the CIA, but they sure as hell have too many career bureaucrats on Capitol Hill.
-
at least this one has a much better chance of being correct since the Bush & Co. neo-cons didn't keep editing it and sending it back till it read how they wanted it to read instead of the intelligence communities un-biased (we hope) work.
-
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb. " from --> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It just doesn't seem clear what is going on here with all the spinning going on by the left and right...
TIGERESS
-
The same agency that stated Iran ceased it's effort to build nuclear weapons 4 years ago, stated 2 years ago that they were in full production. These "experts" are morons.
And you wonder why Bush stated what he did? Iran has lied, repeatedly, time and time again.
Today, members of the UN are rethinking that report, as it might be more politically motivated than based on facts.
Saxman
Hillary 2006 (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/flashback-hillary-calls-for-iran-sanction)
Hillary Clinton chastising Bush for not being aggressive enough against Iran.
Thu Jan 19, 2006
Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran and faulted the Bush administration for “downplaying” the threat Tehran’s nuclear program poses.
Now she is on the bandwagon berating the President for his over reacting to the situation. Hmm, lalala works when you are competing with idiots on the left. You wonder why he just moves forward with what he wants to do? It doesn't matter what he does, his opponents say the opposite and they are credited with brilliance while their outright contradictions go unanswered.
Bush toes the line, follows his course and beliefs, you cannot accuse this man of ever waffling or riding a fence.
One of the few who I can say have that quality of character.
-
Bush ok? Ehhhh, don't think so. I rather liked the older Bush :D
Anyway, that Iranian Prez is a nut IMHO, and I put my bucks on him wanting the nuke. However, he's not quite daft, and has swift control. For him, through his "energy project" crusade to supply energy to Iran through nuclear power (lol, they're an OIL EXPORT COUNTRY, so they already export energy), he can allow himself the sporting game of playing teasergame to Bush. That guy has a lot of U.S. employees basically, - at his will.
All stupid anyway....
-
Originally posted by ROC
These "experts" are morons.
And there you have it in a nutshell.
-
The Iranian prez, Libyan prez, and Venezuelan prez make the Three Stooges look like Mount Rushmore candidates.
As TR advised, when dealing with any of them, better keep a big club handy.
-
What do the Israelis have to say about it?
-
Originally posted by john9001
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes "
it says "A new assessment "
the new assessmant may be right or wrong.
Do we need to clean house at the CIA? Are there too many career bureaucrats working there? Valerie Plame was a career bureaucrat at the CIA.
Ahhhhh. Blame Plame. The buck apparently stops there. ;)
-
well, if plame had sent her husband to Iran instead of africia this could have all been avoided. :rolleyes:
-
And Bush would be ok. I gotcha. :D
-
What event happened the year before Iran shut it down, hmmmmm?
-
What event has convinced you, in spite of actual evidence, that it's reopened? Hmmmmmmmm ...... ;)
Invade all suspicious nations. :aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes "
it says "A new assessment "
the new assessmant may be right or wrong.
Do we need to clean house at the CIA? Are there too many career bureaucrats working there? Valerie Plame was a career bureaucrat at the CIA.
Actually if you read it.. They knew it months ago but they decided to keep on saying the same thing until it could be confirmed. There is really nothing "new" about it.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
What event happened the year before Iran shut it down, hmmmmm?
let me take a wild guess, the US invaded Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What event has convinced you, in spite of actual evidence, that it's reopened? Hmmmmmmmm ...... ;)
Invade all suspicious nations. :aok
Please point out were I said it "reopened".
I'm asking what might have caused them to shut it down.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Please point out were I said it "reopened".
I'm asking what might have caused them to shut it down.
I'm sorry ... you were only halfway toward making a point. I'll let you get all the way there first. Proceed. :D
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The CIA and 15 other spy agencies of the US concluded that 4 years ago; Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program.
Bush apparently refused to accept that fact of four years ago and instead continues projecting a WWIII with Iran to this day.
With no WMD ever found in Iraq and now this... Bush is busted for good, it seems.
What is going on here? :confused:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work --> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?'_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy."
TIGERESS
Another Bush beater, some day maybe they will study how the US government works.
-
Points been made. You disagree with that point that's fine, just please don't put words in my mouth.
-
I'm sorry. What was the point? And what did I add that conflicted with it?
Just wanna know so I can correct my bad. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sorry. What was the point? And what did I add that conflicted with it?
Just wanna know so I can correct my bad. :D
Originally posted by john9001
let me take a wild guess, the US invaded Iraq?
Originally posted by Arlo
What event has convinced you, in spite of actual evidence, that it's reopened? Hmmmmmmmm ...... ;)
Invade all suspicious nations. :aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
well, if plame had sent her husband to Iran instead of africia this could have all been avoided. :rolleyes:
Nice try at totally avoiding blame from Bush and derailing the thread. Is it hard to breathe with you head buried so far (cough) in the sand?
-
Apparently you're at a loss to clarify and can just share proof that you can backtrack a thread as well as I can.
If you don't really know where your point lays and you don't really know where what I posted conflicted with it then don't blame me.
Guess you can blame Plame, though.
:D
-
bush only knows what the CIA tells him and if everyone at the CIA is like Plame then you know why he gets the wrong info.
-
You ever gonna come up for air?
-
Arlo
If 135,000 troops parked next door isn't incentive to shut down a weapons program, nothing is.
There, that plain enough for ya?
-
Originally posted by john9001
bush only knows what the CIA tells him and if everyone at the CIA is like Plame then you know why he gets the wrong info.
Actually as I posted a few posts ago.. Bush and co knew about this months ago, but choose to keep up their rhetoric until it was released publicly.
-
Oh it's "plain," ok. Except on the point whether you're claiming:
1: There is a program and 135,000 troops in Iraq ain't enough to shut it down.
2: There's obviously not a program because the 135,000 troops in Iraq has intimidated Iran.
3: Invasion on suspician doesn't require proof. We don't need no steenkin' badges.
Which words am I supposed to avoid putting in your mouth? :D
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
The CIA and 15 other spy agencies of the US concluded that 4 years ago; Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program.
Bush apparently refused to accept that fact of four years ago and instead continues projecting a WWIII with Iran to this day.
With no WMD ever found in Iraq and now this... Bush is busted for good, it seems.
What is going on here? :confused:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work --> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?'_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
"The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy."
TIGERESS
you are aware that he only saw this assesment last week right? assuming you made sure that fact then this is satire right? You wouldn't let your hatred of bush cloud your perception of reality right?
-
oh my, its that dumb little old Bushes fault, again.
The only thing this story does is reaffirm my increasing distrust of our combined intelligence community.
In fact, when I first heard this story I thought of insider politics at work rather than meaningful national intelligence coming to meaningful conclusions.
We shall see, as we always do.
Yeah, Bush is a dolt but so are the people that blame him for every perceived ill in government, bunch of losers.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What event has convinced you, in spite of actual evidence, that it's reopened? Hmmmmmmmm ...... ;)
Invade all suspicious nations. :aok
Where have have I said it has reopened,or invade Iran?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Where have have I said it has reopened?
Where have you answered you believe otherwise? I asked a question. Much like you did. You've not really put much effort in providing clarity. Why the defensiveness? ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Where have you answered you believe otherwise? You can just answer a question with a specific answer .... without all the dance and pee, yaknow. :D :aok
I don't know what should be done with Iran.
You knew exactly what I was bringing up. You just wanted to start a pissin contest. You could have just stated you thought that wasn't the reason Iran shut it down. But hey you like the dramatic.:aok
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I don't know what should be done with Iran.
You knew exactly what I was bringing up.
That you don't know? I was actually giving you more credit. I wasn't sure which way you were headed but I was convinced it was somewhere.
No pissin' contest, B. Just some questions you weren't ready for. I even toned it down just in case it distracted you more (unfortunately not in time - I get called away from the screen a lot). ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I get called away from the screen a lot). ;)
arlo...ARLO...i told you to take the garbage out......NOW!
-
HHHMMM the assessment says the nuke weapon program was halted or frozen. It doesn't say it was dismantled or done away with. At the same time that this assessment comes out is confirmation that iraq is still refining uranium.
Does the assessment say how long it would take to develop a weapon using the already and continuing refined uranium if the program is unfrozen?
Any information as to whether or not they have been successful in obtaining a weapon from other sources?
I have to agree that until the facilities and uranium to make a weapon are gone, a threat of making one still exists. It's kind of like Chamberlains little paper and peace in our time. Problem is, how long is "our time" going to last?
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo...ARLO...i told you to take the garbage out......NOW!
If only it was something so simple and mundane. I appreciate you using your best indepth perspective to understand, though. :D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
HHHMMM the assessment says the nuke weapon program was halted or frozen. It doesn't say it was dismantled or done away with. At the same time that this assessment comes out is confirmation that iraq is still refining uranium.
Does the assessment say how long it would take to develop a weapon using the already and continuing refined uranium if the program is unfrozen?
Any information as to whether or not they have been successful in obtaining a weapon from other sources?
I have to agree that until the facilities and uranium to make a weapon are gone, a threat of making one still exists. It's kind of like Chamberlains little paper and peace in our time. Problem is, how long is "our time" going to last?
If all of that doesn't sound eerily familiar and like the potential for making a mess worse without careful consideration and accurate data to you, then I'm still not seein' any practical justification for doing otherwise. The "threat" exists all over the world. The excuse only exists in specific locations. And the U.S. staying it's present course and habit is a fanatical terrorist's wet dream.
-
Originally posted by Tango
What do the Israelis have to say about it?
I saw the Ambassador to the UN from Israel , on the news this morning , he didn't have anything good to say about the current NIE.
If I were in thier shoes , I probably wouldn't either.
-
Arlo,
I realize you think you conveyed something there but you really didn't. If you have some point to make please make it clearly. I'm not going to waste time speculating on whatever thought you might have had at that time.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Arlo,
I realize you think you conveyed something there but you really didn't. If you have some point to make please make it clearly. I'm not going to waste time speculating on whatever thought you might have had at that time.
Other than the above, eh? Not like you covered much other than justifying fear and loathing in the M.E., yerownself. I gotcha. Well you just don't think on that, then. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
You ever gonna come up for air?
I think he can breath sand:D
-
people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.
-
Originally posted by FTDEEP
people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.
Or comprehension shallow:
"Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new [U.S.] estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”
Originally posted by FTDEEP
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.
" ... a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”
The Democrats engineered this how? ;)
-
Originally posted by FTDEEP
people believing iran over our own is unbelievable..hate really goes deep.
isreal doesnt believe and no -one else should. how could u believe iran when you hear of their plans for isreal. iran is huge . many place to hide these thing. nobody believes iran..'cept democrats.
They won't believe it even when Tel Aviv or New York gets nuked.
-
Originally posted by Tango
They won't believe it even when Tel Aviv or New York gets nuked [by Iran].
I know I live in constant fear of that happening any day now. :noid
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I know I live in constant fear of that happening any day now. :noid
And if it ever does happen you will crawl off into the shadows pretty much the same way the nay sayers did after Chamberlain's meeting the Adolf.
-
What was that saying?? something about not knowing the past will cause you to? And just to think this past was only what, 5years and some 3,000 dead soldiers ago? Damn...
-
Originally posted by Tango
And if it ever does happen you will crawl off into the shadows pretty much the same way the nay sayers did after Chamberlain's meeting the Adolf.
Well until that day happens (I'd like to think neither of us eagerly await such), I'll stick with international law (as the U.S. helped establish) and concrete evidence (as nations like Nazi Germany didn't require to go against international law).
So much for bogus rationalization pretending to support historical precident.
:aok :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So much for bogus rationalization pretending to support historical precident.
:aok :D
historical precident is established by faux news :D
-
Irregardless of whether it (the report)was 'engineered' or not, Iran already has the hardest parts about building a nuke completed---GETTING uranium/plutonium, and converting it to weapons-grade form, ("3000 centrifuges", spinning 24/7) and having missiles to carry a warhead to a perspective target. Once they have enough fissile material, It takes at most a couple years from the point of STARTING the weapons program anew to having a city-killer. (Iran HAD a nuke program from 1988, until 2003. and that acquired knowledge is stored away SOMEwhere) The part they are credited with stopping was the easiest part. NOW, China/Russia will have nothing to do with sanctions, which was the best method of manipulating Iran to begin with.
While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed.
"Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence. Yet within hours of the report's release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if "intensified."
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401772.html)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Irregardless of whether it (the report)was 'engineered' or not, Iran already has the hardest parts about building a nuke completed---GETTING uranium/plutonium, and converting it to weapons-grade form, ("3000 centrifuges", spinning 24/7) and having missiles to carry a warhead to a perspective target. Once they have enough fissile material, It takes at most a couple years from the point of STARTING the weapons program anew to having a city-killer.
One may conclude based on presumption that they have weapons grade fissionable material regarding the circumstantial evidence you've highlighted. It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).
A couple of years is some breathing room .... unless someone is just eager to invade .... for ulterior motive. And since the biggest threat is to countries next to Iran it makes perfect sense to get those neighboring countries to join in applying political and economic pressure to deter Iran from making a crucial mistake regarding it's own survival. One relatively archaic nuclear "scud" launched from it would earn instant reprisal on a grander scale. Cooperation in avoiding such a stupid agenda may well yeild an economic and technological boon (versus a radioctive boom).
Another invasion and occupation based on questionable intel that further alienates international allies, stretches military logistics and impacts readiness (without taking preemptive measures to lessen the impact) based on ..... nothing but suspician ..... does not a brilliant move for the GWOT cause make.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
One relatively archaic nuclear "scud" launched from it would earn instant reprisal on a grander scale.
yes, the UN would pass a non-binding resolution.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes, the UN would pass a non-binding resolution.
Mnoooo, john. They would likely send in you to depress them with your brilliant repartee. Because that's how nuclear reprisal works. ;)
-
One may conclude based on presumption that they have weapons grade fissionable material regarding the circumstantial evidence you've highlighted. It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).
Yah, that occurred to me too...easy to make em, HARD to make em small, though I'd imagine there are many ways to get something the size of a Volkswagen into Tel Aviv. Whats a drag is that if military force was a veiled threat to be used to get Iran to submit to international will, it's surely gone now. WHY would Iran give a flyin f&&& what the UN or anyone else says NOW? (Esp since Russia and China now have reason to blow off sanctions)
HERE's a conspiratorial look at the situation from a former CIA field officer:Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?
Bombing Iran, it seems, is now off the table. There’s no other reasonable take on the latest National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But there is also no doubt that the Bush White House was behind this NIE and that a 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the president.
…. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi’a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq.
… Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they’re not going to help the U.S. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don’t even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the U.S. can’t do. So how far is Iran from a nuke? The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it’s entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn’t know until they tested it...
link (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html)
Of course, all this would presume MUCH more brains in the Bush admin. than most on this board are willing to grant:rofl
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Other than the above, eh? Not like you covered much other than justifying fear and loathing in the M.E., yerownself. I gotcha. Well you just don't think on that, then. ;)
You are reading way too freaking much into what I wrote. You might have asked if I even had any fear mongering in mind there. :huh Perhaps you should step back from the keyboard there and try to focus on something other than your editorializing.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You are reading way too freaking much into what I wrote. You might have asked if I even had any fear mongering in mind there. :huh Perhaps you should step back from the keyboard there and try to focus on something other than your editorializing.
"Problem is, how long is 'our time' going to last?" (That's what you wrote, right?)
Ahem.
Besides: "I'm not going to waste time speculating on whatever thought you might have had at that time." (You wrote that too, right? ) ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
One may conclude based on presumption that they have weapons grade fissionable material regarding the circumstantial evidence you've highlighted. It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).
A couple of years is some breathing room .... unless someone is just eager to invade .... for ulterior motive. And since the biggest threat is to countries next to Iran it makes perfect sense to get those neighboring countries to join in applying political and economic pressure to deter Iran from making a crucial mistake regarding it's own survival. One relatively archaic nuclear "scud" launched from it would earn instant reprisal on a grander scale. Cooperation in avoiding such a stupid agenda may well yeild an economic and technological boon (versus a radioctive boom).
Another invasion and occupation based on questionable intel that further alienates international allies, stretches military logistics and impacts readiness (without taking preemptive measures to lessen the impact) based on ..... nothing but suspician ..... does not a brilliant move for the GWOT cause make.
I'd say that if they had one bomb/missile, they would save it for a rainy day(unstoppable U.S. invasion?) and use it as a tactical weapon of last resort.
Also, if they gave the bomb to a terrorist organization like Al-Queda, I doubt that a missile would go with it. The terrorist delivery device would be more stealthy and subtle, like...an 18-wheeler out of Mexico, or something.
Of course, with a cessation of the Iranian weapons' program, it's a non-issue, isn't it? If they complied with U.S. and international demands, then the deal's done.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Also, if they gave the bomb to a terrorist organization like Al-Queda, I doubt that a missile would go with it. The terrorist delivery device would be more stealthy and subtle, like...an 18-wheeler out of Mexico, or something.
Of course, with a cessation of the Iranian weapons' program, it's a non-issue, isn't it? If they complied with U.S. and international demands, then the deal's done.
And there's more than Iran to fret over regarding such a scenario, anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"Problem is, how long is 'our time' going to last?" (That's what you wrote, right?)
Yep I wrote that. Now since you have taken it out of context I'll try to place it back there. We have an assessment (note that is an assessment and not proof) that the weapons program has been suspended. Suspended implies it has been stopped but not done away with. You still with me here? A suspended program is capable of being reinstated, not from the beginning but from the point of where it was frozen or suspended. Note that I did not say it would be, is being or has been reinstated. I just made an observation not a prediction.
"Our time" being the time period of the suspended program. This is a diplomatic move on the part of iran's leadership. There is nothing preventing them from changing their mind. That means that the "our time" situation would be over. Kind of like what happened to Chamberlain. Please note I did not state that is what they are planning, have planned or are doing at this time. Again it is an observation.
Originally posted by Arlo
"Ahem.
Besides: "I'm not going to waste time speculating on whatever thought you might have had at that time." (You wrote that too, right? ) ;)
I did not and still do not understand the purpose of your post. I will not engage in speculation of the purpose of your post. I stated that and nothing more. Your post seemed to be sarcastic and without a point, in short, a troll. So far you haven't done anything to change my impression.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yep I wrote that. Now since you have taken it out of context I'll try to place it back there. We have an assessment (note that is an assessment and not proof) that the weapons program has been suspended. Suspended implies it has been stopped but not done away with. You still with me here? A suspended program is capable of being reinstated, not from the beginning but from the point of where it was frozen or suspended. Note that I did not say it would be, is being or has been reinstated. I just made an observation not a prediction.
"Our time" being the time period of the suspended program. This is a diplomatic move on the part of iran's leadership. There is nothing preventing them from changing their mind. That means that the "our time" situation would be over. Kind of like what happened to Chamberlain. Please note I did not state that is what they are planning, have planned or are doing at this time. Again it is an observation.
I understand you have a theory. I very much understand that.
So the difference between a fear motivated statement, though, and a one not motivated by fear is "observation" versus evidence?
That's where my own understanding of your .... well stated conclusion ... falls short.
Originally posted by Maverick
I did not and still do not understand the purpose of your post. I will not engage in speculation of the purpose of your post. I stated that and nothing more. Your post seemed to be sarcastic and without a point, in short, a troll. So far you haven't done anything to change my impression.
As you haven't mine, apparently. You've told me you're misunderstood ... by me. You've told me I'm incapable of making myself understood .... by you.
Guess that must be irreconcilable .... until I just nod yes and agree or something. :D
-
Bush during an October press conference...
So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.
This is 3 months AFTER he was told the threat was suspended 4 years ago. But he still rattles the sabres and mentions World War 3.
Our President is a menace. He has obliterated our security and our standing in the world community. He is a liar about IMPORTANT things like war and intelligence. Anyone who can honestly support this idiot is beyond drinking the koolaid. They've relinquished their brains.
-
did dismantling their "Nuclear Weapons program" in 03 include handing over dirty bomb making materials to various islamic cheekbones groups who'd actually be their wmd?
-
(http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail.jpg)
"He's still a great president... it's only a flesh wound"
-
Originally posted by Arlo
my own understanding of your .... well stated conclusion ... falls short.
You should have just left it with the above. The only conclusion I can draw from this exchange is that your sole purpose is to be a troll. Fine, the discussion is over.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
It's a further stretch, though, to conclude they have ICBM technology advanced enough to launch a warhead past a nation on their border (as Tango seems to fear).
I never said anything about them using a missile. It would be far easier to ship it in, than shoot it.
But go on ahead and keep your head in the ground. It seems to work for the Ostrichs as well.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
oh my, its that dumb little old Bushes fault, again.
The only thing this story does is reaffirm my increasing distrust of our combined intelligence community.
In fact, when I first heard this story I thought of insider politics at work rather than meaningful national intelligence coming to meaningful conclusions.
We shall see, as we always do.
Yeah, Bush is a dolt but so are the people that blame him for every perceived ill in government, bunch of losers.
Yeager... I love you man!! :eek:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You [not I] should have just left it with the above. The only conclusion I can draw from this exchange is that your sole purpose is to be a troll. Fine, the discussion is over.
Fine. You're done. Again. Because if someone doesn't agree with you or challenges your assessment (ala "refuses" to agree with ["understand"] your stance even when rephrased somewhat) ... they're a troll. Oy. I didn't have a problem with you doing that the first time. ;):aok :noid
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Yeah, Bush is a dolt but so are the people that blame him for every perceived ill in government, bunch of losers.
Makes you wonder what there will be to talk about after '08:D
-
Originally posted by Tango
I never said anything about them using a missile. It would be far easier to ship it in, than shoot it.
But go on ahead and keep your head in the ground. It seems to work for the Ostrichs as well.
Yeah. Far easier. Cause multi-billion dollar shipping companies who's fortunes are tied to their relationship with U.S. ports (same for airlines and U.S. airports) either don't check shipments (cargo) or don't cooperate with the U.S. assuring their shipments are safe in U.S. ports (and airports). Especially in the Persian Gulf area regarding fissionable materials originating in Iran.
I like Clancy novels as much as the next guy but my reading such and envisioning scenarios involves less tunnel vision and more practicality.
:D
-
There's more to this particular report than meets the eye
Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
link (http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony.pdf)
THAT statement was made this summer by one of the folks who helped craft the report--Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar....WHAT transpired in 4 months to have this big a change in their assessment?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
WHAT transpired in 4 months to have this big a change in their assessment?
I can guess that it doesn't involve older data, lack of reassessment, specifically looking for less accurate field data gathering methods or dispensing with better contacts. But that's a guess. Probably trollish.
Maybe it's a conspiracy. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I can guess that it doesn't involve older data, lack of reassessment, specifically looking for less accurate field data gathering methods or dispensing with better contacts. But that's a guess. Probably trollish.
Maybe it's a conspiracy. :cool:
Though Bush's team rarely is that clever, ya wonder if Iran laying off Iraq was a trade off for this report:noid
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Though Bush's team rarely is that clever, ya wonder if Iran laying off Iraq was a trade off for this report:noid
That's not "clever."
-
Originally posted by Tango
What do the Israelis have to say about it?
I am sure the Mossad knows exactly what is going on.
I am just as sure they will NEVER allow Iran to come even close to obtaining nuclear weapons.
I have a feeling though the Mossad is scratching their heads with the old WTF look on their faces.
-
Originally posted by Tango
They won't believe it even when Tel Aviv or New York gets nuked.
What's the upside for Iran to nuke NY? Or even to let NY be nuked by giving a fanatic a wmd? We'd wipe 'em off the face of the planet and they know it.
-
well a nuke winter would slow up global warming , opps, i mean climate change.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
What's the upside for Iran to nuke NY? Or even to let NY be nuked by giving a fanatic a wmd? We'd wipe 'em off the face of the planet and they know it.
Ummm... Complete devastation of the economy of the United States that would make the Great Depression pale in comparision.
And fanatical Islamists obviously dont care if we wipe them off the face of the map, heck they do it to themselves on a daily basis. They will all get their 13 or whatever virgins and be happy as pie they have delivered a blow to the " Great Satan", that we may or may not recover from.
Fanatical Islam is one of the greatest threats this world has ever faced to ignore it is a fatal mistake. They do not want peace with the U.S. or Western Nations, they do not wish to co-exist with Christians, Buddists, or any other religion other than their own.
Islam itself is not the problem, how many are being taught to interpret their religious writings IS the problem.
How to stop it is everyones problem and anyones guess.
-
Complete devastation of the economy? Not hardly. The primary reason we have not had a nuke dropped on us is that there aren't enough in the arsenal of the fanatics to finish the job. It wouldn't devastate us, it would wipe them out as we simply got rid of some old weapons that are in need of replacement anyway. They shoot their wad in a grand assault, perhaps taking out one city, we toss out some old outdated weapons and remove them from the planet.
Then, the isolation, cleanup and rebuilding of a region, along with the military resupplying the depleted weapons along with stockpiling more because "we told you they were out there" and this nation reels but doesn't fall over the loss of New York City.
Most in the world cannot grasp the overall wealth of this nation. We would be wounded, they would be gone. In the scale of wealth and power, it would be similar to breaking your pinky. Painful, tick you off, might even lose that finger, but it isn't going to even remotely send you to your grave.
-
Originally posted by sgt203
Fanatical Islam is one of the greatest threats this world has ever faced to ignore it is a fatal mistake.
Not many advocate ignoring it. Just not everyone agrees on the most practical way to deal with it.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
What's the upside for Iran to nuke NY? Or even to let NY be nuked by giving a fanatic a wmd? We'd wipe 'em off the face of the planet and they know it.
You are using logic? Does that work when trying to find out the motives of Jihad?
I am wondering... This whole thread, people have been arguing between two Bush/CIA reports about the nuclear programs of a foreign nation.
What makes you pick one report over the other?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
What's the upside for Iran to nuke NY? Or even to let NY be nuked by giving a fanatic a wmd? We'd wipe 'em off the face of the planet and they know it.
And if a(n) organization such as Al-Queda manages to detonate a device in NY, or Boston, or LA, or any other large metropolitan U.S. City, Which Al-Queda city do we nuke? Where is their capitol city? Where are the borders' of Al-Queda's homeland?
The U.S. is a large, defined target, per se. But Al-Queda is a terrorist organization, with no declared homeland, or capitol. You can't fire a nuke at something that isn't there. You have to fight that problem a different way.
-
What irks me is we're supposed to believe that they stopped enrichment in Iran almost 5 years ago... and Bush says he found out about it Tuesday?
The man is a moron, and there's still 27% of you that think he isn't. I wonder why all of his business ventures ended in complete failures.
-
Look if i were in Bush's situation and i heard a report like that. I'd just "hear" it thats all. It's okay to just hear opinions and facts and not neccessarily make an opinion on it right away. And express it LOUDLY. Taking in information for a president is important. Not believing every bit of information is even more important.
Iran...... basically they're are some *****holes over there and i don't trust em. Would i believe the report outright...no. Would i believe it if it said the opposite ....no. What makes Bush an idiot however is his cowboy nature and instead kind of acting out in ways where he should tone it down some and shut up. Okay we get it your a strong President already. But being strong doesn't necessarily mean having a big mouth and loud attitude and being quick to start a fight either. President Bush, handle things more carefully, don't go around making enemies at the outset with your antics. Shut up... don't be afraid to listen. There's alot of situations i feel you could have kept from brewing and blowing out of proportion if you weren't acting like a fool.
So calm down.
Remember Michael in the Godfather, though he was sadistic, and evil, i believe alot about being a president could be learned from how he ran his mafia family.
1.Be quiet
2.Observant
3.Don't make a big scene
4. Always be watching and listening
5. Just take in information
6. When you make your move....MAKE your move.
7. There's no fanfare after that.
Alot could be learned by President Bush by this statement "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer". So president Bush follow those rules and maybe you won't leave office starting a war that doesn't solve the original problem and leaves things worse than they already were. Because i don't know about you but i feel no safer from terrorists than when this war started almost five years ago. Close to 5,000 soldiers now have died for that. What was the plan? There was no plan. He wasn't smart enough to see or make a plan. And those soldiers have died for that and it's pretty F*cked up to me.
-
According to german news of yesterday Mr. Bush was informed by the CIA in August 2007 that Iran has no military nuclear program. The military project was stopped in 2003 - long before Mr. Ahmadinedjad became president of Iran. (Or with other words: Under the rule of Mr Ahmadinedjad, who is shown in western media often as a second Hitler there was no military nuclear program in Iran).
Nevertheless Mr. Bush told the people in a speach of October 2007 that Iran is trying to build nuclear missiles.
I think thats the way of politicians ans so Bush told the lie because it was more logic for him to keep the picture of an Iran, which is only few months away from attacking the civilized world with nukes.
During all this time Russia had told that there are no proofs for an iranian military program.
Also Mr. El Baradei of the nuclear agency (I dont know the correct word in english - but I hope you know, which agengy I mean) told in his actual report, that there is no military iranian nuclear program. After that event Israel demanded the deposal of Mr. El Baradei.
Then the CIA-report followed.
Maybe the reports in the media about Iran will change. Maybe it will be reported that Iran is fighting a war against Al Kaida and the Taliban long before 9/11 and is still today fighting these terrorists.
Maybe it will be reported that Iran and Russia are working together against islamistic terrorists in former soviet countries and have great successes.
And maybe there will be some reports showing that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the main supporters of Al Kaida and the Taliban, while Iran is fighting them.
But maybe all will be forgotten and in a few weeks the propaganda is telling us, that Iran will be ready to start nukes against Israel and the USA within hours and the mighty iranian fleet is just minutes away from invading Florida ;)
-
Originally posted by ROC
Complete devastation of the economy? Not hardly. The primary reason we have not had a nuke dropped on us is that there aren't enough in the arsenal of the fanatics to finish the job. It wouldn't devastate us, it would wipe them out as we simply got rid of some old weapons that are in need of replacement anyway. They shoot their wad in a grand assault, perhaps taking out one city, we toss out some old outdated weapons and remove them from the planet.
Then, the isolation, cleanup and rebuilding of a region, along with the military resupplying the depleted weapons along with stockpiling more because "we told you they were out there" and this nation reels but doesn't fall over the loss of New York City.
Most in the world cannot grasp the overall wealth of this nation. We would be wounded, they would be gone. In the scale of wealth and power, it would be similar to breaking your pinky. Painful, tick you off, might even lose that finger, but it isn't going to even remotely send you to your grave.
The primary reason nuclear weapons have not been used again is the fear of being retaliated against. This fact should be known before drawing any undue fear upon oneself about the likelihood of an attack. The cold war to me for instance was a joke. A war increased and a fear made even more real by propaganda.
The U.S. didn't wanna nuke the Soviet Union, and they didn't wanna nuke us. Both countries could have lived pretty secure in that fact and left each other alone and not made a big deal out of it. But no, people have to have weapons build ups and have nuclear weapons pointed at each other. President Kennedy was a smart man and realized that, hey, all that is just stupid, let's both stand down because, were're all creating a problem.
Now terrorists they don't care, but that's another problem. It's mighty hard to fight an enemy who has no sense of self preservation or fear of death. We learned that in WW2 from the kamikazes. Now the difference is that terrorists would most likely have to get the necessary materials from a country that hates the U.S. Now these countries know we know who they are and they don't want no problems. Even Iran i think would think twice and is thinking twice about that. That's a pretty damn good deterrent. Not foolproof but pretty good. So don't get your panties all in a bunch about getting nuked just yet.
These very reasons i explained are the very reasons we could have and probably should have left Saddam in power. Sure he was an as*hole, but i don't think he was totally stupid. He didn't want none. He just should have been watched and militarily kept an eye on. He's more a problem to us now gone than he was alive, cause look, we have to get our troops killed trying to put together his damn country, while people shoot at us in the process. While not even really solving or erradicating our real enemy. Now thats wasted motion to me. Real smart.
-
so to the lefties, this intel report is creditable even after similar intel reports about wmds in Iraq seemed to be not so accurate & have given them a political battlecry ( imo they were moved or buried) ... who would have thunk it...
as stated, Iran will never have to use a missile to deliver a nuke attack as they have two legged cheekbones morons who are dying for the "honor" to be the one to set off the first one.
to cripple the US and her allies, ie the financial markets, nothing larger than a half arse dirty bomb detonations in a couple of the right cities is needed. think that requires a full blown Iranian "Nuclear Weapons program"?
Don't worry lefties, Obama and/or Billary will fix everything ... LOL
-
Dear Shuffler Cypher Yeager,
While I don't think Bush is the leader Ronald Reagan was... we have had worse presidents... Carter for example, in my opinion.
Many here have an understanding of my political position... some don't.
I am a moderate; just to the right of center. I voted for Bush twice and his father, twice.
Don't assume I am picking on or supporting Bush or that I think he a good or bad president... necessarily.
To ask questions as to what is going on is not picking on someone... necessarily.
Let’s get to the bottom of this and see what's what.
We The People need to keep an eye on government, specifically the particular politicians and their advisors and their subsequent string pullers who are in power; not be spoon fed into believing everything we are told to believe because it suits a particular politician's, or a particular political party's (left or right), agenda.
I view all politicians with reasonable skepticism… left/right/up/down/and in between.
Bottom line... this is about We The People... not We The Government. People in government are paid servants of the Amercian public and their interests.
If a man or woman who is president can not take heat from We The People then they are in the wrong job.
Ideally, the media is the non-partisan watch dog of government for the American public; not political washing machines on permanent political spin cycle to the left or right.
So... I have to further guard what I hear and see and read with that in mind.
TIGERESS
-
Bush is an idiot!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so to the lefties, this intel report is creditable even after similar intel reports about wmds in Iraq seemed to be not so accurate & have given them a political battlecry ( imo they were moved or buried) ... who would have thunk it...
as stated, Iran will never have to use a missile to deliver a nuke attack as they have two legged cheekbones morons who are dying for the "honor" to be the one to set off the first one.
to cripple the US and her allies, ie the financial markets, nothing larger than a half arse dirty bomb detonations in a couple of the right cities is needed. think that requires a full blown Iranian "Nuclear Weapons program"?
Don't worry lefties, Obama and/or Billary will fix everything ... LOL
I don't believe the report either. I just think that Iran will be very careful distributing nuclear materials either underhanded or overhanded to the terrorist. They may hate us and talk alot. But basically they don't want no problems. Not much to be gained by them by that. They know what they'd awaken. Now Japan you may say could have said the same thing or Hitler. But Japan was in the throes of wanting to expand and feeling like they deserved it and then the oil issues and inflated sense of oriental spiritualism. Hitler was just crazy. Now the people in Iran today, well hindsight is 20/20. But even though they're president may seem a little off i think a lot of people behind the scenes in Iran would reject doing such things. It's not smart business, and a large majority knows this.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I don't believe the report either. I just think that Iran will be very careful distributing nuclear materials either underhanded or overhanded to the terrorist. They may hate us and talk alot. But basically they don't want no problems. Not much to be gained by them by that. They know what they'd awaken. Now Japan you may say could have said the same thing or Hitler. But Japan was in the throes of wanting to expand and feeling like they deserved it and then the oil issues and inflated sense of oriental spiritualism. Hitler was just crazy. Now the people in Iran today, well hindsight is 20/20. But even though they're president may seem a little off i think a lot of people behind the scenes in Iran would reject doing such things. It's not smart business, and a large majority knows this.
I suspect Iran was told by Saudi Arabia to cool it with the nuke weapons because they well understand the US, GB, and Israel will not let it stand and would blow the facilities to kingdom come and show Iran to the world as a threat to humanity.
That just apparently happened in Syria very recently; Israel bombed an apparent Syrian budding nuke weapons facility to bits.
I think Saudi Arabia, though not our "friend", is fairly sane; not run by a gaggle of whackos like Iran and Syria and Venezuela, imv.
I also suspect Saudi Arabia wants the price of oil to drop for a lot of reasons and as long as a near war looms closer between the US and Iran it threatens Saudi Arabia’s long-term goals with respect to oil revenues and oil field security.
The US could bomb any middle-eastern oil field to a stand still in a matter of days.
The price of oil needs to drop now. I see this whole thing as a pressure release in action.
From what I am seeing, the rise in the price of oil is due to market speculation on the market's perceived degree of likelihood that supplies will be disrupted by hostilities in the region.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
What irks me is we're supposed to believe that they stopped enrichment in Iran almost 5 years ago... and Bush says he found out about it Tuesday?
The man is a moron, and there's still 27% of you that think he isn't. I wonder why all of his business ventures ended in complete failures.
They NEVER stopped enriching uranium, --they're doing it right now. They are credited with stopping research in 2003, after 15 years, (although in July we DIDNT think that;)) which could have used said enriched uranium to make a bomb. They are using the cover of 'peaceful purposes' as pretense for the 3000 centrifuges. (I have no idea of their oil/gas reserves....they COULD be taking the long view...getting nuclear power ready to go sooner rather than later...?) Would LOVE to know what the 180 degree change in the assessment is based on...maybe someone will leak it, as all OTHER important documents seem to be, eventually
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so to the lefties, this intel report is creditable even after similar intel reports about wmds in Iraq seemed to be not so accurate & have given them a political battlecry ( imo they were moved or buried) ... who would have thunk it...
as stated, Iran will never have to use a missile to deliver a nuke attack as they have two legged cheekbones morons who are dying for the "honor" to be the one to set off the first one.
to cripple the US and her allies, ie the financial markets, nothing larger than a half arse dirty bomb detonations in a couple of the right cities is needed. think that requires a full blown Iranian "Nuclear Weapons program"?
Don't worry lefties, Obama and/or Billary will fix everything ... LOL
I think the men in power in Iran would love to have the prestige of having a nuclear strike force at their command. It's like having the ultimate guy toy. They want to dominate the world for Islam and have said so many times. Know what? I believe them. :O
But they don't have it and the combined forces of Great Britain, Israel, France, Germany, India, and the US are never going to let them have it for justified reasons by anyone's measure.
Starting a war to take something away they don’t have makes no sense and would make the US look like it's run by a bunch of fascist-minded rookies.
Iran will have to open up for inspections for the world to be assured no weapons are being developed in the future.
Know what? I blame Bill Clinton for a lot of the mess we are in with Iraq.
On his watch, Bill let Iraq get away with permanently kicking out the WMD inspectors which lead to the belief that Iraq had WMDs which lead to justifying invading Iraq.
Work with them, manage them, control them to the extent necessary; don't shoot ourselves in the foot because we don't like them and would love nothing more than to nuke them into oblivion because of 911.
Although Iran is an exporter of crude oil, they don't have much of a refinement capacity...
I recently read Iran's own oil refinement capacity is around 180,000 barrels a day... not much for a populous nation of 65.4 million people as of July, 2007.
Iran has serious pollution problems from burning fossil fuels and their oil industry's pollution, according to the CIA's World Fact Book website --> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
Iran needs energy as a nation and using nuclear energy allows them to have abundant clean energy to fulfill their nation's energy needs... and again its a prestige thing in my view... they are guys with accompanying male pride and they want the big boy's toys.
Iran having nuclear power plants also makes them more vulnerable in the event of an attack on them... think about it.
However, they have to play by the world's rules if they are going to have nuclear power for bona fide peaceful purposes. The world would be foolish to take their word for it without inspections/regulations in view of their stated world domination ambitions.
TIGERESS
Edit: BTW, anyone remember what they were paying for a gallon of gasoline prior to 911?
I do... it was about 95 cents a gallon.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
I think the men in power in Iran would love to have the prestige of having a nuclear strike force at their command. It's like having the ultimate guy toy. They want to dominate the world for Islam and have said so many times. Know what? I believe them. :O
~snip~
However, they have to play by the world's rules if they are going to have nuclear power for bona fide peaceful purposes. The world would be foolish to take their word for it without inspections/regulations in view of their stated world domination ambitions.
TIGERESS
Since when have Iranian officials stated ambitions for world domination?
Just look at what's going on now, they have far more to fear of us invading them than we do of them.
-
So the NIE goes to the President in August, but he isn't told anything specific, AND he doesn't ask? :aok
(http://alaskareport.com/images1207/cheney_bush.jpg)
-
they have far more to fear of us invading them than we do of them.
====
Invasion is not the scenario most thinking people are worried about. Nuclear proliferation is the threat. The kind of nuclear proliferation that escapes the boundry of nations and is passed on, either by design or fault, to terror organizations. At least thats my take on the situation.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Since when have Iranian officials stated ambitions for world domination?
Just look at what's going on now, they have far more to fear of us invading them than we do of them.
Iran is a strict Islamic Theocracy.
(http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/IslamicHolyWar.jpg)
THE GOAL OF JIHAD IS WORLD DOMINATION --> http://www.scribd.com/doc/505609/THE-GOAL-OF-JIHAD-IS-WORLD-DOMINATION
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/WhatAmericansNeedtoKnowAboutJihad.jpg)
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/JihadsObjectiveisDeathToAmerica.jpg)
That is whole the point of the Hydra thread --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217926&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by john9001
bush only knows what the CIA tells him
The CIA didn't inform him God did...
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
- George W. Bush, June, 2003
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
-
Like my sig says, man, Pinky-Vision.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
The CIA didn't inform him God did...
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
- George W. Bush, June, 2003
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
OH MY WORD!
If Bush is hearing "voices" it means he is not Ok.
Auditory hallucinations are the key signs of schizophrenia.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
OH MY WORD!
If Bush is hearing "voices" it means he is not Ok.
Auditory hallucinations are the key signs of schizophrenia.
TIGERESS
And you would believe Palestinians, saying he told them that? On top of that its being reported by the BBC. :noid
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
The CIA didn't inform him God did...
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
- George W. Bush, June, 2003
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
Oh my God please tell me he DID not say that. Thats gotta be a false quote, no body in a position of power can be that stupid..please. It's ok to believe in God but when you go around doing stuff on that principle alone i have questions about that person. I guess that means God is on somebody's side right? He likes us Americans more. George let God guide you, but make your decisions on sound information. From his track record we see he does not do that.
Some of you people voted on this man a SECOND time .........? :huh
He reminds me of a religious story i've heard a number of times......
A man is in a flood, and the water is rising, he leaves his house and climbs on his roof. Later a man in a raft comes by and says "jump on i'll take you to safety". The man says "thats alright my lord will save me". A little later a man comes by in a boat saying 'the waters getting higher you better jump on". Once again the man says "thats alright my lord will save me". now the water is up to his neck and a helicopter throws down a ladder. "Sir please grab hold this is it were're the last flight out". Once again the man says "My lord and savior will save me"....... The man dies and when he confronts God in heaven he says. "My lord i thought you would save me"? And God says......."What are you doing here, i sent two boats and a helicopter"?
And this man WAS George W. Bush. So George believe in God, but remember the lord works in mysterious ways, and sometimes not so mysterious ways.
Don't base your presidential decisions on that.
..........IDIOT.... :huh :aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
they have far more to fear of us invading them than we do of them.
====
Invasion is not the scenario most thinking people are worried about. Nuclear proliferation is the threat. The kind of nuclear proliferation that escapes the boundry of nations and is passed on, either by design or fault, to terror organizations. At least thats my take on the situation.
Oh they are worried very much of an invasion by us, after all we've proven that we'll invade a sovereign nation based on what turns out to be false pretenses.
We've labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" even though they actually have been quite peaceful. Their history proves that. However, since then, the propaganda machine has been in full force that just keeps feeding the hate.
That just makes invasion that much more palatable.
Keep in mind that the members that make up Al Quaida are mainly Sunni which are Iran's Shia majority's historical enemies.
So Iran makes a bomb to give it to an unstable historical enemy that might just turn around and use it back on Iran?
If Iran makes a bomb, it'll be to ensure that we don't invade them.
Bombing us will only hurt us but will ensure the destruction of all of Iran.
They have so much more to fear of us than we of them.
-
Just foor for thought...
If Iran did have a nuclear weapons program that stopped in (was it 2003) the question I would have to ask is "how far did they get".
If they got to the point of merely needing weapons grade plutionium to have a viable weapon are they not still a threat??
They are still enriching urainium are they not, or have they indicated they will cease this??
The fact they stopped active work towards having a nuclear weapon does that make them less of a threat??
Where is the information/ research they gained from the prior program?? I would think only a moron would believe they just "threw it all away".
How much time would it take for them to put together a functional device once they have enough enriched urainum for a bomb??
I believe we have offered them material (fuel) for their nuclear reactors which would not provide them with the ability to refine this into weapons grade material and this was refused (light water). Why ??
I am happy to hear about this intellegence report indicating they have cease their program ( I hope this one is correct).
However in my opinion there are way to many unanswered questions about Iran and their intentions with nuclear material to sit back and say they no longer pose any threat in the region.
I further believe we cannot be wrong on this one the stakes are way to high.
I am not sure any of the western powers and for that matter most Arab States,(with maybe the exception of Syria) and edefinately Isreal, beleive that a nuclear armed Iran is something that can be tolerated or allowed.
So though the news, if true, is encouraging lets not all break out our tye-dye shirts, sandels and sheet music for "Kumbya" and "Give Peace a Chance" just yet . :aok
BTW: If George Bush said that above quote that has to be one of the stupidest things any President has ever said or at least since "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".... :D
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Iran is a strict Islamic Theocracy.
(http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/IslamicHolyWar.jpg)
THE GOAL OF JIHAD IS WORLD DOMINATION --> http://www.scribd.com/doc/505609/THE-GOAL-OF-JIHAD-IS-WORLD-DOMINATION
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/WhatAmericansNeedtoKnowAboutJihad.jpg)
(http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/Tigeress_ah/JihadsObjectiveisDeathToAmerica.jpg)
That is whole the point of the Hydra thread --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217926&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
TIGERESS
Propaganda.
Helping the Shah regain power and our trying to help keep him in power was not the work of supporting a "viable democracy" as the Shah was a brutal dictator.
Is Suleiman Abu Gheith Iranian? Is he Sunni or Shia?
There's also a quote from a Saudi and I'll bet he's Sunni.
Don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to say that because they are Sunni, that makes them bad.
Taking those quotes and using those as somehow related to Iran is wrong.
-
A stream of bad news for the Boosh admin.
Now USA is going to have a hard time convincing Eastern European (and the world) to let USA install missile shield to protect them from Iranian missiles:noid
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am wondering... This whole thread, people have been arguing between two Bush/CIA reports about the nuclear programs of a foreign nation.
What makes you pick one report over the other?
The one that's the latest one from the same agency under the same administration where said agency says the other one was wrong and current/more data proved it?
Not seeing rocket science required here. :)
-
Can anyone remind me why they hate USA plz,i forgot.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so to the lefties, this intel report is creditable even after similar intel reports about wmds in Iraq seemed to be not so accurate & have given them a political battlecry ( imo they were moved or buried) ... who would have thunk it...
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?
Oh yeah. Politics. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11?
Oh, yeah....same answer.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?
Oh yeah. Politics. :D
CIA didn't write the report, 3 guys from State did---Boosh hasn't many fans there. On reflection, absent any ground-breaking info that's made itself known since last summer, they prolly crafted this report to defang Bush, as they are afraid he'll start a war with Iran before he leaves office. As far as Iran goes, if you have enough enriched uranium, how hard is it to make an unsophisticated bomb, considering they've put 20+ years into research alREADY?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?
Oh yeah. Politics. :D
the 'lefties' hate the USA as it is , they want to turn it into the Peoples Republic of North America.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Propaganda.
Helping the Shah regain power and our trying to help keep him in power was not the work of supporting a "viable democracy" as the Shah was a brutal dictator.
Is Suleiman Abu Gheith Iranian? Is he Sunni or Shia?
There's also a quote from a Saudi and I'll bet he's Sunni.
Don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to say that because they are Sunni, that makes them bad.
Taking those quotes and using those as somehow related to Iran is wrong.
What country is Osama Bin Laden from? Saudi Arabia? right?
The issue goes beyond the borders of a single middle east country; Iran is simply more vocal about world domination in the name of Islam.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What's "lefty" got to do with the CIA under the Bush administration correcting it's position on the level of nuclear threat Iran poses?
Oh yeah. Politics. :D
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected[/b] it position.
I ask a question(s) again:
Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?
What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other?
-
Evil right-wingers not the only ones who are dubious of the new report:
link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran7dec07,0,2720689.story?coll=la-home-center)
Sharon Squassoni, a former government nuclear safeguards expert now with the generally liberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, noted that the intelligence report said Iran suspended its enrichment program in 2003 and later signed an agreement allowing U.N. inspections.
But, she said, the portion of the report made public was silent on the fact that the Iranians reversed both actions in 2006.
The ability to develop fissile materials is the most important element of a nuclear weapons program, she told reporters.
Gary Samore, who was a top arms control official in the Clinton White House, agreed that the National Intelligence Estimate did not adequately emphasize Iran's continuing efforts to enrich uranium and build missiles.
"The halting of the weaponization program in 2003 is less important from a proliferation standpoint than resumption of the enrichment program in 2006," said Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Samore said the report undermined Bush's warnings about Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons and left Tehran in a strong position, allowing it to develop its enrichment capacity without a substantial challenge from the United States and its allies. The secret weaponization program is "on ice," he said, but Iran preserves the option to resume that when it wishes..
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected it position.
I ask a question(s) again:
Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?
What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other? [/B]
Excuse me, "Mr. Facts Not In Evidence" while blaming "the lefties" over this.
;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Excuse me, "Mr. Facts Not In Evidence" while blaming "the lefties" over this.
;) :aok
Where do I blame lefties? I can't remember a time I said one or the other report was definitive.
Any righty who assumes the most recent report is wrong is making the same mistake as well.
When I do a bunch of math and the second check comes up with a different answer, I do it a third time, and even then I need to do some heavy checking to determine which is correct.
Has anyone in this thread some independant verification?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected it position.
I ask a question(s) again:
Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?
What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other? [/B]
Answer: Simple, any report that casts doubt on Bush is considered accurate no matter the source or normal validity. It's an election year so truth is a non sequitur. Any opinion that has the same effect must also be taken at face value for the same reason.
Looking at the report and trying to verify it is not allowed.
It's just politics as usual irregardless of party orientation. I listened to a "news" report yesterday about oprah and obama teaming up The interviewees were saying that those who don't vote for obama were doing so only because of race. Translation, only racists do not vote for obama. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Answer: Simple, any report that casts doubt on Bush is considered accurate no matter the source or normal validity.
However, if the latest report with the most up to date data supported administration presumption then ....
You guys are making a political pity party out of a report you just don't want to believe ...... because you don't wanna believe it. AND trying to project that on your political adversaries.
Blame the left .... the Democrats ... for ... something they didn't control? Bush admin wrong .... Democrats fault?
:lol
-
Originally posted by Arlo
However, if the latest report with the most up to date data supported administration presumption then ....
You guys are making a political pity party out of a report you just don't want to believe ...... because you don't wanna believe it. AND trying to project that on your political adversaries.
Blame the left .... the Democrats ... for ... something they didn't control? Bush admin wrong .... Democrats fault?
:lol
THATS the thing....IS there any new data? Or is this merely a re-assessment of existing CIA data by State Dept people?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
THATS the thing....IS there any new data? Or is this merely a re-assessment of existing CIA data by State Dept people?
The State Department people. Even a re-assessment by the SD isn't a conspiracy by the left.:rofl
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The State Department people. Even a re-assessment by the SD isn't a conspiracy by the left.:rofl
The US State Dept and the 'Left' ARE the same thing
-
Don't forget he's doing God's work *cough, cough, choke, puke*. Remember when Bush said, "I spoke with God, and God told me to destroy the Axis of evil." Anyone else remember that speach?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The US State Dept and the 'Left' ARE the same thing
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice may be surprised by your opinion. ;)
-
Originally posted by AGM65
Don't forget he's doing God's work *cough, cough, choke, puke*. Remember when Bush said, "I spoke with God, and God told me to destroy the Axis of evil." Anyone else remember that speach?
nope
want to post the quote link?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice may be surprised by your opinion. ;)
She is an ineffective leader, has little to do with goings-on. GOOD thing she had this position, so folks won't think of her as presidential material any more
-
Originally posted by bj229r
She is an ineffective leader, has little to do with goings-on. GOOD thing she had this position, so folks won't think of her as presidential material any more
You're just in a general all-around pizzy mood over this, ain'tcha? ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sorry. What was the point?
snip
Its that thingy on top of your head, dood. Look in the mirror :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You're just in a general all-around pizzy mood over this, ain'tcha? ;)
Hmm, pretty much, MOSTLY because NOW Iran is going to go unchecked doing exactly what they were doing before, which is being the first Islamic nutberger country to acquire a nuke
One misleading aspect of the new NIE is that it defines a "nuclear weapons program" very narrowly as "Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work." But Tehran may have halted its weapon design work because it already has a suitable weapon design. Aided by A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling network and North Korea, Iran may have made so much progress in more than a decade of clandestine work that an easily reversible halt of some programs in 2003 may have little practical effect in restricting its ability to eventually build a nuclear weapon.
The chief bottleneck in Iranian efforts to attain a nuclear weapon may not be the weaponization work, but the acquisition of enough weapons-grade fissile material to arm a bomb. This makes Iran's accelerating work on uranium enrichment, with approximately 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz facility ostensibly dedicated to producing fuel for its civilian nuclear power program, an important part of its potential weapons efforts. It is therefore a mistake to downplay Iran's intensifying efforts to enrich uranium in continued defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran may simply be trying to master the most difficult part of the weapons building process--enriching the uranium fuel--before taking the final step of weaponization.
The NIE recognizes this possibility by including the following caveat:
Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.
This important point, buried in the text of the document, is often overlooked in press reports about the NIE.
link (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/wm1727.cfm)
-
Carefull BJ229r,
I said something very similar to what your quote indicated. No doubt you are soon to be vilified as a tool of the administration etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by culero
You can make a cake out of carrots.
Windchill can make teeth chatter. :D *ShruG*
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Hmm, pretty much, MOSTLY because NOW Iran is going to go unchecked doing exactly what they were doing before, which is being the first Islamic nutberger country to acquire a nuke
link (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/wm1727.cfm)
Then fly to D.C. and correct the SD. Wouldn't that be more productive than, say, whining that it's a leftist conspiracy and that Condi can't get elected?
:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Carefull BJ229r,
I said something very similar to what your quote indicated. No doubt you are soon to be vilified as a tool of the administration etc. etc.
Someone actually affiliate your toolishness officially with the admin? What position you holdin'? ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Carefull BJ229r,
I said something very similar to what your quote indicated. No doubt you are soon to be vilified as a tool of the administration etc. etc.
The networks ran with glee --Brian Williams was on there the first day with "What did Bush know, and when did he know it?"...as more details come out, the report looks less useful to EVERyone except Iran, china and Russia
-
Evil conspiracy. The State Department is obviously infiltrated. The administration has lost control of it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Windchill can make teeth chatter. :D *ShruG*
Heh...being from where you're from, you'd know :D
-
Originally posted by culero
Heh...being from where you're from, you'd know :D
You Southern Texas types. Heh. Actually, since the move east to DFW, I don't get that much "seasonal" change. Just some cold snaps off and on in the middle of winter designed to put our immune systems into shock for a month or two. Boy, the people here freak out even more than Lubbockites whenever precipitation happens. ;)
-
Aw hell, this guy says it better than I could....well not better, but it saves me from typing a long post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7LvJBIaNo
Please excuse the spittle.
-
as we saw with iraq and venezuela the neo-colonialist do have a penchant for feeding deceptive and hissy fit propaganda to the sheeples when brown people refuse to pay an imperial tax... what irks these socialists and their followers is that 85% of iran's oil sales are inking either the euro or yen and not their beloved usd.
currently you can only buy/trade oil on either the nymex or ipe and only with the usd... the recent chicken-hawk imperial cluckfest is an attempt to stop the opening of the new iranian oil exchange which will only accept euros, yen and gold.
with venezuela moving to euros... and the recent neutering by chavez of the imf petrodollar recycling in latin and south american... it's making it rather difficult for the empire to export its inflation upon other nations... and a tsunamis of usd notes coming home is another quagmire for the debt ridden empire.
economic weapons grade material and global proliferation indeed...
it's the petrodollar war stupid...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You Southern Texas types. Heh. Actually, since the move east to DFW, I don't get that much "seasonal" change. Just some cold snaps off and on in the middle of winter designed to put our immune systems into shock for a month or two. Boy, the people here freak out even more than Lubbockites whenever precipitation happens. ;)
Speaking as a southwestern Texas girl born and raised, precipitation is what happens to other folk, ‘cept in rare circumstances.
Ever see a mud storm? or a dirt storm that caused street lights to turn on in the middle of the day?
I have seen both.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Torque
the neo-colonialist .....hissy fit propaganda ..... imperial tax...
the recent chicken-hawk imperial cluckfest.....
with venezuela moving to euros... empire .......debt ridden empire.
wow, you feel better now? Citgo is still accepting US dollars for gas at their stations.
i wonder if Chavez is still giving discounts to american heating oil customers this winter?
-
John,
You have to understand that torque is just stuck wallowing in the mediocrity of his country and snowed in to boot. He has to do something to make himself feel better.
:p <--- added to take the sting out of the otherwise accurate observation posted above.
:p
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Speaking as a southwestern Texas girl born and raised, precipitation is what happens to other folk, ‘cept in rare circumstances.
Ever see a mud storm? or a dirt storm that caused street lights to turn on in the middle of the day?
I have seen both.
TIGERESS
Lubbock, Texas, darlin'. Thought you knew. :D (Yes, West Texas invented the dirt storm .... and mud storm .... and .... )
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Lubbock, Texas, darlin'. Thought you knew. :D (Yes, West Texas invented the dirt storm .... and mud storm .... and .... )
Didn't know...cool!! :)
Lubbock... wasn't too far; we had relatives we visited in Lubbock.
Dang, Lubbock tornados are state famous.
When we got weather it was and, I am sure, still is something to talk about; good or bad.
TIGERESS
-
Not sure...but maybe this story has some wheels....who knows.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316389,00.html
-
National Council of Resistance of Iran?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran
The State department lists it as a front organization of a terrorist group.
"The NCRI is classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the United States. The European Union officially considers the People's Mujahedin of Iran "minus NCRI" to be a terrorist organisation.[3] Michael Axworthy, former head of the Iran section at the Middle East department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in the United Kingdom, claimed in early 2006 that the NCRI is a "tightly disciplined front-organization for the MEK and deemed them unreliable."[5] Nathan Hunerwadel, in an article published by the National Iranian American Council, described the NCRI as a front-group for the PMOI.[6] However, some top US officials such as Dick Armey(the former House majority leader (1995-2003)) have acknowledged that the State Department wrongly included MEK in the terrorist list from the beginning.[7]"
References
1. Lorimer, Doug (2006). IRAN: US relies on terrorists for nuke 'intelligence’. Green Left Weekly, February 22, 2006.. Green Left Weekly. Retrieved on 2006-05-01.
2. Andrew Higgins and Jay Solomon, Iranian Imbroglio Gives New Boost To Odd Exile Group, Wall Street Journal, 2006-11-29.
3. a b Council Common Position 2004/500/CESP of 17 May 2004 (pdf). Council of the European Union (May 17, 2004). Retrieved on 2006-12-28.
4. DC Court of Appeals Rules Against NCRI Petition for Review of "Foreign Terrorist Organization" Designation (pdf). United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (July 9, 2004). Retrieved on 2006-12-28.
5. Kliger, Rachelle (January 11, 2006). Resistance group claims evidence of Iranian bomb ambitions. The Media Line. Retrieved on 2006-12-28.
6. Hunerwadel, Nathan (February 16, 2006). Iran Policy Committee urges covert military action against Iran, support for Mujahedin. National Iranian American Council. Retrieved on 2006-12-28.
7. [http://thehill.com/op-eds/empowering-the-democratic-opposition-in-iran-2007-07-24.html }}
But then, that's the SD and nobody really trusts it anymore.
;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
National Council of Resistance of Iran?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Resistance_of_Iran
The State department lists it as a front organization of a terrorist group.
But then, that's the SD and nobody really trusts it anymore.
;)
They could be....I just found this interesting to hear about. I heard it on the news coming into work today...then saw it there.
They very well could be a terrorist group....Hell Arlo...anyone with Muhammad in thier group could be a terrorsit group these days....:lol
Just throwing it in the pot for stirring a bit more into the soup.
-
I could go for some soup.
Nobody's really seen my darker skeptical side yet.
Soup brings it out in me.
Well .... stew moreso. :t
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I could go for some soup.
Nobody's really seen my darker skeptical side yet.
Soup brings it out in me.
Well .... stew moreso. :t
Go to HEB....buy some Campbells Grilled Chicken and Sausage Chunky soup. YUM....You got to try it. Like gumbo almost...its goooooooood and may send your skeptical side into overdrive.........which would be fun:lol
-
HEB, eh? Still learning all the weird grocery stores on the Eastern side of the state. You guys ever have Piggly Wiggly here? ;)
(Thanks for the soupvice. Gonna give it a try. I can feel the darkside growing already. :D)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
HEB, eh? Still learning all the weird grocery stores on the Eastern side of the state. You guys ever have Piggly Wiggly here? ;)
(Thanks for the soupvice. Gonna give it a try. I can feel the darkside growing already. :D)
I worked at a Piggly Wiggly in high school. LOL Conway Arkansas