Berkeley Pisses Me Off

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have yet to see the IAEA say the Iranians are not trying to build a nuke. Even though this article is almost a year old the IAEA coninues to push Iran for cooperation and Iran continues to hide.

lixy = liar

Get updated!

4 December 2007

[i]IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003.

He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran. [/i]

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html

[/quote]

That does not absolve them of anything. It merely says they are not currently trying to assemble one.

The only reason they have not tried to assemble one is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That does not absolve them of anything. It merely says they are not currently trying to assemble one. [/quote]

I see. You are kookier than I thought.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That does not absolve them of anything. It merely says they are not currently trying to assemble one.

I see. You are kookier than I thought.[/quote]

Iran needs to clarify past and present issues.

Translation, Iran is hiding something.

No concrete evidence

Translation, the evidence we have is not firm enough to prove they are building a nuke but there is indications of suspicious activity.

This report absolves them of nothing. It indicates that Iran is hiding something.

Now piss off.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have yet to see the IAEA say the Iranians are not trying to build a nuke. Even though this article is almost a year old the IAEA coninues to push Iran for cooperation and Iran continues to hide.

lixy = liar

Get updated![/quote]

Maybe you should take your own advice, Ms. Terrorist sympathizer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran_8

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No concrete evidence

Translation, the evidence we have is not firm enough to prove they are building a nuke but there is indications of suspicious activity. [/quote]

We heard it all before: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Here’s the tricky bit though; Washington refuses to let Tehran enrich uranium as is their right under the NPT. Everybody knows that proving a negative is close to impossible. The rest is irrelevant.

I engaged Crew Pierce on this issue, because he advocated military action against Iran. Why he thinks Tehran poses any threat to the sovereignty of the US is a mystery to me.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I have yet to see the IAEA say the Iranians are not trying to build a nuke. Even though this article is almost a year old the IAEA coninues to push Iran for cooperation and Iran continues to hide.

lixy = liar

Get updated!

Maybe you should take your own advice, Ms. Terrorist sympathizer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran_8

[/quote]

US intel links Iran with nuke bomb bid By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
49 minutes ago

The U.S. has recently shared sensitive information with the International Atomic Energy Agency on key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program that Washington says shows Tehran was directly engaged in trying to make an atomic weapon, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The diplomats said Washington also gave the IAEA permission to confront Iran with at least some of the evidence in an attempt to pry details out of the Islamic republic on the activities, as part of the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s attempts to investigate Iran’s suspicious nuclear past.

The decision by the U.S. administration to declassify its intelligence and indirectly share it with Iran through the IAEA was a clear reflection of Washington’s’ drive to pressure Iran into admitting that it had focused part of its nuclear efforts toward developing a weapons program.

While the Americans have previously declassified and then forwarded intelligence to the IAEA to help its investigations, they do so on a selective basis.

Following Israel’s bombing of a Syrian site late last year, and media reports citing unidentified U.S. officials as saying the target was a nuclear installation, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei turned, in vain to the U.S. in asking for details on what was struck, said a diplomat who �?? like others �?? asked for anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information.

Shared in the past two weeks was material on a laptop computer reportedly smuggled out of Iran, said another diplomat, accredited to the IAEA. In 2005, U.S. intelligence assessed that information as indicating that Tehran had been working on details of nuclear weapons, including missile trajectories and ideal altitudes for exploding warheads.

He said that after declassification, U.S. intelligence also was forwarded on two other issues �?? the “Green Salt Project” �?? a plan the U.S. alleges links diverse components of a nuclear weapons program, including uranium enrichment, high explosives testing and a missile re-entry vehicle, and material in Iran’s possession showing how to mold uranium metal into warhead form.

The material followed up on information on the projects shared by the Americans with key allies and the agency last year, said the diplomat

Iran is under two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, which it started developing during nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity built on illicit purchases and revealed only five years ago.

Since then, IAEA experts have uncovered activities, experiments and blueprints and materials that point to possible efforts by Iran to create nuclear weapons, even though Tehran insists its nuclear project is peaceful and aimed only at creating a large-scale enrichment facility to make reactor fuel. Its leaders consistently dismiss allegations that they are interested in enrichment for its other use �?? creating fissile material suitable for arming warheads.

Instead of heeding Security Council demands to freeze enrichment, Iran has expanded its program. On Wednesday, diplomats told the AP that its new generation of advanced centrifuges have begun processing small quantities of the gas that can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran_8

[/quote]

Diplomats, ey? How about AP just drops the cover and says it’s a spokesperson for the White House?

I’ll wait for the IAEA to address that so-called “evidence” before I pass judgment.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The Marine recruiters who come to my high school lie through their teeth regularly, and are so phony its comical.

Recruiters are more of an annoyance, than anything else. The Marines/Army/Navy are obviously (in my high school at least) targeting the stupidest of us.

Seriously, if the recruiters weren’t so obviously going after the idiots, I wouldn’t mind them so much. I wouldn’t want them banned (as that would put the recruiting power of the government, and therefore our soldiers, in clear and present danger), but I still avoid them, unless I want a cheap and unsatisfying laugh.[/quote]

Nonsense. The test scores of our military tend to be above average compared to general population analyses. If all they recruited were drooling dolts, the scores would be below average.

You should consider joining up. Instead of having a mundane life like most, you get an adventure. Wish I’d done it.

Imagine the sheer joy of capping a few raghead muderering scum!! That’s way better than flipping Wendy-Burgers!!

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran_8

Diplomats, ey? How about AP just drops the cover and says it’s a spokesperson for the White House?

I’ll wait for the IAEA to address that so-called “evidence” before I pass judgment.[/quote]

Yes. By all means give deference to the UN. Sounds about right for a terrorist lover such as yourself.

[quote]lixy wrote:
says they aren’t), how would they attack you with it? Using a catapult? [/quote]

Everyone, behold iran’s new “catapault”

JeffR.

P.S. lixy, I wish you’d move to a more effective propaganda school. Your current one gives you tag-lines that are both clumsy and easy to refute.

[quote]lixy wrote:
and in the event that Tehran is actively trying to build a nuke (something that the IAEA says they aren’t), how would they attack you with it? Using a catapult? More importantly, what on Earth would they gain by doing so? I know that from where you stand they seem quite loony, but they are just as rational as you and me.
[/quote]
Because they always tell the truth right?

Why do you automatically assume I am solely worried about the mainland USA?

I happen to be more worried about Israel and the fall-out that could kill the innocent Palestinians.

Let�??s face it when it comes to common sense and Iran�??s thoughts on Israel they don�??t exactly go hand in hand. I happen to have close friends in Israel and I�??m pretty sure they would be high on the list to nuke.

I also have several friends who have made it to the US from Palestine and they still have family over there and any fall-out would easily kill them as well.

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Because they always tell the truth right? [/quote]

As opposed to whom? Jesus of Nazareth?

Good point. I suppose it has to do with the way the US government sell wars to Americans.

So you’re worried that the fall-out from an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel onto the Occupied Territories would kill innocents? Ok. I would be worried about that too. However, it’s a statistical improbability given that: 1) Iran has no nuclear weapons, 2) There is consensus that Israel has hundreds of them, 3) Iran has nothing to gain from nuking Israel.

If you are sincerely worried about innocent lives, you should be equally worried about Iranians dying if the US was to attack them. Something that’s well within the realm of possibility. Here’s why: 1) America has the military capability to nuke Iran off the map, 2) The US has a well-documented history of waging wars of aggression, 3) The US has been actively involved in undermining Iranian democracy, 4) Washington has been accusing Iran of aiding the Iraqi militas, 5) Iran has plenty of oil.

This is like knocking somebody’s door down, shooting indiscriminately and saying that you saved lives because the people living there might potentially have bought a gun which they might potentially have used to shoot their neighbors. It’s ludicrous.

Iran screws its own people. They live in poverty while the rulers have whores and yachts, all in secret. We need the CIA to go in there (again) and clean out the nest.

Maybe then we’d also get oil to come down in price.

Killing the Iranian leadership would cause oil prices to fall and lead to a decades long economic boom. The sooner the better…

[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Because they always tell the truth right?

As opposed to whom? Jesus of Nazareth?

Why do you automatically assume I am solely worried about the mainland USA?

Good point. I suppose it has to do with the way the US government sell wars to Americans.

So you’re worried that the fall-out from an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel onto the Occupied Territories would kill innocents? Ok. I would be worried about that too. However, it’s a statistical improbability given that: 1) Iran has no nuclear weapons, 2) There is consensus that Israel has hundreds of them, 3) Iran has nothing to gain from nuking Israel.

If you are sincerely worried about innocent lives, you should be equally worried about Iranians dying if the US was to attack them. Something that’s well within the realm of possibility. Here’s why: 1) America has the military capability to nuke Iran off the map, 2) The US has a well-documented history of waging wars of aggression, 3) The US has been actively involved in undermining Iranian democracy, 4) Washington has been accusing Iran of aiding the Iraqi militas, 5) Iran has plenty of oil.

This is like knocking somebody’s door down, shooting indiscriminately and saying that you saved lives because the people living there might potentially have bought a gun which they might potentially have used to shoot their neighbors. It’s ludicrous. [/quote]

Could you possibly argue a point without making it about two extreme views? I never suggested the US nuke Iran off the map in hopes of taking their oil, yet you did your best to make it look like that’s what I was suggesting.

You are so blinded by your own views you refuse to see and middle ground in a debate. Your arguments do nothing to support your views, but do everything to start conflict. You fully embody the reasoning behind such wars; there is no diplomacy possible with extremists. It’s their views or nothing. They refuse to compromise or see any middle ground in disagreements.

You say we are the evil ones, yet it’s your lack of communication skills that start wars.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Iran screws its own people. They live in poverty while the rulers have whores and yachts, all in secret. We need the CIA to go in there (again) and clean out the nest.[/quote]

You tried that in 1953 and, while it seemed to go rather well at first, all the crap you’ve got with Iran today can be traced back to that smart move. The things the Brits get you to do on their behalf…

But further wrecking your economy with a(nother) war you can’ afford would just bring your dollar further down. Cheaper gas, combined with weaker dollar = evens out at best. A lot of your land, infrastructure and companies might end up controlled by foreign interests, as China, and others who are currently holding vast amounts of US$ would probably want to get something for it before it loses too much value.

And any day now, the Iraqis will wise up and greet you as liberators.

[quote]pookie wrote:

And any day now, the Iraqis will wise up and greet you as liberators.
[/quote]

You need new material.

See Anbar Province.

JeffR

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Could you possibly argue a point without making it about two extreme views? I never suggested the US nuke Iran off the map in hopes of taking their oil, yet you did your best to make it look like that’s what I was suggesting. [/quote]

Read closer. I wrote “America has the military capability to nuke Iran off the map”, and that is an undeniable fact. It was part of an argument showing that if anyone was likely to attack anyone else, it would the US striking Iran. Not Iran bombing Israel with non-existing weapons.

On the other hand, here’s what you wrote: “I however protested going to Iraq when Iran was clearly a worse threat”. Now, I don’t think I am completely out-of-touch if I infer from that that you would condone “going to Iran” (you know, like others go to the park). But for the sake of clarity, please explain what you meant by that sentence. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize in advance.

What middle ground? Don’t fsck up Iraq, but bomb Iran instead?

I would love to hear what those arguments that “do everything to start conflict” are.

I, for one, refuse to compromise on anything where human lives are taken under the banner of spreading ideologies, “thought crime” and other such scams. If that makes me an extremist in your view, so be it.

Two things:

  • I have never, in any way, shape or form, condoned a war of aggression. Not with actions, not with money, not with words and not with prayers.

  • I know better than to think in terms of “good” and “evil” when it comes to international relations. And I sure as hell never said anybody was the “evil one”.

[quote]lixy wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Could you possibly argue a point without making it about two extreme views? I never suggested the US nuke Iran off the map in hopes of taking their oil, yet you did your best to make it look like that’s what I was suggesting.

Read closer. I wrote “America has the military capability to nuke Iran off the map”, and that is an undeniable fact. It was part of an argument showing that if anyone was likely to attack anyone else, it would the US striking Iran. Not Iran bombing Israel with non-existing weapons.

On the other hand, here’s what you wrote: “I however protested going to Iraq when Iran was clearly a worse threat”. Now, I don’t think I am completely out-of-touch if I infer from that that you would condone “going to Iran” (you know, like others go to the park). But for the sake of clarity, please explain what you meant by that sentence. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize in advance.

You are so blinded by your own views you refuse to see and middle ground in a debate.

What middle ground? Don’t fsck up Iraq, but bomb Iran instead?

Your arguments do nothing to support your views, but do everything to start conflict.

I would love to hear what those arguments that “do everything to start conflict” are.

They refuse to compromise or see any middle ground in disagreements.

I, for one, refuse to compromise on anything where human lives are taken under the banner of spreading ideologies, “thought crime” and other such scams. If that makes me an extremist in your view, so be it.

You say we are the evil ones, yet it’s your lack of communication skills that start wars.

Two things:

  • I have never, in any way, shape or form, condoned a war of aggression. Not with actions, not with money, not with words and not with prayers.

  • I know better than to think in terms of “good” and “evil” when it comes to international relations. And I sure as hell never said anybody was the “evil one”.[/quote]

Translation: “I like turtles”.

Someone want to send me the link to the thread, or out right explain the turtles?