[quote]WMD wrote:
ROFL…that was a good one about the androgen level.
WMS[/quote]
Hoped you’d smile, but it’s no joke. Specifically, RJ reports elsewhere on this board that as of about a week or so ago he is coming off of a cycle. If he comes across as more vaporish and grumpier than usual this may have something to do with it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush simply pointed out the truth about these countries. His statements did not encourage them. They were already doing it. Now you somehow want to blame Bush for this?
I used the word “redoubled” on purpose. You’re talking about his “you are evil” statements. I’m talking about his “we will bury you” statements, and his timing in attacking Iraq, and attacking it unilaterally. Yes, I blame him for the ill effects of all of that, including accelerating events in Iran and N. Korea, and all of it was needless.
…
You used redoubled to echo the propaganda being put out by NK and Iran. I strongly suspect they have been working diligently on the nuke projects all along. They have been manipulating the western press to make it look like they have stepped up their efforts in response to Bush.
[/quote]
Before the Bush doctrine it was possible to argue that not having nuclear weapons is the safer course. In a world without preemptive war there was some negotiating room to slide in other sorts of security guarantees to make up for the lack of an arsenal. Aftr all, if you didn’t have nukes at least your weren’t going to get nuked, right?
Then Bush announces his brave new world, declares open season on your country, and does the demo on a neighboring state. Nuclear weapons suddenly become the indispensible perquisite of sovreignty. You tell your nuclear negotiators to stall for time. Additionally of course you take your small secret program and make it a public crash program.
Good luck, l’il ol’ non-proliferation negotiators. I’ll just pop back to the ranch and clear some brush. Let me know how your talks come out.
The N. Koreans have nuclear weapons. The Irani are going to get them if they want them badly enough. There is nothing we can do militarily to stop it. Nor diplomatically now either, thanks to George Bush.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush simply pointed out the truth about these countries. His statements did not encourage them. They were already doing it. Now you somehow want to blame Bush for this?
I used the word “redoubled” on purpose. You’re talking about his “you are evil” statements. I’m talking about his “we will bury you” statements, and his timing in attacking Iraq, and attacking it unilaterally. Yes, I blame him for the ill effects of all of that, including accelerating events in Iran and N. Korea, and all of it was needless.
…
You used redoubled to echo the propaganda being put out by NK and Iran. I strongly suspect they have been working diligently on the nuke projects all along. They have been manipulating the western press to make it look like they have stepped up their efforts in response to Bush.
Before the Bush doctrine it was possible to argue that not having nuclear weapons is the safer course. In a world without preemptive war there was some negotiating room to slide in other sorts of security guarantees to make up for the lack of an arsenal. Aftr all, if you didn’t have nukes at least your weren’t going to get nuked, right?
Then Bush announces his brave new world, declares open season on your country, and does the demo on a neighboring state. Nuclear weapons suddenly become the indispensible perquisite of sovreignty. You tell your nuclear negotiators to stall for time. Additionally of course you take your small secret program and make it a public crash program.
Good luck, l’il ol’ non-proliferation negotiators. I’ll just pop back to the ranch and clear some brush. Let me know how your talks come out.
The N. Koreans have nuclear weapons. The Irani are going to get them if they want them badly enough. There is nothing we can do militarily to stop it. Nor diplomatically now either, thanks to George Bush.
[/quote]
Why do you think there is nothing we can do militarily to stop them?
[quote]WMD wrote:
Not that you are sanctimonious or anything.[/quote]
Wow…the pot calling the kettle black! Do you read your own posts before you hit the send button?
Let’s start out with the following beauty then take a look at your own brand of “vitriol.”
Now tell me what brand of hypocritical vitriol are you voicing with the following:
[quote]Is English your second language or what?
Imagine the word HYPOCRITE on a suppository.
We’re all glad you can spell, RJ, but what was that proof of exactly?
So you ARE a pussy.
You are too dumb to realize you are a laughing stock and the only ones who will claim you are as twisted as you are.[/quote]
All you have done since entering the board is attack the poster (whoever he might be). You really don’t address many issues.
And tell me oh high and mighty queen of the military what do you think you are coming off as? You are not only opinionated on the topic but caustic and overbearing as well. This proves what?
Why don’t you take a deep breath and actually try responding to someones post without all the crap?
Don’t get me wrong you were sort of funny to start with, but what’s the point of all this?
Are you going to type out a flurry of insults in response? That has been your pattern…
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
…
Before the Bush doctrine it was possible to argue that not having nuclear weapons is the safer course. In a world without preemptive war there was some negotiating room to slide in other sorts of security guarantees to make up for the lack of an arsenal. Aftr all, if you didn’t have nukes at least your weren’t going to get nuked, right?
Then Bush announces his brave new world, declares open season on your country, and does the demo on a neighboring state. Nuclear weapons suddenly become the indispensible perquisite of sovreignty. You tell your nuclear negotiators to stall for time. Additionally of course you take your small secret program and make it a public crash program.
Good luck, l’il ol’ non-proliferation negotiators. I’ll just pop back to the ranch and clear some brush. Let me know how your talks come out.
The N. Koreans have nuclear weapons. The Irani are going to get them if they want them badly enough. There is nothing we can do militarily to stop it. Nor diplomatically now either, thanks to George Bush.
[/quote]
Your reasoning is so flawed it is unreal. You are aware that these countries were trying to acquire nukes well before Bush was president aren’t you?
Maybe they knew Bush was going to be president so they started trying to build nukes decades ago?
Are you still a student?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Your reasoning is so flawed it is unreal. You are aware that these countries were trying to acquire nukes well before Bush was president aren’t you?
Maybe they knew Bush was going to be president so they started trying to build nukes decades ago?
Are you still a student?[/quote]
I am well aware they have likely been trying since about Bush I. But there is a difference between a program you can deny and stop as part of a negotiated settlement, and a program you are committed to and cannot stop. And Bush yelling military threats and invading Iraq was a large part of how we get to phase II.
So far, apparently the IAEA concludes Iran has broken no treaties. Even though they probably have. There is still a chance to put the genie back in the bottle, but it is fading fast. They will probably go the N. Korea route eventually. Bush has created a world in which nothing else can guarantee their security.
Bush has made a lot of trouble for the US in this world with his recklessness. Now we can just sit back and enjoy what his High Noon approach brings us.
As for your ad hominem crapola, don’t try it here. This board is covered with that BS and I won’t play.
If americans believe Bush has plans to invade Iran they are dead wrong!U.S forces are allready terribly overextended tyring to cotain insurgents in Iraq.Bush and the white house is slowly starting to come to the realization that america cannot forefill its self professed role as 'The Worlds Police".
Even as it is they are struggling to recruite enough new soldiers to contineu with there military obligations they have undertaken.And some of you have the audacity to to claim the U.S is building up an invasion force for Iran!!
I am sorry to say that you are sadly mistaken!
Of course Bush is going to announce veiled threats of the use of force.But that is all they are,merely threats.
For bush to commit to another war at this stage would be political suicide!Not to mention militarily and logistically impossible.
Over the next decade Iran and other nations will aquire nucular weapons capabilities and there is noting anyone can really do to stop them.
Other countries like North Korea can blatantly announce to the world that they have nuclear programs and little if anything is done about it (maybe if they announced they had discoverd a huhe oil field things would be different!).
It is only a matter of time before more and more smaller countries become nuclear powers as this is the only they seem to be able to gain respect (respect through fear)in a world controlled slogan 'He who has the bomb has control".
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Your reasoning is so flawed it is unreal. You are aware that these countries were trying to acquire nukes well before Bush was president aren’t you?
Maybe they knew Bush was going to be president so they started trying to build nukes decades ago?
Are you still a student?
I am well aware they have likely been trying since about Bush I. But there is a difference between a program you can deny and stop as part of a negotiated settlement, and a program you are committed to and cannot stop. And Bush yelling military threats and invading Iraq was a large part of how we get to phase II.
So far, apparently the IAEA concludes Iran has broken no treaties. Even though they probably have. There is still a chance to put the genie back in the bottle, but it is fading fast. They will probably go the N. Korea route eventually. Bush has created a world in which nothing else can guarantee their security.
Bush has made a lot of trouble for the US in this world with his recklessness. Now we can just sit back and enjoy what his High Noon approach brings us.
As for your ad hominem crapola, don’t try it here. This board is covered with that BS and I won’t play.[/quote]
Clinton tried to negotiate with the North Koreans in this issue. They lied to his face and stabbed him in the back.
Bush is smart enough to try a different tactic.
The idea that North Korea has stepped upo their development of nukes based on Bush’s speeches is pure propaganda.
You seem like a fairly intelligent but a bit naive fellow. I am still surprised you can fall for this crude propaganda.
Perhaps you didn’t fall for it, but you dislike Bush so much you will shift blame to him. Either way you are not making any sense.
These same lessons can be applied to the Iran situation.
I just checked your profile and you are a student. That is nothing to be ashamed of. I do not know why my question got you upset.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The idea that North Korea has stepped upo their development of nukes based on Bush’s speeches is pure propaganda.
[/quote]
This thread is about Iran, if you hadn’t noticed, and so were my statements.
Besides being a student, I’m also 55 years old and a successful professional, currently practicing IP forensics. I’ve been a student several times in my life (how about you? learned anything lately?) I’ve lived through a lot and read about a lot more. Ad hominem argumentation is bullshit, and I’m tired of seeing so much of it here. Are we clear?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps you didn’t fall for it, but you dislike Bush so much you will shift blame to him. Either way you are not making any sense.
[/quote]
Whether or not I’m a Bush hater is also an ad hominem irrelevancy to the discussion at hand. I don’t have to hate Bush to point to the obvious effects of his policy errors.
I actually don’t think I do hate him in the sense that you mean, but I do find him to be shallow and arrogant. But I guess you don’t have much of an upside to work with here in arguing a policy success, do you? So presto I’m a Bush hater.
If you think nothing could ever have been done to satisfy Iran that it could forego nuclear weapons, just say so. But N. Korea hardly provides sufficient basis. The two situations are pretty different, in terms of the internal politics. And internal politics are everything when it comes to negotiating non-proliferation.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The idea that North Korea has stepped upo their development of nukes based on Bush’s speeches is pure propaganda.
This thread is about Iran, if you hadn’t noticed, and so were my statements.
Besides being a student, I’m also 55 years old and a successful professional, currently practicing IP forensics. I’ve been a student several times in my life (how about you? learned anything lately?) I’ve lived through a lot and read about a lot more. Ad hominem argumentation is bullshit, and I’m tired of seeing so much of it here. Are we clear?[/quote]
I understand the thread is about Iran. Someone else brought up NK as its nuclear program is relevant to the discussion.
With 20-20 hindsight NK was clearly handled wrong in the 90’s. Your posts seem to indicate we should repeat this example.
Have I learned anything? I have learned you are overly touchy. I do not know if that is because it is your nature or if it is merely because you are defending a position that you clearly know is incorrect.
Just in case you forget, you were trying to tie Irans nuke programs with Bush’s speech. It is so silly I cannot believe anyone could possiblly believe it.
I have not used ad hominem arguments, I was merely trying to understand who you are and where you are coming from.
If you think it is bullshit, that is your problem.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why do you think there is nothing we can do militarily to stop them?
[/quote]
If you hadn’t noticed, we are a bit over extended at this time, militarily speaking. Given the current disposition of US forces, the available options are nuclear or conventional attacks from the air. These interventions can only delay the bad outcome, while at the same time rendering it finally inevitable, if it isn’t already. We have insufficient military intelligence to be sure of intercepting their next efforts.
Everyone here seems to assume the Irani will just lie there and take whatever Bush has to hand out. You think the Iraq and world terror situations are bad now, just wait until after Bush ‘fixes’ Iran.
I think the administration sees this. If there were going to be military intervention, I expect it would have happened by now.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Just in case you forget, you were trying to tie Irans nuke programs with Bush’s speech. It is so silly I cannot believe anyone could possiblly believe it.
[/quote]
I also tied it to the invasion of Iraq, you may recall. Stop diluting me.
[quote]
I have not used ad hominem arguments, I was merely trying to understand who you are and where you are coming from.
If you think it is bullshit, that is your problem.[/quote]
You have used such bullshit frequently within your last four posts, not even counting your question about my academic status.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Just in case you forget, you were trying to tie Irans nuke programs with Bush’s speech. It is so silly I cannot believe anyone could possiblly believe it.
I also tied it to the invasion of Iraq, you may recall. Stop diluting me.
I have not used ad hominem arguments, I was merely trying to understand who you are and where you are coming from.
If you think it is bullshit, that is your problem.
You have used such bullshit frequently within your last four posts, not even counting your question about my academic status.[/quote]
My not pointing not that Iran has ben working on nukes long before we invaded Iraq is watering down your argument?
Let me explain it to you.
Iran has been working on nukes years before Bush was president. Trying to tie Irans nuke program to Bush is totally illogical.
I have not attacked you at all. The fact that you perceive simple questions as attacks is strange to me.
Purely for illustrative purposes, let me ask you a simple question. Zap, did you finish high school?
[quote]iscariot wrote:
Err…question.
I’ve yet to hear or read anywhere, from any source, anything even vaguely conclusive to the effect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme.
Actually, if we’re speaking in terms of the ostensibly logic presented, it goes something like this.
[1]Iran is developing a programme to provide it with Nuclear Power. [/quote]
Yes, everyone is pretty much in agreement on that point.
Safe bet.
The conclusion doesn’t follow directly from [1] and [2].
Iran is building facilities that will allow it to enrich uranium. Now, you can enrich uranium to a level of 3-5% for use in commercial nuclear reactors OR you can enrich it to 20% and above (up to 80-85%) for use in nuclear weapons. The facilities Iran is building would allow them to do either one. Enriching uranium to those levels is not necessary if nuclear reactor are your only goal.
That’s why many people conclude (and probably rightly) that Iran is trying to join the ranks of nuclear powers.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Oh, I’m all for throwing nukes at their reactors.[/quote]
Why is everyone talking about “nuking” their reactors? Just bomb them with conventional bombs.
Israel did it to Iraq in 1981. Worked perfecly fine.
[quote]regrahc wrote:
I think Iran definitely needs to be dealt with, but I have a question for those of you in the military: How well is our troop strength holding up?[/quote]
Fantastically. With the glorious success that is Iraq, troop strength and morale must be through the roof.
Piffles. Dick Cheney said those insurgents where in their last throes of agony. Back in May.
Remember that commercial “I am an army of one?” They weren’t kidding.
I think the German chancellor has pretty much scrapped any chance you could’ve had at diplomacy.
As for assistance, you’ve already declared that anyone who wasn’t with you in Iraq was “with the terrorists,” so good luck with that.
And many interns, no doubt.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
With 20-20 hindsight NK was clearly handled wrong in the 90’s. Your posts seem to indicate we should repeat this example.[/quote]
Not sure how you reach that conclusion.
The watchword for successful arms control was trust but verify. In the case of N. Korea, somebody clearly fell down on negotiating adequate facilities for verification. No, I don’t recommend repeating that error.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
My not pointing not that Iran has ben working on nukes long before we invaded Iraq is watering down your argument?
[/quote]
Yes. I agreed their program had been in place predating Bush. What I said was that an announced policy of preemptive war and an actual preemptive invasion of a neighboring state had accelerated events and pretty much zeroed out any possibility of a negotiated outcome.
This is nothing like saying Bush’s speech caused Iran to try to get nuclear weapons, which was your mischaracterization of my position.
Zap, I’m not sure you can, you seem pretty confused. An ad hominem argument is not generally an attack, for example.