Oh, Nommy?
Don’t tell me - you are busy creating a third persona for us all to shame and discredit?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why would I bother? I can get my point across much more effectively without boring everyone to tears.
Sadly, you’re wrong on both counts.
[/quote]
lol … pwned
[center]Bombed If You Do, Bombed If You Don’t
by Ron Paul[/center]
The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.
Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.
The truth is, Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms �?? and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.
Are we to think that Iran hasn’t noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn’t they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.
Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[center]Bombed If You Do, Bombed If You Don’t
by Ron Paul[/center]
The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.
Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.
The truth is, Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms �?? and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.
Are we to think that Iran hasn’t noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn’t they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.
Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.[/quote]
How does one get in contact with Paul? I have some swampland to sell him.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How does one get in contact with Paul? I have some swampland to sell him.
[/quote]
The question is how did it come into your possession?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[center]Bombed If You Do, Bombed If You Don’t
by Ron Paul[/center]
The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.[/quote]
So were were supposed to ignore intel before getting into the snicker quagmire in Iraq, but now we’re supposed to ignore our gut feeling with Iran and listen to the intel?[quote]
Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.
The truth is, Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms �?? and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.[/quote]
It may be logically impossible to prove a negative, but it’s even harder when you don’t even try, instead talking about what they’re going to do when they get a nuke. I mean they could even admit it and I’d be happy. Instead of saying, “We’re going to nuke Israel” they could say something like, “We’re going to nuke the _________” <insert here, whales, San Francisco, fat people, ourselves, North Korea, Canada>[quote]
Are we to think that Iran hasn’t noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn’t they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.[/quote]
So basically, he’s saying that Iran doesn’t have any nukes, but if he was smart he’d start getting some. And either way we should just ignore it.[quote]
Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.[/quote]
Umm, I really doubt that we’re on the “brink of bankruptcy”. We’ve got about another 20 years of irresponsible entitlement spending before we get there. And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants. The only problem is that it should be done by American citizens coming together, not the fedgov. So I suppose here’s another call to the end ATF.
Now stop trying to make me NOT vote for Paul. He’s lucky that the only other options are Socialists and Authoritarians.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
So were were supposed to ignore intel before getting into the snicker quagmire in Iraq, but now we’re supposed to ignore our gut feeling with Iran and listen to the intel?[/quote]
No, gung ho coward.
Take your fabricated evidence to the UN inspectors so they can check it, before carpet bombing a nation without a navy, air force and sizeable army, poisonning them and our own troops for eons.
Iran, contrary to Irak, has never invaded it’s neighbours. Iran isn’t about to start a war just because they acquired nuclear arms.
Leave the fear mongering to the paid and bought for politicians, gung ho coward.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
So basically, he’s saying that Iran doesn’t have any nukes, but if he was smart he’d start getting some. And either way we should just ignore it.[/quote]
America isn’t the policeman of the world.
Besides,
Chile had a democraticly elected leader who chose socialism, but that didn’t please our corporate cartel when he started to nationalise industries, so we just killed him and installed a genocidal and psychpatic militar dictatorial regime in Pinochet.
It is the CIA who installed the dictatorial and genocidal regime of the Shah of Iran, which in a military coup d’etat deposed the democratcly elected governement of Massadegh after it too sought to nationalise the oil industry dominated by British Petroleum.
This in turn fueled the islamist revolution who deposed the Shah and took in hostage the american embassy.
“He was eventually removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup d’état was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi [4]. The American operation to encourage it was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,[5][6] the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax,[5]”
So much for exporting freedom and democracy, EH ??
Let Israel fight it’s own battles.
The dollar is 1.46 for 1 euro.
How much was it when the iraq war started?
China subsidies our economy, and you think it’s great.
What will happen if the rest of the world decides to dump the dollar ?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants. [/quote]
America put in power Pinochet and the shah of Iran.
America gave chemical arms to Saddam at a time Iraq was put on the list of terrorist nations.
It gives military and economic aid to the dictatorial regime of Musharraf, who just declared martial law hoping to prevent democratic elections in pakistan.
The CIA founded Bin Laden and the Talibans.
And on, and on…
Where was america when the rwanda genocide took place ?
This stupid neocon post shot any remaining credibility you had on this forum.
American people better come toegether to stop their governement interferring with other nations.
And it better start fundraising to help for the healthcare of foreign populations poisonned by our depleted uranium bombs.
That’s a geneva conventions crime right there.
Personaly, i couldn’t care less who a whackjob like you votes for.
Crawl somewhere under a rock and don’t surface again.
I beg you.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
This stupid neocon post shot any remaining credibility you had on this forum.
[/quote]
laughing Oh man, seriously, you’ve made my day.
mike
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Chile had a democraticly elected leader who chose socialism, but that didn’t please our corporate cartel when he started to nationalise industries, so we just killed him and installed a genocidal and psychpatic militar dictatorial regime in Pinochet.
[/quote]
Socialism did not please the 2/3 majority that did not vote for Allende either.
Plus, which people Pinochet tried to eradicate and what made him a psychopath?
17 years of a military dictatorship and 3000 dead?
Genocidal psychopath, no less?
[quote]orion wrote:
Socialism did not please the 2/3 majority that did not vote for Allende either.
Plus, which people Pinochet tried to eradicate and what made him a psychopath?
17 years of a military dictatorship and 3000 dead?
Genocidal psychopath, no less?
[/quote]
Give the CHILEAN ANTI COMMUNIST PARTY a rest, and take Pinochet’s dick out of your mouth.
And if you like so much USA backed military dictatorships, move to Pakistan.
They like your kind down there.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
laughing Oh man, seriously, you’ve made my day.
mike[/quote]
That’s not an intelligent reply, Mike. You made a statement which is pretty absurd considering all the money, weapons and support the US has given (and is still giving) to tyrants worldwide.
Here’s what you wrote:
And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants.
That’s textbook neo-con talk.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
So were were supposed to ignore intel before getting into the snicker quagmire in Iraq, but now we’re supposed to ignore our gut feeling with Iran and listen to the intel?
[/quote]
Logic told us from the beginning this could not be correct. The intel is lie – an obvious lie. This has been a political agenda for Bush from the beginning of his presidency.
We had been flying over Saddam’s country on a daily basis since 1991 collecting intel (as well as by other means). Militarily, we knew everything they were capable of – the same IS true of Iran. I will only say this because of what my connection while in the USMC was: the Bush lie was known by everyone in the intel community to be false.
That hack of a general Colin Powell is the worst liar of the entire administration because he used his “credibility” as a military man to distort the facts to go to war.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
orion wrote:
Socialism did not please the 2/3 majority that did not vote for Allende either.
Plus, which people Pinochet tried to eradicate and what made him a psychopath?
17 years of a military dictatorship and 3000 dead?
Genocidal psychopath, no less?
Give the CHILEAN ANTI COMMUNIST PARTY a rest, and take Pinochet’s dick out of your mouth.
And if you like so much USA backed military dictatorships, move to Pakistan.
They like your kind down there.
[/quote]
And again:
An explanation for “genocidal” or “psychopath”.
Which people did he wipe out or try to wipe out and how did he display his psychopathy, given that he was a military dictator with almost endless means to do so?
[quote]orion wrote:An explanation for “genocidal” or “psychopath”.
Which people did he wipe out or try to wipe out and how did he display his psychopathy, given that he was a military dictator with almost endless means to do so?
[/quote]
My point was a murderous regime was put in place and sustained by our CIA; an international lawsuit was launched against Kissinger, mastermind of this operation.
If you want to push the idea Pinochet’s regime somehow in any way benefited chilean people, go to Chile’s streets ,churches, bars, universities, and see how people react to your arguments.
PS:Dont forget to write your will before boarding the plane.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
orion wrote:An explanation for “genocidal” or “psychopath”.
Which people did he wipe out or try to wipe out and how did he display his psychopathy, given that he was a military dictator with almost endless means to do so?
My point was a murderous regime was put in place and sustained by our CIA; an international lawsuit was launched against Kissinger, mastermind of this operation.
If you want to push the idea Pinochet’s regime somehow in any way benefited chilean people, go to Chile’s streets ,churches, bars, universities, and see how people react to your arguments.
PS:Dont forget to write your will before boarding the plane.
[/quote]
Cool, I think I`ll start with the 65% or so that did not vote for Allende.
And even if that wasn´t the case, since when is truth decided by a quorum?
They are better off, if they believe it or not is hardly relevant.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
laughing Oh man, seriously, you’ve made my day.
mike
That’s not an intelligent reply, Mike. You made a statement which is pretty absurd considering all the money, weapons and support the US has given (and is still giving) to tyrants worldwide.
Here’s what you wrote:
And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants.
That’s textbook neo-con talk.[/quote]
Nope. I agree with the way Mikeyali is dealing with this guy. If jedddirect wants to jump in with the “coward” stuff right off the bat, he doesn’t deserve a serious response.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
laughing Oh man, seriously, you’ve made my day.
mike
That’s not an intelligent reply, Mike. You made a statement which is pretty absurd considering all the money, weapons and support the US has given (and is still giving) to tyrants worldwide.
Here’s what you wrote:
And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants.
That’s textbook neo-con talk.[/quote]
No, I just decided to avoid replying to jeffdirect. You on the other hand, are worth my time because you aren’t a moron. I don’t really understand what your point is though Lixy. I have never claimed to support arming tyrants by the fedgov. As far as what you’ve quoted me on you should consider the next line. I said that it should be the citizens, not the military overthrowing tyrants.
I just want to make something abundantly clear: I’m not for invading Iran. I think the bulk of Iranians are going to actually try to fix the place within ten years. I do however support the idea of air strikes if they start nuke factories. This is as opposed to Iraq, which I felt had been browbeaten into submission.
So here’s the problem: I as a citizen was supposed to trust the intel that got us into Iraq. It turned out that that intel was false. I don’t know if I actually believe it was fabricated, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was. I’m not a Bushie and you know that. So now how do I know who to trust with intel re: Iran? Do I wait for the first bomb to blow?
I have also made my stance regarding Israel clear. I don’t believe in preemptively attacking anyone on Israel’s behalf. Israel has demonstrated their ability to kick the piss out of everyone there quite handily. If Israel were attacked I would support helping them as allies, but I certainly don’t believe in fighting her wars for her.
Oh, yes, and just because I share a belief with neo-cons doesn’t make me one. It makes me an independant thinker. I also share many beliefs with liberals, yet I hardly support them.
mike
[quote]orion wrote:
Cool, I think I`ll start with the 65% or so that did not vote for Allende.
And even if that wasn´t the case, since when is truth decided by a quorum?
They are better off, if they believe it or not is hardly relevant.
[/quote]
No sane citizen of a sovereign nation will ever accept foreign mingling in their leadership.
Not a fat chance in hell.
If you really sincerly believe this, then you’re just demonstrating the irrationality of your fantaisist beliefs.
( or maybe you just read too many of Mikeyaly’s posts, whichever)