GENIUS FORUMS

OK.
Iran will not give in, determined to get nukes. Why?
To protect itself, as Korea has done. To discourage attack. After all, impossible to know how far along they've progressed, may have even purchased the equalizer already. Can the west risk attack? Would the people allow it. Would a new demo-pres consider it?
Why the determination? Obvious reason appears to be, attack on Iraq.
So, would Iran have been more compromizing had the west listened to Dean?
Seems so.
Does it make sense that violence compells people to buy and build guns, defenses? Of course.
Could we have known this years ago? Yes.
Did we know this? Yes, we must have known.
What a mess, huh.
What to do?
Keep attacking. Job isn't done until there is NO PLACE for terrorists to hide.
All expected?
Probably.

Job isn't done until there is NO PLACE for terrorists to hide.

Ironic, eh?

If the US want to attack Iran unprovoked (or on intelligence that they currently or will imminently possess nuclear weapons) no-one cares. A precedent for pre-emptive invasion and occupation has been set with Iraq.

But if Iran wants to defend itself against that imperialism, the world complains, and says it should divest itself of the only means to defend itself against it.

,,,

Ok, but are these people really "innocent"? I don't think so. The Tbombs explode in the faces of voters mostly. These voters permit their heads of state to support attacks in terrorist homelands. Just the children are innocent, but you could argue that parents(voters) are responsible for their deaths and not just the terrorists. So I don't think this innocent idea amounts to much.
Better to work it from another angle.

But seriously, do people understand what the west is up to? What a long-lasting and risky affair this war on terrorism is? Not to mention painful and deadly. The west can't just stop half way along. so long as Tbombs keep exploding they're going to have to keep after them. And we all know what happens when you corner a rat, how vicious and dangerous it becomes.
What a mess.

Yeah, know what you mean, we can possess but they cant. But we feel we earned the right to control, since the west made the Abomb first. Since someone must be in charge, well, we feel it ought to be US. We don't feel too bad about it, since we are so good hearted while the other guys are savages, don't you know? We are advanced, so makes sense the west control world politics. We don't use ours, besides these are very nearly evil weapons, so it just makes sense to prohibit their expansion, whereever. Most are ok with this. Perhaps we'll dump ours one day too, but that will never happen if others are building theirs. Let them defend themselves with ordinary weapons systems, after all, we only use conventional weapons, so let them defend with same. Makes some sense.

It doesn't make sense when you realise that without nukes, there's nothing to stop the US from successfully invading them.

Can you blame a country for wanting to defend itself against unprovoked attack on its own land by an aggressive power that has already done the same to two countries neighbouring it?

avidaloca wrote:Can you blame a country for wanting to defend itself against unprovoked attack on its own land by an aggressive power that has already done the same to two countries neighbouring it?

The invasion of Iraq wasn't unprovoked. Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and had demonstrated his ability to use them. I still don't believe that there weren't any such weapons, since the Iraqi's had years to dispose of the evidence prior to the invasion.

Not every state should be able to have nuclear weapons for their own defense, for the same reason that not every person, of every age and mental state, should be allowed to have a machine gun and grenade launcher.

ksolway wrote:Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and had demonstrated his ability to use them.

Everything indicates all WMD programs were uncovered and dismantled somewhere in the middle of the 90's under supervision of the UN, as agreed upon after Gulf War 1. All other stories have proved so far to be merely rumors and made up stories, possibly picked up on and exaggerated by Intelligence Services to further their own agenda, and also by some Iraqi defectors who could use such spin for attention, money and their own political agenda for Iraq.

I still don't believe that there weren't any such weapons, since the Iraqi's had years to dispose of the evidence prior to the invasion.

It's hard to believe the amount of deception, I can understand. But every war in the 20th century has been based on lies and deceptions of all involved players, down to the core. Most people are happy to live in a bubble of consensus opinion where 'their side' serves truth and freedom.

Not every state should be able to have nuclear weapons for their own defense, for the same reason that not every person, of every age and mental state, should be allowed to have a machine gun and grenade launcher.

However, Iran seems to have more sanity and stability than lets say Pakistan and North-Korea. Not to mention Israel. And any reason why G.W. Bush should have his finger on the button? You know he has now all authority needed to command a nuclear strike when he pleases, without Congress?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And any reason why G.W. Bush should have his finger on the button? You know he has now all authority needed to command a nuclear strike when he pleases, without Congress?

Now that's a scary thought.

It's not like you could even improve anything by assassinating him. That would put Cheney in charge. Bush is possibly just stupid and not that evil, but you can't say that about Cheney. Cheney's not stupid. He's just evil.

Kevin wrote:Not every state should be able to have nuclear weapons for their own defense, for the same reason that not every person, of every age and mental state, should be allowed to have a machine gun and grenade launcher.

Of all the states that shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, don't you think the one state that has actually used a nuclear weapon against another country would be at the top of the list?

The invasion of Iraq wasn't unprovoked. Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and had demonstrated his ability to use them. I still don't believe that there weren't any such weapons, since the Iraqi's had years to dispose of the evidence prior to the invasion.

You must not have been reading and watching the build up to the current war in Iraq. Of course, Hussein had some weapons of mass destruction years ago. Chemical weapons, certainly. Other than that, he had scud missiles.

But he did not have WMDs just prior to the current war, as the Bush administration kept insisting. I will never forget watching Colin Powell before the UN. The whole thing just looked so made up and far fetched. He was saying that Iraq had large plants producing chemicals and, maybe, biological weapons.

What happened was a political sleight of hand. For months the war chant was "Get Ossama." Bush just switched names and made further allegations that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda. Saddam was a pig, of course, but he was not a Qaeda type "terrorist."

The big build up to the war was that Iraq had WMDs primed and ready and would attack the US or US interests at any minute. The US has been in Iraq for nearly four years, I think, and there have been no WMDs found. Nothing.

Of course, he disposed of whatever he had years ago. That's just the point. He did not have any WMDs. He had destroyed them years before.

Though Saddam was a horrid dictator, look what we have there now -- chaos, civil war, tribal fighting. It is a big black hole exactly fit for terrorist activity. As dictator, Saddam was covering all of this up. In some ways, I wish we could just hand the country back over to Saddam and let him take care of it -- "Uh..we're sorry. We'll help you build things back if you just bring back your iron fist."

It is just a mess and I certainly do not want my son or daughter being forced to go there or anyone else's son or daughter.

The real irony of the whole situation to me is that NOW -- ONLY NOW -- after electing George W to a second term -- Americans are waking up to the fact that he deceived them about Iraq and other things. The only answer I can come up with for that is that the religious right did most of the voting in 2004.

I could not believe my ears when Bush started talking about Saddam Hussein after 9/11. I could not believe it when no one -- not the press, not the political opposition -- opposed or seriously questioned him.

Now, we are left with the emperor with no clothes. Everyone sees him now, too late.

Shameful.

I was not fond of Bill Clinton but he looks damn good now. I don't care who or what sucked his dick.

Faizi

What really pisses off countries like Iran or Pakistan is that the US -- or Israel -- is allowed to nuke them but they are not allowed to nuke us. Pisses them off that "we" have the power and "we" can bully them out of nuclear power.

They think, "Why is it that the US can have such weapons but we are not allowed to have them?" Builds a big resentment.

Of course, the bullying is not working. Pakistan has the bomb. Iran will have it if they do not already.

I grew up during the heyday of the cold war, when people were building fallout shelters and school kids were being taught to hide under their desks. I grew up scared to death of nuclear war -- because both the US and The Soviet Union could blow up the world many times over.

It was a big relief to me when the cold war ended. But things could be worse and, maybe, they are worse.

Faizi

I reckon the US will weather the final two years of the Bush presidency. I hope.

I knew it was going to be rough. But I am not sure I could have predicted how rough.

Just so gay-ass -- pardon the expression -- to start a war against Iraq and turn over several American ports to Dubai. Just so weird to squawk about the war on terror while allowing and encouraging a subculture of illegal aliens through the very porous US-Mexican border.

Faizi

Where is Richard Nixon when we finally need him?

That's how bad things have gotten.

Faizi

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Everything indicates all WMD programs were uncovered and dismantled somewhere in the middle of the 90's under supervision of the UN, as agreed upon after Gulf War 1. All other stories have proved so far to be merely rumors and made up stories, possibly picked up on and exaggerated by Intelligence Services to further their own agenda, and also by some Iraqi defectors who could use such spin for attention, money and their own political agenda for Iraq.

I really don't know who to believe. As you say, there are lies upon lies, upon lies. The people investigating the WMD programs may themselves have a politiical agenda for all we know, and that may be biasing their results. I think we are all in the dark about many of these matters. Call it "the fog of war" or "the fog of human life". And the empirical method of investigation doesn't provide certainty. My suspicion is that many things were shifted across borders prior to the invasion, out of Iraq, and into, say, Syria. But this is only my guess, based on what I think is the character of Hussein and his military.

However, Iran seems to have more sanity and stability than lets say Pakistan and North-Korea. Not to mention Israel.

I can't imagine Israel launching a nuclear attack anytime soon, but I can certainly imagine Islamic fundamentalists doing so.

It comes down to degrees of insanity, which is not a very good choice to have to make.

Kevin,

The fog of war has lifted considerably since 2002. There were no WMDs, plain and simple. Even George W acknowledged that there were no WMDs. It's not a matter of agenda. You don't need an agenda to know that there were no WMDs. There were no WMDs. The UN looked high and low and, when they were done, the US has looked high and low.

Had Saddam had WMDs, he would have used them when the US invaded.

I can't imagine why you cannot think Israel would use a nuclear weapon. On what do you base your opinion that Israel is more civilized than Iran?

Faizi[/url]

Ok, but are these people really "innocent"? I don't think so. The Tbombs explode in the faces of voters mostly. These voters permit their heads of state to support attacks in terrorist homelands. Just the children are innocent, but you could argue that parents(voters) are responsible for their deaths and not just the terrorists. So I don't think this innocent idea amounts to much.
Better to work it from another angle.

You think the people trying to have a voice in their government deserve to die by the terrorist's hands? That's basically what you just said. And it was retarded.

But seriously, do people understand what the west is up to? What a long-lasting and risky affair this war on terrorism is? Not to mention painful and deadly.[/i[]

Yes, people do understand. Few do though, seeing as how things are portrayed, and the full story is rarely told or believed. For example, VP Cheney shot his friend in the head. People assume he's evil or something because of it, when really if you think about it, if he were evil he'd have killed his friend...and even then it could still have been a mistake.

For the most part, people are just plain stupid. What evidence is there of Cheney's evil despite something strange happening and your hatred for him? There's NONE. Yet for some reason, educated people believe things like this.

The west can't just stop half way along. so long as Tbombs keep exploding they're going to have to keep after them. And we all know what happens when you corner a rat, how vicious and dangerous it becomes.
What a mess.

Are you saying we should let these terrorists continue suicide bombing people who are trying to have weddings or vote? Would they back down if we just left abruptly?

Take your time...

Yeah, know what you mean, we can possess but they cant. But we feel we earned the right to control, since the west made the Abomb first. Since someone must be in charge, well, we feel it ought to be US. We don't feel too bad about it, since we are so good hearted while the other guys are savages, don't you know? We are advanced, so makes sense the west control world politics. We don't use ours, besides these are very nearly evil weapons, so it just makes sense to prohibit their expansion, whereever. Most are ok with this. Perhaps we'll dump ours one day too, but that will never happen if others are building theirs. Let them defend themselves with ordinary weapons systems, after all, we only use conventional weapons, so let them defend with same. Makes some sense.

It's stupid to think every country should have WMD. Yet you're showing that it's how you feel things should be. Do you think of yourself as stupid? I have no idea if you are or not, since I don't know you beyond this conversation.

You justify the US having the only nukes because they invented it. That's stupid. We have nukes in case someone else tries using theirs on us. Yes, other countries have them. Various militaries not related to their countries have them, I'm sure. I'm pretty sure there were nuclear weapons in Iraq. Where would they have gone, otherwise? They were there before the US occupation.

Bottom line: start thinking.

It doesn't make sense when you realise that without nukes, there's nothing to stop the US from successfully invading them.

Can you blame a country for wanting to defend itself against unprovoked attack on its own land by an aggressive power that has already done the same to two countries neighbouring it?

We've used nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan!? Wow. No. Sorry. That isn't what happened. We sought to destroy terrorist training camps, and those involved in the camps. We were attacked, and then we defended (we as in America. I don't know if you're from Australia).

You can blame a country for wanting their own nuclear weapon program, because of the heat in the Middle East. No one there should have any large scale weaponry. It's not racist to think this, it's sensible. People are blowing themselves up, firing RPGs, setting up IEDs. Luckily these people haven't gotten their hands on anything bigger. Remember 9-11? They used airplanes, after infiltrating the airlines and learning about the planes and establishing American identities. They planned their attack for at least 5 years. Who is to say a terrorist won't work at a nuclear plant and launch a large scale attack?

We have every right to defend against this.

Since we use Chinooks, Strykers, Humvees, 5 tons, M-4s, body armor...Iran feels like they need nukes? Yep. Makes sense! (yea right)

Anyone who defends Iran on this issue is asking to be mutilated by radiation.

The invasion of Iraq wasn't unprovoked. Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction and had demonstrated his ability to use them. I still don't believe that there weren't any such weapons, since the Iraqi's had years to dispose of the evidence prior to the invasion.

Not every state should be able to have nuclear weapons for their own defense, for the same reason that not every person, of every age and mental state, should be allowed to have a machine gun and grenade launcher.

Here is the only post which is sensible and enlightened, although I don't think Saddam said he had nukes within the year of the invasion. I didn't really begin watching the news until this past year and a half or so.

And any reason why G.W. Bush should have his finger on the button? You know he has now all authority needed to command a nuclear strike when he pleases, without Congress?

You really think he could, or would, just launch a nuclear attack anytime he wanted?

Don't you think you're intelligent, or something?

It's hard to believe that the majority of this board has the same ideals as liberal college kids. No one thinks, they just shit illogically on the Bush administration. I believe it has to do with the faces he makes. It makes him seem like a joke, if you watch him on tv. In the beginning, there were jokes about him being a monkey. I highly suspect that has to do with the "upheaval".

It's not like you could even improve anything by assassinating him. That would put Cheney in charge. Bush is possibly just stupid and not that evil, but you can't say that about Cheney. Cheney's not stupid. He's just evil.

You do realize that these positions aren't positions of power. The president has a panel. He has a country to either listen to or go against. Leading companies buy candidates, because of what they'll do for them or what they promise to do. If a president really sucks, they'll be impeached (which a few people have been trying to do to President Bush, although there's no possible way it could happen).

Of all the states that shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, don't you think the one state that has actually used a nuclear weapon against another country would be at the top of the list?

No. The US is too high profile. The people have too much say. We've been taught in school what a bad mistake it was to nuke Japan, while we were growing up. If the President would ever try to launch a nuclear attack, it'd take a rare person to actually go through with it. A person who probably shouldn't have such a job.

Look. Look at what's going on in the Middle East. Look at the agendas of the various countries. Look at people seemingly blowing themselves up at random. Do you think this is a good environment to have a nuclear defense system?

What happened was a political sleight of hand. For months the war chant was "Get Ossama." Bush just switched names and made further allegations that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda. Saddam was a pig, of course, but he was not a Qaeda type "terrorist."

What did he say again after the planes hit the WTC towers? Oh yeah, it was "It wasn't me but I'm glad that it happened, and I wish it would've been me".

Yep, he doesn't have a hint of terrorism in him. The fact that he despised the US. The fact that he led his soldiers to do hideous things to the people of Iraq. We hadn't finished the job in the early nineties, when the plan was to take him out.

You want him to come back? You think that'll stop the terrorists from bombing everything and everyone in sight? I don't see why it would.

The big build up to the war was that Iraq had WMDs primed and ready and would attack the US or US interests at any minute. The US has been in Iraq for nearly four years, I think, and there have been no WMDs found. Nothing.

We haven't found Osama either, yet somehow he still exists in various caves and villages, or possibly out of the area he's supposed to be in. Possibly the WMDs were sold? Possibly the operations have completely moved, or teamed up with an ally (and enemy of the US).

I couldn't find Waldo on a certain page in my "Where's Waldo" book. I asked my whole family to help. It was easy to begin believing that there just IS NO WALDO on that page. It's also plainly wrong to believe that.

They think, "Why is it that the US can have such weapons but we are not allowed to have them?" Builds a big resentment.

Are you trying to say we should let them have WMDs, and disable our own?

Just so gay-ass -- pardon the expression -- to start a war against Iraq and turn over several American ports to Dubai. Just so weird to squawk about the war on terror while allowing and encouraging a subculture of illegal aliens through the very porous US-Mexican border.

We didn't turn over ports to Dubai. Dubai backed out because of the American opposition. PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T ALL POWERFUL.

Also, don't you know that the government contracts border patrol now, and supports the people at the border guarding it?

We haven't found Osama either, yet somehow he still exists in various caves and villages, or possibly out of the area he's supposed to be in. Possibly the WMDs were sold? Possibly the operations have completely moved, or teamed up with an ally (and enemy of the US).

Either? It was "our" dearest intent to find Ossama. Finding Saddam in a hole was supposed to be this big thing. I thought it was a pathetic subsitute.

What do you mean that we have not found Ossama either?

If the WMDs were sold, they were sold many years before the last US invasion. It is absurd to think that Iraq could have had the means to move so called operations or to team up with an ally quickly. Furthermore, if the weapons were sold and moved, then, why were not they used to thwart the US?

Even a possible Saddam ally such as Syria would have used WMDs to stop the US. Other than Syria, there were no possible allies to Iraq as ruled by Saddam.

Ossama exists somewhere -- not in Iraq. WMDs
may exist somewhere but not in Iraq. The reason for the current US war was WMDs inside Iraq or within range to attack the
US.

Iraq is destroyed.

Iraq was never as advanced militarily as touted by the US. Pretty primitive.

You said that you have only been listening to the news for a year. That's great but you might want to try reading some history, too.

I have been reading US political history for thirty years and I have watched and read the news for about forty five years. If your opinions were more sophisticated, that might not be an issue. But I suggest that you need to investigate much further.

Even a majority of Americans have come to understand that Bush deceived us into the current Iraqi war. That took about five years.

Utterly strange that there could yet be hold-outs.

You must be either extremely naive or you have an agenda. My guess is that you are extremely naive.

Faizi

We didn't turn over ports to Dubai. Dubai backed out because of the American opposition. PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T ALL POWERFUL.

Not a matter of turning over, really. We were selling. Selling because of the huge foreign deficits run up by the cost of the Iraqi war.

Took a lot for the back out to occur. Took even the president's base to turn against him in this instance. Othewise, he would have pulled it off. To cover his ass. No doubt, UAE will collect in some other way.

The president is as powerful as his ability to hoodwink. Bush hoodwinked one too many times. As I said before, it is kind of absurd to be fighting terrorism in Iraq and selling management of American ports to an Arab nation. None of the attackers in 9/11 were Iraqi. A few were from UAE.

I have never said that the US president is all powerful but, until recently, this president had carte blanche. His polls are down to 36% approval now.

Took six years to get to that point. Until now, he was walking on air. He could do no wrong. He had a mandate since he was elected by the Supreme Court and not by the populace. For about six years, he did what he wanted and he had support.

Now -- finally -- the people see that the emperor has no clothes.

Unfortunately, the emperor himself has not yet realized he is naked. It is for this reason that he looks like a buffoon.

Faizi

Also, don't you know that the government contracts border patrol now, and supports the people at the border guarding it?

Well, no. It is well known and documented that the current government has not made a point of guarding the Mexican border. The Bush government has been very lenient and encouraging for illegal aliens in the US, while purporting to fight a war on terrorism.

Cheap labor is more important than the possibility of importing terrorists, let alone the outsourcing of jobs and displacement of the American worker.

The US/Mexican border is very porous. Border Control is poorly funded.

The US wants cheap labor.

Faizi

"It wasn't me but I'm glad that it happened, and I wish it would've been me".

That does not sound right. I have no doubt of the sentiment. But the quote does not sound right.

Faizi

Are you trying to say we should let them have WMDs, and disable our own?

I said that the countries -- especially Islamic countries that want modernism but are plagued by the tribal/global/religious belief that Issac is the favored son -- resent being governed and overpowered by the Chosen Ones. The descendents of Ishmael want the love of God and Abraham, too. Ishmael was the first son of Abraham and cast out into the desert.

The tribes of Israel are from Issac and David. The tribes of Islam are from the so called bastard son, Ishmael. Yet all tribes of man derive from Abraham.

I am certainly not saying that we should let them have nuclear weapons while we disable our own.

I am begging for reconciliation.

Faizi

Yep, he doesn't have a hint of terrorism in him. The fact that he despised the US. The fact that he led his soldiers to do hideous things to the people of Iraq. We hadn't finished the job in the early nineties, when the plan was to take him out.

The reason the US did not finish the so called job in the early nineties was a decision by Bush Daddy.

Saddam committed many atrocities against the Iraqi people.

The reason we went to war with Saddam in the nineties was because he intended to take over Kuwait. Personally, I could never see a big problem with that.

The US stopped him from taking Kuwait. He had ample reason for hating the US.

Since you have been watching the news for a year, I hope that you realize that the US considered Iraq an ally in the contention with Iran back in the eighties.

If you are speaking only of US interest, it seems plausible that the US was better off with Saddam in power. Though he was detrimental to the Iraqi people, he held Iraq together. He maintained control and some secularism in a majority Shi'ite country.

Faizi

It's hard to believe that the majority of this board has the same ideals as liberal college kids. No one thinks, they just shit illogically on the Bush administration. I believe it has to do with the faces he makes. It makes him seem like a joke, if you watch him on tv. In the beginning, there were jokes about him being a monkey. I highly suspect that has to do with the "upheaval".

What liberal college kids? In America? Most college kids are Bushies or former Bushies because it was thought that Bush was pro-America or pro-small business. College kids are not liberal. They are suck ups to the almighty dollar.

Shit illogically? I don't think so. Even though he was appointed by the Supreme Court, I tried to give him some benefit of the doubt. He lost me when he started harping on Saddam and sending kids to war when he swore to get Ossama.

If Bush acted creditably, I would not care a lick about his monkey faces.

He is a liar and his lies are catching up with him.

Reagan had Iran/Contra. I was never fond of Reagan. Yet, he did own up to Iran/Contra and he went on.

Iran/Contra in retrospect was small compared to the current lying.

The war in Vietnam was a lie. But that was a forty year lie.

The current Iraqi war was an insta-lie. Very Orwellian.

I an not certain that the US or the modern world can overcome that particular kind of lying. It's a crippling sort of untruth.

Cancerous because it is considered truth. Like cancer, truth-untruth spreads and destroys organs.

Terminal.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote: Furthermore, if the weapons were sold and moved, then, why were not they used to thwart the US?

Even a possible Saddam ally such as Syria would have used WMDs to stop the US. Other than Syria, there were no possible allies to Iraq as ruled by Saddam.

How can you know that Syria or another state would have used Iraq's WMDs on the US? You can't. There is so much complexity and there are so many potential scenarios and hidden deals behind the scenes that all you are doing is making a wild guess.

How can you know that Syria or another state would have used Iraq's WMDs on the US? You can't. There is so much complexity and there are so many potential scenarios and hidden reasons behind all the politics that all you are doing is making a wild guess.

I don't know that Syria or another state would have used Iraq's WMDs on the US.

For one thing, Iraq did not have WMDs close to the time of the current Iraq war.

I was merely conjecturing on the other poster's surety that Iraq's WMDs must have been sold.

Logically, the only possible Iraqi ally at the time was Syria. Hardly a wild guess.

I do not believe that Iraq sold its WMDs.

I do not believe that politics are terribly complex.

I know that you love to accuse me of things but get a grip. I do not think that Iraq sold weapons to Syria or that Syria intended to use them against the US.

I was following the train of thought of another poster and conjecturing on that.

Allah Akhbar.

Faizi