Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
quote=roysoldboy;12953606]I think that when the liberals went wild about Bush and Cheney being wrong for wanting to bomb Iran they did so much to help Ahmadinejad get his bombs. Do you remember the NIE of 2007 that said Iran had stopped working on their "bomb" in 2003? I wonder how many Congressional leaders of today remember that and what their reactions were. I remember them cheering all over the place and finally supporting Our Glorious Leader when he kept on with his desire to talk with Ahmadinejad. In fact, there was a huge argument among Dems over who to use as Obama's running mate, Smiley Joe Biden or Ahmadinejad. I think the chose the wrong one. Just think, we could have had two people running the Executive branch with questionable citizenship qualities.
Be sure to read the first two comments to this one as they are humorous but so very real and true.
[/quote]
So you read those comments. You deserve a medal for that but my arms are too short so I will just brag on the fact that you claim to have read the comments that I laughed so hard about.
THAT REPORT MADE MY BLOOD BOIL. Everyone with half a brain cell knew the 2007 NIE was a bunch of partisan bull to prevent Bush from taking any kind of action against Iran. Everyone knows Iran is tryng to build a bomb. Today I am validated.
An International Atomic Energy Agency report expresses worry that Iran may be working on a nuclear warhead, despite a 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment that found the Islamic Republic stopped such work in 2003.
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog also confirmed that Iran had indeed enriched uranium to nearly 20 percent, a claim made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during revolutionary anniversary festivities last week but rebuffed by the White House
We must take note of the fact that so much of what Ahmedinejad says it just words as can be seen by the fact that February 11 passed with just some rioting in his country after he promised something big.
In spite of this, I certainly agree with you and have to be proud of the fact that Obama doesn't seem so desirous or drinking tea with him as he was.
I think that when the liberals went wild about Bush and Cheney being wrong for wanting to bomb Iran they did so much to help Ahmadinejad get his bombs. Do you remember the NIE of 2007 that said Iran had stopped working on their "bomb" in 2003? I wonder how many Congressional leaders of today remember that and what their reactions were. I remember them cheering all over the place and finally supporting Our Glorious Leader when he kept on with his desire to talk with Ahmadinejad. In fact, there was a huge argument among Dems over who to use as Obama's running mate, Smiley Joe Biden or Ahmadinejad. I think the chose the wrong one. Just think, we could have had two people running the Executive branch with questionable citizenship qualities.
Golly, so many have said that Bush and Cheney didn't want to bomb Iran and you come back with left leaning sources saying that they did. The word neoconservative always makes my mind rear back and take another look.
When you throw in a term that is based on the name of one of the leading left leaners of the world, like Trotsky, I have to wonder what is going on. You did know that he died from a hatchet to the head, I hope. In case you didn't know he was a Russian Communist who had to be killed by the earliest Communist ruler there, Lenin. Just some tidbits of history for those intersted.
You are suggesting that the Washington Post is a left leaning source? You realize Justin Raimondo of Anti-war.com is a devout old right conservative? I'm sure you realized that, right? Or did you just see "anti-war" and automatically assume it must be leftist, which I suspect is more the case.
Let me ask you, do you also consider Pat Buchanan a leftist? I mean after all he is the one employing Philip Giraldi who's research I cited here.
The term "Neoconservative" isn't based upon Leon Trotsky. The term Neoconservative is just what it says it is, 'neo' meaning 'new' and 'conservative', which denotes they are "new conservatives" which would then imply they weren't conservatives before. In fact they have often publicly stated that their roots lay in liberalism and one of the grandmasters of Neoconservatism just so happened to be an admirer of Leon Trotsky and so taught his students in a similar vein.
These "new conservatives" which hail from liberal roots do so not from traditional American liberalism in classical sense, they hold progressive foreign policy views. Namely, they wish to democratize the world in our own image. They came to call themselves 'Newconservatives' because the only way they saw a means to nation build was through military means, in which case they adopted the right wing in America because it has traditionally been associated with our military. In addition, since the right has a tendency to follow authoritarian type mindset, it was the obviously place to infect, as all they had to do was convinced key members of leadership and the rest would follow in lock step.
So you now have progressive foreign policy liberals, guns, bombs, and bullets and all that was needed was a place to use these. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union no longer provided an evil doer, the next logical step was the Middle East. First it was Bin Laden, who is or was in fact a pretty evil dude. Then came Saddam who it was later found out couldn't launch a paper airplane from his bedroom window with the US being able to blow it out of the sky. Response to this... whoops, we meant Iran, yeah, Iran is the place with the REAL evil doer. So the next obvious place is the big mouth Ahmedinjad who if he claimed had a pocket device that defies gravity and had a matter anti-matter star ship waiting in orbit, it would be printed on the front page of the Times.
Sorry, but until all the couch commando's promoting yet another war based upon "IF" and assumptions enlist in the Army, then I'll continue to do my best to show what folly this is.
There is not a boogey man that ever existed that has not scared Roy which explains why at 72 yrs old he sleeps with his scoobey doo night light on.He is so terrified that Iraq has a nuke he threw his common sense out the window.
Roy never considers that maybe if lucky Iraq might have a few or maybe 10 nukes who knows?who cares?They might be crazy but not so out of it they would use them against Israel who has like 400 nukes.This would be suicide for Iraq,it would be like stepping on Superman's cape.But Roy thinks that Muslim's have no brains and no ability to figure this out.
Even though Roy is scared to death of the boogey man he does not know how foolish he looks beating his little war drum.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to flap his lips to instigate because he knows that China and Russia have big time investment in his country and would not be to happy if Iran was attacked therefore he can.What is amassing that people listen to his empty rhetoric and take the clown seriously,he is all talk and nothing more.
Knowing this I hope my good friend Roy can get some sleep.
The IAEA has admitted that they let Iran get a bit further than they should have and still our government doesn't seem to find what they are doing anything to worry about.
I believe you and Annie were claiming that Iran HAD nuclear weapons...
You backing off that now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
The CNN article mentions their development of ICBMs and yet our Boss is willing to cut back our ballistic missile defensive system. What do we do when they make an effort, just kiss the city they hit goodbye and admit to a mistake? I think you sound like that is the answer.
Yes because a super over-priced missile defense system that has show to work poorly at best, deployed in Eastern Europe isn't going to do squat...
It's a money pit and it doesn't work.
I believe at the time when Obama was being called names by Conservatives over this and being accused of cowtailing to the Russians and abandoning our Eastern European allies he stated that forces would not be cut back in those areas and that our missile defense system would depend more on our cruiser fleet IIRC.....
Either way, the "Missilie Defense Shield" is/was a rediculously expensive farce.
Pardon me while I attempt to play this one down the middle.
Iran probably has a "right" to develop nuclear weapons if other nations have that same right. Shouldn't we be addressing the larger issue of why these weapons are allowed ANYWHERE, not just Iran?
Further, the problem with Iran developing the Bomb is not so much that they're going to use it in a mission that would end in their total destruction by the true nuclear powers of the world, it's rather that their nuclear capabilities will motivate surrounding nations to go after the nuke prize, thus leading to a new round of escalation that will endanger the entire globe.
Global disarmament is needed. Bombing Iran (or imposing useless sanctions) isn't going to stop the nuclear threat. Pakistan is barely keeping its own Islamic fundamentalist militants out of power and that country already has nukes. What to do? I don't think this is a partisan issue at all. There's nothing especially liberal or conservative about wanting the world to be safe from nuclear terrorist attacks or an all-out nuclear war.
You are suggesting that the Washington Post is a left leaning source? You realize Justin Raimondo of Anti-war.com is a devout old right conservative? I'm sure you realized that, right? Or did you just see "anti-war" and automatically assume it must be leftist, which I suspect is more the case.
Let me ask you, do you also consider Pat Buchanan a leftist? I mean after all he is the one employing Philip Giraldi who's research I cited here.
The term "Neoconservative" isn't based upon Leon Trotsky. The term Neoconservative is just what it says it is, 'neo' meaning 'new' and 'conservative', which denotes they are "new conservatives" which would then imply they weren't conservatives before. In fact they have often publicly stated that their roots lay in liberalism and one of the grandmasters of Neoconservatism just so happened to be an admirer of Leon Trotsky and so taught his students in a similar vein.
These "new conservatives" which hail from liberal roots do so not from traditional American liberalism in classical sense, they hold progressive foreign policy views. Namely, they wish to democratize the world in our own image. They came to call themselves 'Newconservatives' because the only way they saw a means to nation build was through military means, in which case they adopted the right wing in America because it has traditionally been associated with our military. In addition, since the right has a tendency to follow authoritarian type mindset, it was the obviously place to infect, as all they had to do was convinced key members of leadership and the rest would follow in lock step.
So you now have progressive foreign policy liberals, guns, bombs, and bullets and all that was needed was a place to use these. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union no longer provided an evil doer, the next logical step was the Middle East. First it was Bin Laden, who is or was in fact a pretty evil dude. Then came Saddam who it was later found out couldn't launch a paper airplane from his bedroom window with the US being able to blow it out of the sky. Response to this... whoops, we meant Iran, yeah, Iran is the place with the REAL evil doer. So the next obvious place is the big mouth Ahmedinjad who if he claimed had a pocket device that defies gravity and had a matter anti-matter star ship waiting in orbit, it would be printed on the front page of the Times.
Sorry, but until all the couch commando's promoting yet another war based upon "IF" and assumptions enlist in the Army, then I'll continue to do my best to show what folly this is.
I take it that you have failed to see any of the people I like and agree with say anything about those Trotskyites meaning the exact opposite.
Also, I want to say that you scared the hell out of me when you so aptly described me since I am a reformed liberal Democrat. I was worried for a while but realized that I am not one of those neo cons. I even had to be driven to their website by liberals before I realized there really was such a thing. I am not a supporter of using the military to create other democratic governments but I still do support that use to keep them away from us.
Anyway, good post and very apt about all things up to a point. It is very true that Ahmedinejad is given too much credit kind of like the way Obama wanted to badly to sit down with tea and talk in a civilized manner with him.
Boy, are you a wealth of knowledge of how those horrible neo-cons wanted to take over the world. Reading on that site is scary, even to war mongers like me.
There is not a boogey man that ever existed that has not scared Roy which explains why at 72 yrs old he sleeps with his scoobey doo night light on.He is so terrified that Iraq has a nuke he threw his common sense out the window.
Roy never considers that maybe if lucky Iraq might have a few or maybe 10 nukes who knows?who cares?They might be crazy but not so out of it they would use them against Israel who has like 400 nukes.This would be suicide for Iraq,it would be like stepping on Superman's cape.But Roy thinks that Muslim's have no brains and no ability to figure this out.
Even though Roy is scared to death of the boogey man he does not know how foolish he looks beating his little war drum.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to flap his lips to instigate because he knows that China and Russia have big time investment in his country and would not be to happy if Iran was attacked therefore he can.What is amassing that people listen to his empty rhetoric and take the clown seriously,he is all talk and nothing more.
Knowing this I hope my good friend Roy can get some sleep.
I see that you have either forgot my age or never did know but I can assure you that I sleep quite well in my own bed with only my C-PAP machine to keep me company. However, maybe I do use that thing as a crutch because I do take the air tube into the bed with me.
I see that you do realize what keeps all those wealthy Muslim countries from attacking Israel these days. It is something we taught to the world in the 1950s - the 1970s and even beyond. It is that mutual destruction thing that the US and the USSR came up with as their reason for not attacking each other. Now I am not too sure about Ahmedinejad when it comes to understanding that, but then perpetual peace of the kind you think the world will have, as long as you can get the little Texan elected, someday, will keep us alive.
For some reason I fear the grim reaper more for natural causes since I am 77 these days. Hell, mon, I even had my heart attack at the age you accuse me of being and that surgery that followed was over 5 years ago.
Now that I have had my real laugh for the day I think I must go off for my afternoon of puppy sitting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
