Discussion:
U.S. sets sights on yet another country for attack....
(too old to reply)
Karen Gordon
2005-02-07 00:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'

Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.

The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it
will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.
_________________________________

(K): And let's look at what the feelings of people around the world are on
this next explosive issue. You can see the anti-Americanism growing as the
Bush machine wages wars around the globe ......
___________________________


Should Iran suspend its nuclear programme?

Iran has not yet completed suspension of its uranium enrichment programme,
says the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The report by Mohamed El Baradei comes as the UN agency meets in Vienna to
discuss the country's compliance.

Tehran agreed to halt its enrichment programme last week but has asked for
an amendment to the terms of last week's deal to allow continued research.

However, France, Germany and Britain who helped bring about the original
suspension, have reportedly refused permission.

Should Iran be given more time to suspend its uranium enrichment
programme? Are you concerned about Iran's nuclear research programme? What
should the UN do?
_______________________________

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we received:

Iran has two alternatives, scrap your nuclear weapons program and be
invaded or develop and/or possibly test a nuclear weapon and everyone
stays well clear. Iraq is proof of the former and North Korea proof the
latter is true. We now live in a world where 'might is right'.
- Dylan, London UK


Given Iraq was attacked for no good reason except regime change, the only
way to hold America at bay is through a nuclear deterrent. I have no wish
to see Iran become a nuclear power but Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive
strikes has given them no other option.
- Andy, UK


I am an Iranian and I don't like and don't trust the hardliners in power
in Iran. But I hate their counter-parts in US even more and I cannot
tolerate seeing the same thing happening to us as happened in Iraq. Our
move toward democracy was halted once before by US (the coup of 1953) and
I think we deserve to do anything, including developing nuclear weapons,
to prevent such a thing from happening again.
- Mohammad S., Canada


I can't see any reason why they should be barred from pursuing these
technologies. Only one nation on earth has ever used a nuclear device and
I don't see the rest of the planet clamouring for them to give them up.
- Pete, Cambridge UK


Why another Muslim country? Hasn't this crusade gone too far and when will
the Muslim leaders wake up? The UN should try speaking to defiant Israel!
- Mullah Hafeezud Din, Birmingham, UK


No. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It seems that the majority of
the people on this board can't see the long term consequences of this. You
all just don't understand. The implications this could cause are
tremendous. We have North Korea right next door. We don't need another in
the Middle East.
- Tsutomu, Yokohama, Japan


Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country. I don't
see the EU and US demanding to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities. Why
the double standard?
- Samuel T, Canada


Given a choice I would trust Iran more than the neo cons sitting in
Washington. Iran has never in the past given any indication that it had
any aggressive intent towards any of its neighbouring countries. And it
has reasons to be worried about its security with neighbours like Israel
and Iraq where more than a 100,000 US troops are based.
- R. Venugopal, Delhi, India


The Iranians would be crazy to abandon their nuclear programme. In the end
the world would be a safer place and there would be greater justice, if
powers are balanced in the Middle East. I personally hope they get their
nukes.
- Jose R. Pardinas, Miami, USA

Iran has every right to defend itself. The USA has already hinted that it
has plans to invade so what option does Iran have other than to develop
the weapons necessary for its defence against an unprovoked attack by
superpower?
- Peter, Welwyn, England


I think Iran should pull out of this agreement which was signed by the
previous foreign elected regime(s) and put a stop to this charade of
double standards and nepotism.
- Fari Jannati, Leeds, UK


Iran has all the rights to a more advanced and complete uranium enrichment
programme. Iran is the most democratic regime in the Middle East, hence it
poses no threat whatsoever to its immediate neighbours.
- Akbar, Ontario

If it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and the US is building
and designing hand grenade size bombs then I see no problem with Iran
having nuclear weapons.
- Frank John, Burlington Canada

If countries such as North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have Nuclear weapons
programmes how can the International community (America in particular)
have the audacity to threaten Iran into submission. Until these double
standards cease to exist, Iran should continue with its nuclear programme.
- G, Herts



The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent
James, Newcastle, UK

Ending the WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign
power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable
deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as
they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or
otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing
a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is
Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world.
James, Newcastle, UK
Iran having nuclear weapons is no scarier than Blair or Bush having them,
if a nuclear war starts then every country in the world will suffer
massive losses. Either in the explosions, the radiation, the climate
change, the complete collapse of their economy or any of the other
consequences. If a militant group manages to get hold of one, do they
think America would not retaliate?
Chris, UK

If I were an Iranian, I would be thinking we must develop a nuclear weapon
somehow, otherwise it's only a matter of time before we are invaded. Once
we have our weapon no one will dare. One way or another we have to have
one.
Terry M, Walton surrey

Iran is probably afraid of suffering the same fate as Iraq, and view a
nuclear arsenal as the only effective deterrent against a US-led invasion.
I don't believe they are enriching uranium for any other purpose
(including energy). It is hardly coincidental that North Korea also has a
nuclear programme, as both countries are on George W Bush's list of rogue
states, coined the "Axis of Evil". Ironically, by bolstering their
defences, the US will interpret them as the aggressors. Perhaps Iran feels
it has nothing to lose.
Andy Bird, Cheshire, UK

Well, if they want to keep The American "democracy" away, then they should
have a nuclear weapon as fast as possible, Bush still has 4 years to
finish his project.
Ahmad, Jordan

There are legitimate reasons to pursue Nuclear energy, but when it pushes
your nation to the brink of war it may be time to drop the research. The
fact that the Iranian government is so uncooperative with the
international community, not on this but on virtually every issue brought
before it, is concern enough. In my view, Iran is run by a belligerent
theocracy that has done everything within its power to alienate itself
from the rest of the world, God help the citizens of Iran if their
leadership keeps this up.
Philip, Ottawa, Canada

--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"The Right One"
2005-02-07 01:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it
will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.
_________________________________
(K): And let's look at what the feelings of people around the world are on
this next explosive issue. You can see the anti-Americanism growing as the
Bush machine wages wars around the globe ......
___________________________
Should Iran suspend its nuclear programme?
Iran has not yet completed suspension of its uranium enrichment programme,
says the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The report by Mohamed El Baradei comes as the UN agency meets in Vienna to
discuss the country's compliance.
Tehran agreed to halt its enrichment programme last week but has asked for
an amendment to the terms of last week's deal to allow continued research.
However, France, Germany and Britain who helped bring about the original
suspension, have reportedly refused permission.
Should Iran be given more time to suspend its uranium enrichment
programme? Are you concerned about Iran's nuclear research programme? What
should the UN do?
_______________________________
Iran has two alternatives, scrap your nuclear weapons program and be
invaded or develop and/or possibly test a nuclear weapon and everyone
stays well clear. Iraq is proof of the former and North Korea proof the
latter is true. We now live in a world where 'might is right'.
- Dylan, London UK
Given Iraq was attacked for no good reason except regime change, the only
way to hold America at bay is through a nuclear deterrent. I have no wish
to see Iran become a nuclear power but Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive
strikes has given them no other option.
- Andy, UK
That dosen't justify the fact that some nckle and dime dictator
should have Nuclear weapons. It's all the more reason why the invasion of
Iraq
was a smart move.
Post by Karen Gordon
I am an Iranian and I don't like and don't trust the hardliners in power
in Iran. But I hate their counter-parts in US even more and I cannot
tolerate seeing the same thing happening to us as happened in Iraq. Our
move toward democracy was halted once before by US (the coup of 1953) and
I think we deserve to do anything, including developing nuclear weapons,
to prevent such a thing from happening again.
- Mohammad S., Canada
Another socialist justifying Nuclear weapons for Iran.
Post by Karen Gordon
I can't see any reason why they should be barred from pursuing these
technologies. Only one nation on earth has ever used a nuclear device and
I don't see the rest of the planet clamouring for them to give them up.
- Pete, Cambridge UK
Hitler was on the verge of developing Nuclear weapons
Post by Karen Gordon
Why another Muslim country? Hasn't this crusade gone too far and when will
the Muslim leaders wake up? The UN should try speaking to defiant Israel!
- Mullah Hafeezud Din, Birmingham, UK
Is Iareal a threat?
Post by Karen Gordon
No. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It seems that the majority of
the people on this board can't see the long term consequences of this. You
all just don't understand. The implications this could cause are
tremendous. We have North Korea right next door. We don't need another in
the Middle East.
- Tsutomu, Yokohama, Japan
Smart comment, from someone who is there.
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country. I don't
see the EU and US demanding to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities. Why
the double standard?
- Samuel T, Canada
They have no reason to inspect Isreals facilities.
Post by Karen Gordon
Given a choice I would trust Iran more than the neo cons sitting in
Washington. Iran has never in the past given any indication that it had
any aggressive intent towards any of its neighbouring countries. And it
has reasons to be worried about its security with neighbours like Israel
and Iraq where more than a 100,000 US troops are based.
- R. Venugopal, Delhi, India
Many people trusted Hitler as well.
Post by Karen Gordon
The Iranians would be crazy to abandon their nuclear programme. In the end
the world would be a safer place and there would be greater justice, if
powers are balanced in the Middle East. I personally hope they get their
nukes.
- Jose R. Pardinas, Miami, USA
Again would the world have been a safer place had Hitler developed Nuclear
weapons
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran has every right to defend itself. The USA has already hinted that it
has plans to invade so what option does Iran have other than to develop
the weapons necessary for its defence against an unprovoked attack by
superpower?
- Peter, Welwyn, England
He wants to see an all out Nuke battle.
Post by Karen Gordon
I think Iran should pull out of this agreement which was signed by the
previous foreign elected regime(s) and put a stop to this charade of
double standards and nepotism.
- Fari Jannati, Leeds, UK
Iran has all the rights to a more advanced and complete uranium enrichment
programme. Iran is the most democratic regime in the Middle East, hence it
poses no threat whatsoever to its immediate neighbours.
- Akbar, Ontario
All rights and no responsibility.
Post by Karen Gordon
If it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and the US is building
and designing hand grenade size bombs then I see no problem with Iran
having nuclear weapons.
- Frank John, Burlington Canada
If countries such as North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have Nuclear weapons
programmes how can the International community (America in particular)
have the audacity to threaten Iran into submission. Until these double
standards cease to exist, Iran should continue with its nuclear programme.
- G, Herts
The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent
James, Newcastle, UK
Ending the WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign
power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable
deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as
they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or
otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing
a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is
Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world.
James, Newcastle, UK
Iran having nuclear weapons is no scarier than Blair or Bush having them,
if a nuclear war starts then every country in the world will suffer
massive losses. Either in the explosions, the radiation, the climate
change, the complete collapse of their economy or any of the other
consequences. If a militant group manages to get hold of one, do they
think America would not retaliate?
Chris, UK
If I were an Iranian, I would be thinking we must develop a nuclear weapon
somehow, otherwise it's only a matter of time before we are invaded. Once
we have our weapon no one will dare. One way or another we have to have
one.
Terry M, Walton surrey
Iran is probably afraid of suffering the same fate as Iraq, and view a
nuclear arsenal as the only effective deterrent against a US-led invasion.
I don't believe they are enriching uranium for any other purpose
(including energy). It is hardly coincidental that North Korea also has a
nuclear programme, as both countries are on George W Bush's list of rogue
states, coined the "Axis of Evil". Ironically, by bolstering their
defences, the US will interpret them as the aggressors. Perhaps Iran feels
it has nothing to lose.
Andy Bird, Cheshire, UK
Well, if they want to keep The American "democracy" away, then they should
have a nuclear weapon as fast as possible, Bush still has 4 years to
finish his project.
Ahmad, Jordan
There are legitimate reasons to pursue Nuclear energy, but when it pushes
your nation to the brink of war it may be time to drop the research. The
fact that the Iranian government is so uncooperative with the
international community, not on this but on virtually every issue brought
before it, is concern enough. In my view, Iran is run by a belligerent
theocracy that has done everything within its power to alienate itself
from the rest of the world, God help the citizens of Iran if their
leadership keeps this up.
Philip, Ottawa, Canada
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.
Post by Karen Gordon
--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Uralmash Nogoodnik
2005-02-07 01:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
Why does the US want to invade?
Lion
2005-02-07 02:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
Why does the US want to invade?
The Iranians need to back off from the Nuke programme. They need nukes for
electricity like they need to import coal from Cape Breton Canada. They've
got plenty of energy resources on their own.

There's no way that the Nuke programme in Iran is for electricity.

If the USA want's to continue along with a full blown invasion of Iran,
that will be a problem as well because they're already facing an extended
stay in Iraq and even President Bush knows that money doesn't grow on
trees.
Uralmash Nogoodnik
2005-02-07 02:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lion
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
Why does the US want to invade?
The Iranians need to back off from the Nuke programme. They need nukes for
electricity like they need to import coal from Cape Breton Canada. They've
got plenty of energy resources on their own.
Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do? Perhaps they want
nuke electricity so they can get more revenue from their oil... sounds
like a good economic decision.
Post by Lion
There's no way that the Nuke programme in Iran is for electricity.
If the USA want's to continue along with a full blown invasion of Iran,
that will be a problem as well because they're already facing an extended
stay in Iraq and even President Bush knows that money doesn't grow on
trees.
The USA knows that if Iran gets da bomb it will swing the balance of
power in the Middle East out of American/Israeli hands, so they are
going to do anything they can to justify an attack. I suspect it will
be a preemptive proxy bombing, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites
at the behest of the USA.
Lion
2005-02-07 03:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by Lion
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
Why does the US want to invade?
The Iranians need to back off from the Nuke programme. They need nukes for
electricity like they need to import coal from Cape Breton Canada. They've
got plenty of energy resources on their own.
Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do? Perhaps they want
nuke electricity so they can get more revenue from their oil... sounds
like a good economic decision.
That doesn't make sense.
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by Lion
There's no way that the Nuke programme in Iran is for electricity.
If the USA want's to continue along with a full blown invasion of Iran,
that will be a problem as well because they're already facing an extended
stay in Iraq and even President Bush knows that money doesn't grow on
trees.
The USA knows that if Iran gets da bomb it will swing the balance of
power in the Middle East out of American/Israeli hands, so they are
going to do anything they can to justify an attack. I suspect it will
be a preemptive proxy bombing, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear sites
at the behest of the USA.
That makes sense.
TheMan
2005-02-07 06:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lion
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by Lion
Post by Uralmash Nogoodnik
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
Why does the US want to invade?
The Iranians need to back off from the Nuke programme. They need nukes for
electricity like they need to import coal from Cape Breton Canada. They've
got plenty of energy resources on their own.
Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do? Perhaps they want
nuke electricity so they can get more revenue from their oil... sounds
like a good economic decision.
That doesn't make sense.
Yes it does.

Iran has it's own Uranium mines, why are you saying they can only use ineffecient
Oil and Gas powerplants when they could be using their large supplies of Uranium?

Who are you to tell them how they can use their natural resources?

-TheMan-
hadda hadda
2005-02-07 02:09:45 UTC
Permalink
""The Right One"" <***@freedom.ab> wrote in message news:eVzNd.301683$***@pd7tw1no...
ssssssssssssssssnip> >
Post by "The Right One"
Many of these guys think that if Iran had neclear weapons it would deter
the US from invasion. How insane,
The fact that people can think is insane for you?

Well, you are definitely not "Insane"....
TheMan
2005-02-07 06:42:59 UTC
Permalink
<SNIP>
Post by Karen Gordon
Why another Muslim country? Hasn't this crusade gone too far and when will
the Muslim leaders wake up? The UN should try speaking to defiant Israel!
- Mullah Hafeezud Din, Birmingham, UK
Is Isreal a threat?
Many people trusted Hitler as well.
-TheMan-
Rincewind
2005-02-07 08:58:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:56:26 +0000, "The Right One" mumbled something like
Post by "The Right One"
Post by Karen Gordon
Why another Muslim country? Hasn't this crusade gone too far and when
will the Muslim leaders wake up? The UN should try speaking to defiant
Israel! - Mullah Hafeezud Din, Birmingham, UK
Is Iareal a threat?
Ask the Palestinians...

Rinso
--
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
tom
2005-02-07 03:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.

But if you actually believe Iran is developing nuclear capacity for
electricity generation then your stupidity is exceeding the dizzy heights to
which it has previously risen.
Lion
2005-02-07 03:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Well, everyone knows that Iran is concerned about the environment and CO2
emissions. That must be the reason why they want nuclear power when
they're swimming in oil and natural gas. Yep! That's the ticket!
TheMan
2005-02-07 06:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lion
Post by tom
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Well, everyone knows that Iran is concerned about the environment and CO2
emissions. That must be the reason why they want nuclear power when
they're swimming in oil and natural gas. Yep! That's the ticket!
Yes they are swimming in Uranium, therefore they are using a cheaper more
effecient power source while using oil exports for money.

Yep, thats the ticket.

-TheMan-
Sunny
2005-02-07 07:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheMan
Post by Lion
Post by tom
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Well, everyone knows that Iran is concerned about the environment and CO2
emissions. That must be the reason why they want nuclear power when
they're swimming in oil and natural gas. Yep! That's the ticket!
Yes they are swimming in Uranium, therefore they are using a cheaper more
effecient power source while using oil exports for money.
Mr Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
said Iran's ability to produce nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to
attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.

Iran says "Trust me" :
http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/04/int11.htm
Swimming in Uranium ? :
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Sep/20040905News015.asp
Not just the USA concerned :
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06695982.htm
Karen Gordon
2005-02-07 03:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
But if you actually believe Iran is developing nuclear capacity for
electricity generation then your stupidity is exceeding the dizzy heights to
which it has previously risen.
(K): And when the U.S. gets 'concerned' about the nuclear capability of the
hotbed known as Israel, the U.S. can shove its 'concerns' where the sun
don't shine. The U.S. has NOTHING to say about any other countries
'nuclear capabilities' when it has stockpiled nuclear weapons itself - AND
been the sole country to use them in a time of war.

The U.S. is the danger. Not the countries now developing weapons to
defend themselves from the fate of Iraq - which did not have the weapons it
need to ward off a U.S. invasion and is now occupied, bloodied, and being
thieved of its most valuable natural resource. Iran, North Korea, Russia,
China, Pakistan, India ..... all will be nuclear-weaponed countries in a very
short time. And we know who they are preparing to defend agains. The single
country with the goal of world domination. Also known as imperialism.

--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
a***@hotmail.com
2005-02-07 12:41:13 UTC
Permalink
I disagree.

I think we all know that, for all the extremism of Wolfowitz & other
nutters who are at or near the helm in the USA, the country as a whole
is reasonably stable (aside deeply-ingrained streak of racism) and it
has a political system which as a whole cuold be relied on to contain
anything that got too far down the Dr Strangelove road.

No, the USA does not pose a threat with their nukes - but the USA is
nevertheless a very grave threat to world peace.

Just remember - The Taliban was created by the USA and OBL was involved
with the CIA. The USA specialises in sponsoring terrorism and conflict
in foreign countries - Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Afghanistan - not
to mention their support for the zionazi regime in Israel.

As for Iran - the more pressure the USA puts on Iran, the harder it is
for the reformists to cnotinue the work they have been doing there.
Ultimately, the USA's threats about Iran will be a self-fulfilling
prophecy. After all, it was the USA who propped Saddam in power for so
long - even after the gassings, the USA & UK were still funding him.
b***@yahoo.com.au
2005-02-07 05:36:28 UTC
Permalink
The middle eastern countries are accutely aware of the finite nature of
their oil reserves and that some kind of technology will displace oil
as an essential in the not to distant future. Several of these
countries have had massive population increases; for instance Saudi
Arabia whose population has outstripped the nations abillity to grant
them a comfortable life and is therefore teetering on revolution.
Irans reserves are much less than Iraq's which is much less than Saudi
Arabia's. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Because of their climate
and population they are dependent upon plentifull energy for
desalination; i.e. their basic drinking water.

Like it or not, nuclear energy offers hope not only for electricity but
energy for the production of ammonia fertalisers and desalination and
therefore drinking, bathing and irrigation water.

Note: the US once had plentifull oil in Texas and California. The
country was an exporter of oil as it started its atomic power program.
Lion
2005-02-07 05:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
The middle eastern countries are accutely aware of the finite nature of
their oil reserves and that some kind of technology will displace oil
as an essential in the not to distant future. Several of these
countries have had massive population increases; for instance Saudi
Arabia whose population has outstripped the nations abillity to grant
them a comfortable life and is therefore teetering on revolution.
Irans reserves are much less than Iraq's which is much less than Saudi
Arabia's. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Because of their climate
and population they are dependent upon plentifull energy for
desalination; i.e. their basic drinking water.
Like it or not, nuclear energy offers hope not only for electricity but
energy for the production of ammonia fertalisers and desalination and
therefore drinking, bathing and irrigation water.
Note: the US once had plentifull oil in Texas and California. The
country was an exporter of oil as it started its atomic power program.
There has been word that the Iranian aspects of nuclear development need to
be with in the compliments of peaceful nuclear use.

The allegations are that the Iranians are working outside of the
boundaries.

Canada knows what can happen when the transition from peaceful nuclear use
goes to belligerency. We fed the Paki's and the Indians with Candu's. Now
we know that both of them have weapons.

How can that be resolved in Iran?
Lion
2005-02-07 05:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lion
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
The middle eastern countries are accutely aware of the finite nature of
their oil reserves and that some kind of technology will displace oil
as an essential in the not to distant future. Several of these
countries have had massive population increases; for instance Saudi
Arabia whose population has outstripped the nations abillity to grant
them a comfortable life and is therefore teetering on revolution.
Irans reserves are much less than Iraq's which is much less than Saudi
Arabia's. Iran is 3 times the size of Iraq. Because of their climate
and population they are dependent upon plentifull energy for
desalination; i.e. their basic drinking water.
Like it or not, nuclear energy offers hope not only for electricity but
energy for the production of ammonia fertalisers and desalination and
therefore drinking, bathing and irrigation water.
Note: the US once had plentifull oil in Texas and California. The
country was an exporter of oil as it started its atomic power program.
There has been word that the Iranian aspects of nuclear development need to
be with in the compliments of peaceful nuclear use.
The allegations are that the Iranians are working outside of the
boundaries.
Canada knows what can happen when the transition from peaceful nuclear use
goes to belligerency. We fed the Paki's and the Indians with Candu's. Now
we know that both of them have weapons.
How can that be resolved in Iran?
Oh, and not Pakistan or India has signed any accord to do with non-
proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
TheMan
2005-02-07 06:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
Yes, it's OK for Uranium rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity.

And I have no problem with other countries like Australia using it either as it is
cleaner and we can easily dump waste safetly in pits in SA. Then again it might be
worth waiting for Controlled Fusion power to take off.

-TheMan-
Steve Frazer
2005-02-07 15:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom
Post by Karen Gordon
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
But if you actually believe Iran is developing nuclear capacity for
electricity generation then your stupidity is exceeding the dizzy heights to
which it has previously risen.
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.

Would the US invade Europe to remove it's nuclear capability if the EU
decides Bush is a dangerous fuckwit with a peanut for a brain?
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-09 00:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by tom
Post by Karen Gordon
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to
have
Post by tom
Post by Karen Gordon
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
So it's OK for oil rich Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
but not OK for developed countries to do so?
They have to continue to rely on fossil fuels.
But if you actually believe Iran is developing nuclear capacity for
electricity generation then your stupidity is exceeding the dizzy
heights
Post by Steve Frazer
to
Post by tom
which it has previously risen.
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
Arthur Brain
2005-02-09 08:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
Oh, here we go - "You're either with us or against us". Crap.

Is it something about the Yank education system that leaves them
incapable of grasping reality and trying instead to impose a
black/white interpretation on everything?

There is a fundamental difference between disapproving of USA's flawed
and destructive foreign policy and approving of nuclear-armed small
countries.

Based on your logic, and the USA's alliance with Saudi Arabia, should
I conclude that the USA approves of Islamic tyrranies which produce
people who carried out 9/11?
Why does Kuwait still not have a democracy, over 10 years after being
"liberated" by the USA?

If the USA is worried about dodgy countries armed with Nukes, they
should start by disarming Israel. Not only would that set a good
example, but Israel is the only country in the world that threatens
(regularly) to use nukes on innocent people.

In any case, if you (or the Yanks) had even half a brain, you would
realise that putting this kind of pressure on Iran will promote
Islamic fundametalism and destabilise the reformist government in
Iran.
Is that perhaps what the USA really wants?
So thoroughly infected by zionists is the US government that they
actually delight in the mass-murder of as many arabs as possible?
Frank F. Matthews
2005-02-09 11:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Brain
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
Oh, here we go - "You're either with us or against us". Crap.
Is it something about the Yank education system that leaves them
incapable of grasping reality and trying instead to impose a
black/white interpretation on everything?
There is a fundamental difference between disapproving of USA's flawed
and destructive foreign policy and approving of nuclear-armed small
countries.
Based on your logic, and the USA's alliance with Saudi Arabia, should
I conclude that the USA approves of Islamic tyrranies which produce
people who carried out 9/11?
Why does Kuwait still not have a democracy, over 10 years after being
"liberated" by the USA?
If the USA is worried about dodgy countries armed with Nukes, they
should start by disarming Israel. Not only would that set a good
example, but Israel is the only country in the world that threatens
(regularly) to use nukes on innocent people.
In any case, if you (or the Yanks) had even half a brain, you would
realise that putting this kind of pressure on Iran will promote
Islamic fundametalism and destabilise the reformist government in
Iran.
Is that perhaps what the USA really wants?
So thoroughly infected by zionists is the US government that they
actually delight in the mass-murder of as many arabs as possible?
I was agreeing with you until your last bit. I see no chance for any
successful reformist government in Iran in the next decade. The oil
money boosted by shrubs lack of concern for conservation will keep the
weirdoes going for years. They cannot even stomach a moderate Grand
Ayatollah.
James H. Hood
2005-02-09 18:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Brain
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
Oh, here we go - "You're either with us or against us". Crap.
Is it something about the Yank education system that leaves them
incapable of grasping reality and trying instead to impose a
black/white interpretation on everything?
There's obviously something about your sheeple indoctrination that makes you
want to introduce an extraneous snide comments. There's nothing "for us or
against us" there.....are you or are you not simply against theocratic thugs
arming themselves with nukes?
Post by Arthur Brain
There is a fundamental difference between disapproving of USA's flawed
and destructive foreign policy and approving of nuclear-armed small
countries.
Then you disapprove of US efforts to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of
theocratic thugs.
Post by Arthur Brain
If the USA is worried about dodgy countries armed with Nukes, they
should start by disarming Israel. Not only would that set a good
example, but Israel is the only country in the world that threatens
(regularly) to use nukes on innocent people.
As evidenced by Israel controlling the Arab world, right?
Post by Arthur Brain
In any case, if you (or the Yanks) had even half a brain, you would
realise that putting this kind of pressure on Iran will promote
Islamic fundametalism and destabilise the reformist government in
Iran.
You conveniently ignore that Iran went fundamental decades before they had
any chance of going nuclear. If you sheeple weren't such cowards, you'd
realize that allowing theocratic thugs to go nuclear is a bad idea.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-10 20:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
There's obviously something about your sheeple indoctrination that makes you
want to introduce an extraneous snide comments. There's nothing "for us or
against us" there.....are you or are you not simply against theocratic thugs
arming themselves with nukes?
I am not against it.
Post by James H. Hood
Then you disapprove of US efforts to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of
theocratic thugs.
Yes. Absolutely it's none of their business what other nations do to defend
themselves.
Post by James H. Hood
You conveniently ignore that Iran went fundamental decades before they had
any chance of going nuclear. If you sheeple weren't such cowards, you'd
realize that allowing theocratic thugs to go nuclear is a bad idea.
It may well be a bad idea, but what gives the US the right to prevent it
happening?
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-09 18:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Brain
So thoroughly infected by zionists is the US government that they
actually delight in the mass-murder of as many arabs as possible?
Ahh, the "international Jewish conspiracy" yet again. Welcome to
Plonkville, fruitcake.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-10 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those whom it
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other nations
whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade Britain
because we have nuclear warheads?
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-10 20:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully
those whom
Post by Steve Frazer
it
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other nations
whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade Britain
because we have nuclear warheads?
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are aligned
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our buildings.
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!

-Steve
Steve Frazer
2005-02-11 11:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
Post by Steve Frazer
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other
nations
Post by Steve Frazer
whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade
Britain
Post by Steve Frazer
because we have nuclear warheads?
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are aligned
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our buildings.
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to have an
opinion? This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US. The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any good
reason. In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.

But then any people's dumb enough to elect Bush twice (once was funny
enough) deserves the uncomfortable bed they've made for themselves.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
RT
2005-02-11 11:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to have an
opinion? This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US. The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any good
reason. In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.
You are soooooooo unbelievably stupid , you HAVE to be a Yank!

" So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to have an
Post by Steve Frazer
opinion? This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US. The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any good
reason. "
"The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to terrorise
any nation who invades another nation state without any good reason."

Oh DO they! Well that explains, you moron, why the 9/11 group were mostly
Saudis!

You're one of the best arguments for abortion I've ever heard of!
Steve Frazer
2005-02-11 12:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Steve Frazer
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to have an
opinion? This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US. The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any good
reason. In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.
You are soooooooo unbelievably stupid , you HAVE to be a Yank!
Except that you've misread or misunderstood my post... you translate your
misunderstanding as my stupidity. Now who has "to be a Yank"?
Post by RT
" So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to have an
Post by Steve Frazer
opinion? This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US. The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any good
reason. "
"The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to terrorise
any nation who invades another nation state without any good reason."
Oh DO they! Well that explains, you moron, why the 9/11 group were mostly
Saudis!
Read it again.

The poster stated "The US should reserve the right to invade countries that
are aligned with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings."

Using that logic I stated, "The terrorists will argue..."

The point being that if the US reserve the right to invade other countries
then the terrorists will reserve the right to terrorise the US.
Post by RT
You're one of the best arguments for abortion I've ever heard of!
You shouldn't assume that what you think you read is what you actually read.

I should also point out that nowhere did I state that the terrorist need
have his own country invaded, so where the 9/11 terrorists were from is of
no consequence. A freedom fighter is fighting for whosoever he believes is
wronged and that doesn't have to be his own people. Really before you
accuse people of being a "moron" or an "argument for abortion" you should
set your own intellectual house in order.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-15 02:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
Post by Steve Frazer
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other
nations
Post by Steve Frazer
whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade
Britain
Post by Steve Frazer
because we have nuclear warheads?
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by b***@yahoo.com.au
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to
have an opinion?
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US
can respond in whatever way it is capable.
Post by Steve Frazer
This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US.
No. It was the US financing of the never ending, unnecessary Israeli
occupation of the Palestinians which caused the terror attack on the
US.
Post by Steve Frazer
The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any
good reason.
Terrorists dont need to argue. They choose to blow people up instead
of engaging them in dialogue.
Post by Steve Frazer
In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.
Once Bush gets done readjusting US Mideast policy, we should be ok.
Post by Steve Frazer
But then any people's dumb enough to elect Bush twice (once was
funny enough) deserves the uncomfortable bed they've made for
themselves.
The surest indicator of intelligence is the ability to detect it in
others. Bush has won wars in Afg and Iraq were others have failed. He
has won two presidential elections and demonstrated himself to be a
master campaigner and stump speaker. Nothing dumb about him and the
principaled people who voted for him.

-Steve
Post by Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
Rincewind
2005-02-15 09:15:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:47:52 -0800, QuestionIsrael mumbled something like
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US can
respond in whatever way it is capable.
Against anyone it chooses, whether they were involved in 9/11 or not?
--
Rinso
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Frazer
2005-02-15 19:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to
have an opinion?
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US
can respond in whatever way it is capable.
But aainst whom? Nations who they think might have something to do with it?
What level of proof do they require? Innocent civilians? It sems the US
acted without the necessary proof against Iraq and Iraq didn't even have
anything to do with 9/11 AFAICS.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US.
No. It was the US financing of the never ending, unnecessary Israeli
occupation of the Palestinians which caused the terror attack on the
US.
And the US response in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't made the US an even
bigger target?
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any
good reason.
Terrorists dont need to argue. They choose to blow people up instead
of engaging them in dialogue.
So now you're calling Bush a terrorist? It's true, but I'm surprised how
quickly you agreed this point.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.
Once Bush gets done readjusting US Mideast policy, we should be ok.
I feel that may be too late to save the US from further terrorist attacks.
I'm waiting for the nuclear bomb in the briefcase or a biological attack.
:-(
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
But then any people's dumb enough to elect Bush twice (once was
funny enough) deserves the uncomfortable bed they've made for
themselves.
The surest indicator of intelligence is the ability to detect it in
others. Bush has won wars in Afg and Iraq were others have failed. He
has won two presidential elections and demonstrated himself to be a
master campaigner and stump speaker. Nothing dumb about him and the
principaled people who voted for him.
Good grief I've heard it all now. His first election victory destroyed the
image of democracy across the world, it was so obviously fiddled. Bush is a
moron overseeing the destruction of democracy. Corporations already control
American policy, thereby reducing the power the electorate might have had,
and even the introduction of a 'democratic' election in Iraq is doomed to
failure as democracy doesn't work when voters vote by means of ethnicity
and/or religion as the ruling party will always be the one with the most
numbers, rather than one who gets voters by having popular policies.

That the Americans want this buffoon in charge is quite hilarious.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-15 21:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to
have an opinion?
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US
can respond in whatever way it is capable.
But aainst whom? Nations who they think might have something to do
with it? What level of proof do they require?
Innocent civilians? It sems the US acted without the necessary
proof against Iraq and Iraq didn't even have anything to do
with 9/11 AFAICS.
Why cant you admit that Iraq is turning out well? The future is much
brighter for the people there then it was when SH ruled the country. al
Queda attacked the US. By taking on Iraq, the US sent a message to the
rulers of the Muslim states that if they harbor al Queda, the US will
take them out.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US.
No. It was the US financing of the never ending, unnecessary
Israeli
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
occupation of the Palestinians which caused the terror attack on the
US.
And the US response in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't made the US an
even bigger target?
Evidently not. The leading shiite clerics in Iraq are on the side of
the US. How do you explain that with your "America is hated" view of
things?
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
The terrorists will argue that they should reserve the right to
terrorise any nation who invades another nation state without any
good reason.
In which case the US is doomed to be the victims of terror for
centuries to come.
Once Bush gets done readjusting US Mideast policy, we should be ok.
I feel that may be too late to save the US from further terrorist
attacks. I'm waiting for the nuclear bomb in the briefcase or a
biological attack. :-(
al Queda would have nuked the US on 9/11 if they had those weapons.
9/11 preceeded the war on terror. How does the war on terror put the
US more at risk? By pursuing the WOT to the degree that Bush is doing
al Queda is less capable of planning and executing a WMD attack.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
But then any people's dumb enough to elect Bush twice (once was
funny enough) deserves the uncomfortable bed they've made for
themselves.
The surest indicator of intelligence is the ability to detect it in
others. Bush has won wars in Afg and Iraq were others have failed. He
has won two presidential elections and demonstrated himself to be a
master campaigner and stump speaker. Nothing dumb about him and the
principaled people who voted for him.
Good grief I've heard it all now. His first election victory
destroyed the
Post by Steve Frazer
image of democracy across the world, it was so obviously fiddled.
Bush is a
Post by Steve Frazer
moron overseeing the destruction of democracy. Corporations already control
American policy, thereby reducing the power the electorate might have had,
and even the introduction of a 'democratic' election in Iraq is doomed to
failure as democracy doesn't work when voters vote by means of
ethnicity
and/or religion as the ruling party will always be the one with the most
numbers, rather than one who gets voters by having popular policies.
according to the election results, the clerics got less votes than were
expected. If the mobsters had allowed the Sunnis to vote, the
percentage of the Shiite clerics would have been reduced even further.
There are 4 potential voting blocks in Iraq. Sunni, Kurd, Shiite
religious, and secular. That means one group cannot dominate and all
groups must cooperate. Looks like another Bush orchestrated victory in
the making!
Post by Steve Frazer
That the Americans want this buffoon in charge is quite hilarious.
Do leftists have a low opinion of Bush because he is a Southerner? He
is obviously very intelligent. Is this just bigotry against people
from that part of the United States?

-Steve
Steve Frazer
2005-02-16 09:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
But aainst whom? Nations who they think might have something to do
with it? What level of proof do they require?
Innocent civilians? It sems the US acted without the necessary
proof against Iraq and Iraq didn't even have anything to do
with 9/11 AFAICS.
Why cant you admit that Iraq is turning out well? The future is much
brighter for the people there then it was when SH ruled the country. al
Queda attacked the US. By taking on Iraq, the US sent a message to the
rulers of the Muslim states that if they harbor al Queda, the US will
take them out.
How Iraq is turning out is nothing to do with the lies told that enabled the
US and UK to go in there in the first place. The two are a separate issue.
As it happens I see Iraq as a disaster as I don't believe their will be a
second election. And even if there is we already know the result as people
vote according to their religion, which isn't democracy in any way shape or
form.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
And the US response in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't made the US an
even bigger target?
Evidently not. The leading shiite clerics in Iraq are on the side of
the US. How do you explain that with your "America is hated" view of
things?
But the Iraq clerics are the ones who had no power and now have power
forever without any chance of losing it 'democratically', of course they are
happy. But what of those who had power and now have no hope of regaining
it? What are their options? US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have made
the US a greater target.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
That the Americans want this buffoon in charge is quite hilarious.
Do leftists have a low opinion of Bush because he is a Southerner? He
is obviously very intelligent. Is this just bigotry against people
from that part of the United States?
Why assume I'm leftist? Most people in the UK, left and right, think Bush
is a complete moron who would struggle to tie his shoelaces without a
diagram.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-16 23:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
But aainst whom? Nations who they think might have something to do
with it? What level of proof do they require?
Innocent civilians? It sems the US acted without the necessary
proof against Iraq and Iraq didn't even have anything to do
with 9/11 AFAICS.
Why cant you admit that Iraq is turning out well? The future is much
brighter for the people there then it was when SH ruled the
country. al
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Queda attacked the US. By taking on Iraq, the US sent a message to the
rulers of the Muslim states that if they harbor al Queda, the US will
take them out.
How Iraq is turning out is nothing to do with the lies told that
enabled the US and UK to go in there in the first place.
The two are a separate issue.
Yes, they are separate issues. And the result of a democratic, peaceful
Iraq is much more important than what was and was not emphasized in the
sales pitch that convinced the public to support the effort.

The bottom line is that Bush, Cheney and Blair all agreed that taking
out SH was in the best interest of their respective countries.
Democrats in the US had plenty of opportunity to oppose and even stop
the invasion before it took place. Bickering about it after the fact
is just politics.
Post by Steve Frazer
As it happens I see Iraq as a disaster as I don't believe their
will be a second election.
The next election is in one years time. What evidence is there that
the next election will not be held?
Post by Steve Frazer
And even if there is we already know the result as people
vote according to their religion, which isn't democracy in any way
shape or form.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
And the US response in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't made the US an
even bigger target?
Evidently not. The leading shiite clerics in Iraq are on the side of
the US. How do you explain that with your "America is hated" view of
things?
But the Iraq clerics are the ones who had no power and now have power
forever without any chance of losing it 'democratically', of course they are
happy. But what of those who had power and now have no hope of regaining
it? What are their options? US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have made
the US a greater target.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
That the Americans want this buffoon in charge is quite
hilarious.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Do leftists have a low opinion of Bush because he is a Southerner? He
is obviously very intelligent. Is this just bigotry against people
from that part of the United States?
Why assume I'm leftist? Most people in the UK, left and right,
think Bush is a complete moron who would struggle to
tie his shoelaces without a diagram.
Whatever. The fellow wins at every contest he enters, against very
skilled and determined opponents. I think it is bigotry and ignorance
which causes people in the UK to conclude that Bush is "a complete
moron".

-Steve
Steve Frazer
2005-02-17 19:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
How Iraq is turning out is nothing to do with the lies told that
enabled the US and UK to go in there in the first place.
The two are a separate issue.
Yes, they are separate issues. And the result of a democratic, peaceful
Iraq is much more important than what was and was not emphasized in the
sales pitch that convinced the public to support the effort.
There is no evidence that a democratic Iraq will be peaceful at all.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
As it happens I see Iraq as a disaster as I don't believe their
will be a second election.
The next election is in one years time. What evidence is there that
the next election will not be held?
None whatsoever, it is just my belief that democracy will fail in Iraq.
Might not be the next election, but one ruling party will decide that they
don't want to lose power, they have control over the army and stuff the
elections.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
Why assume I'm leftist? Most people in the UK, left and right,
think Bush is a complete moron who would struggle to
tie his shoelaces without a diagram.
Whatever. The fellow wins at every contest he enters, against very
skilled and determined opponents. I think it is bigotry and ignorance
which causes people in the UK to conclude that Bush is "a complete
moron".
Or maybe we've seen too many of his eloquent speeches and they've prejudiced
us against him :-)
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
a***@hotmail.com
2005-02-11 13:05:59 UTC
Permalink
hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed in a war with Iraq which
was prolonged by the USA's intervention on the side of Iraq.

When has Iran done anything that even remotely compares with what the
USA did to them?
John Jarrow
2005-02-11 13:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed in a war with Iraq which
was prolonged by the USA's intervention on the side of Iraq.
When has Iran done anything that even remotely compares with what the
USA did to them?
Don't worry, the Bush regime will cook up a story which the rightards will
support unconditionally, just as they did for Iraq. It's just like
Orwell's 1984 all over again.
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-15 17:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed in a war with Iraq
which was prolonged by the USA's intervention on the side of Iraq.
That is a bigoted statement. It assumes that Iran and Iraq cant fight
each other without the enablement of the US and other white powers.
Whatever Iraq received from the US to help it fight that war it could
have gotten elsewhere.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
When has Iran done anything that even remotely compares with what
the USA did to them?
Iran killed our Marines in Lebanon and held our people hostage in the
American embassy in Tehran. ( actually, Iran deserves some thanks for
causing the American voters to reject Jimmy Carter and replace him with
Ronald Reagan! )

-Steve
James H. Hood
2005-02-12 02:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
What business is it of the US whether any other country has a nuclear
capability, whether it's for electricity generation or to bully their
neighbours? The US has this capability and uses it to bully those
whom
Post by Steve Frazer
it
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
disagrees with but has no right to stop any other nation having nuclear
capability.
Then you approve of theocratic thugs with nukes.
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other nations
whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade Britain
because we have nuclear warheads?
Yep.....you approve of theocratic thugs getting them, all right.
walter sharpe
2005-02-07 14:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Since 1945, powerful elements within America has used the threat off her
supposedly nuclear *superiority*to wage threats and blackmail against any
country who refuses to be a servile participant in the American mythological
dream of having eventual political control of the universe. Armegeddon is on
the horizon if this crazy country doesn't give up its ambition to control
the world, politically and economically. The Americans who support the mad
regime now in control of their country better begin to realise, that in the
event of a nuclear conflict, their fate will be the same as was the fate off
those innocent Japanese men, women, and children who lived under the planes
that unleashed their most inhuman and infamous destruction on Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its
efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do
that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.
Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have
nuclear weapons.
Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.
The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it
will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.
_________________________________
(K): And let's look at what the feelings of people around the world are on
this next explosive issue. You can see the anti-Americanism growing as the
Bush machine wages wars around the globe ......
___________________________
Should Iran suspend its nuclear programme?
Iran has not yet completed suspension of its uranium enrichment programme,
says the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The report by Mohamed El Baradei comes as the UN agency meets in Vienna to
discuss the country's compliance.
Tehran agreed to halt its enrichment programme last week but has asked for
an amendment to the terms of last week's deal to allow continued research.
However, France, Germany and Britain who helped bring about the original
suspension, have reportedly refused permission.
Should Iran be given more time to suspend its uranium enrichment
programme? Are you concerned about Iran's nuclear research programme? What
should the UN do?
_______________________________
Iran has two alternatives, scrap your nuclear weapons program and be
invaded or develop and/or possibly test a nuclear weapon and everyone
stays well clear. Iraq is proof of the former and North Korea proof the
latter is true. We now live in a world where 'might is right'.
- Dylan, London UK
Given Iraq was attacked for no good reason except regime change, the only
way to hold America at bay is through a nuclear deterrent. I have no wish
to see Iran become a nuclear power but Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive
strikes has given them no other option.
- Andy, UK
I am an Iranian and I don't like and don't trust the hardliners in power
in Iran. But I hate their counter-parts in US even more and I cannot
tolerate seeing the same thing happening to us as happened in Iraq. Our
move toward democracy was halted once before by US (the coup of 1953) and
I think we deserve to do anything, including developing nuclear weapons,
to prevent such a thing from happening again.
- Mohammad S., Canada
I can't see any reason why they should be barred from pursuing these
technologies. Only one nation on earth has ever used a nuclear device and
I don't see the rest of the planet clamouring for them to give them up.
- Pete, Cambridge UK
Why another Muslim country? Hasn't this crusade gone too far and when will
the Muslim leaders wake up? The UN should try speaking to defiant Israel!
- Mullah Hafeezud Din, Birmingham, UK
No. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It seems that the majority of
the people on this board can't see the long term consequences of this. You
all just don't understand. The implications this could cause are
tremendous. We have North Korea right next door. We don't need another in
the Middle East.
- Tsutomu, Yokohama, Japan
Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as any other country. I don't
see the EU and US demanding to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities. Why
the double standard?
- Samuel T, Canada
Given a choice I would trust Iran more than the neo cons sitting in
Washington. Iran has never in the past given any indication that it had
any aggressive intent towards any of its neighbouring countries. And it
has reasons to be worried about its security with neighbours like Israel
and Iraq where more than a 100,000 US troops are based.
- R. Venugopal, Delhi, India
The Iranians would be crazy to abandon their nuclear programme. In the end
the world would be a safer place and there would be greater justice, if
powers are balanced in the Middle East. I personally hope they get their
nukes.
- Jose R. Pardinas, Miami, USA
Iran has every right to defend itself. The USA has already hinted that it
has plans to invade so what option does Iran have other than to develop
the weapons necessary for its defence against an unprovoked attack by
superpower?
- Peter, Welwyn, England
I think Iran should pull out of this agreement which was signed by the
previous foreign elected regime(s) and put a stop to this charade of
double standards and nepotism.
- Fari Jannati, Leeds, UK
Iran has all the rights to a more advanced and complete uranium enrichment
programme. Iran is the most democratic regime in the Middle East, hence it
poses no threat whatsoever to its immediate neighbours.
- Akbar, Ontario
If it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and the US is building
and designing hand grenade size bombs then I see no problem with Iran
having nuclear weapons.
- Frank John, Burlington Canada
If countries such as North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have Nuclear weapons
programmes how can the International community (America in particular)
have the audacity to threaten Iran into submission. Until these double
standards cease to exist, Iran should continue with its nuclear programme.
- G, Herts
The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent
James, Newcastle, UK
Ending the WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign
power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable
deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as
they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or
otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing
a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is
Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world.
James, Newcastle, UK
Iran having nuclear weapons is no scarier than Blair or Bush having them,
if a nuclear war starts then every country in the world will suffer
massive losses. Either in the explosions, the radiation, the climate
change, the complete collapse of their economy or any of the other
consequences. If a militant group manages to get hold of one, do they
think America would not retaliate?
Chris, UK
If I were an Iranian, I would be thinking we must develop a nuclear weapon
somehow, otherwise it's only a matter of time before we are invaded. Once
we have our weapon no one will dare. One way or another we have to have
one.
Terry M, Walton surrey
Iran is probably afraid of suffering the same fate as Iraq, and view a
nuclear arsenal as the only effective deterrent against a US-led invasion.
I don't believe they are enriching uranium for any other purpose
(including energy). It is hardly coincidental that North Korea also has a
nuclear programme, as both countries are on George W Bush's list of rogue
states, coined the "Axis of Evil". Ironically, by bolstering their
defences, the US will interpret them as the aggressors. Perhaps Iran feels
it has nothing to lose.
Andy Bird, Cheshire, UK
Well, if they want to keep The American "democracy" away, then they should
have a nuclear weapon as fast as possible, Bush still has 4 years to
finish his project.
Ahmad, Jordan
There are legitimate reasons to pursue Nuclear energy, but when it pushes
your nation to the brink of war it may be time to drop the research. The
fact that the Iranian government is so uncooperative with the
international community, not on this but on virtually every issue brought
before it, is concern enough. In my view, Iran is run by a belligerent
theocracy that has done everything within its power to alienate itself
from the rest of the world, God help the citizens of Iran if their
leadership keeps this up.
Philip, Ottawa, Canada
--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
James H. Hood
2005-02-09 00:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by walter sharpe
Since 1945, powerful elements within America has used the threat off her
supposedly nuclear *superiority*to wage threats and blackmail against any
country who refuses to be a servile participant in the American mythological
dream of having eventual political control of the universe.
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us an
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play along.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-10 20:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us an
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play along.
You've heard of Cuba haven't you?
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-12 02:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us an
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play along.
You've heard of Cuba haven't you?
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense? Have an
adult explain the difference to you.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-12 14:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us an
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along.
Post by Steve Frazer
You've heard of Cuba haven't you?
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense? Have an
adult explain the difference to you.
Are you able to answer a point without changing the parameters half way
through? Then you try to suggest I need an adult to explain your deception,
yet clearly I don't.

Are you saying that "threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along" doesn't include Cuba? Note they are your words in quotes, not mine.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-12 22:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us
an
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along.
Post by Steve Frazer
You've heard of Cuba haven't you?
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense? Have an
adult explain the difference to you.
Are you able to answer a point without changing the parameters half way
through? Then you try to suggest I need an adult to explain your deception,
yet clearly I don't.
Are you saying that "threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along" doesn't include Cuba? Note they are your words in quotes, not mine.
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense?
Steve Frazer
2005-02-13 21:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Until the doctor comes to give you your Haldol, feel free to give us
an
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
example of the US threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along.
Post by Steve Frazer
You've heard of Cuba haven't you?
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense? Have an
adult explain the difference to you.
Are you able to answer a point without changing the parameters half way
through? Then you try to suggest I need an adult to explain your
deception,
Post by Steve Frazer
yet clearly I don't.
Are you saying that "threatening to nuke a country if they didn't play
along" doesn't include Cuba? Note they are your words in quotes, not
mine.
Are you able to distinguish between a reaction and an offense?
Yes. However you made no distinction of this until after Cuba was thrown
in. Whether the US threat was a reaction of offensive it was a threat
nonetheless. Clearly you feel it was justified because the US made that
threat.

Why don't you believe that other nations, such as Iran or Korea, have the
right to hold nuclear weapons so they can threaten others as a reaction just
as the US do?
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-13 22:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Why don't you believe that other nations, such as Iran or Korea, have the
right to hold nuclear weapons so they can threaten others as a reaction just
as the US do?
Why do you beleive that murderous thugocracies do? I can only attribute it
to a flaw in your upbringing.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-14 14:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Why don't you believe that other nations, such as Iran or Korea, have the
right to hold nuclear weapons so they can threaten others as a reaction
just
Post by Steve Frazer
as the US do?
Why do you beleive that murderous thugocracies do? I can only attribute it
to a flaw in your upbringing.
The US, UK, China, Russia and other nuclear powers have no right to prevent
other nations obtaining the same technology for their own defence. To
prevent it is hypocrisy of the highest order. What the US are saying is,
"Be our friends and you can have nuclear weapons, or else..."

I believe that nation states have the right to determine their own affairs
without interference from those who have nothing whatsoever to do with them,
i.e the US and EU.

What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your inability
to rationalise and answer.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-14 20:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Why don't you believe that other nations, such as Iran or Korea, have
the
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
right to hold nuclear weapons so they can threaten others as a reaction
just
Post by Steve Frazer
as the US do?
Why do you beleive that murderous thugocracies do? I can only attribute
it
Post by James H. Hood
to a flaw in your upbringing.
The US, UK, China, Russia and other nuclear powers have no right to prevent
other nations obtaining the same technology for their own defence. To
prevent it is hypocrisy of the highest order. What the US are saying is,
"Be our friends and you can have nuclear weapons, or else..."
I believe that nation states have the right to determine their own affairs
without interference from those who have nothing whatsoever to do with them,
i.e the US and EU.
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your inability
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have the
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
jimbo
2005-02-14 20:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Try this...............
http://207.44.245.159/article8035.htm

and this .....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Jim
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Why don't you believe that other nations, such as Iran or Korea, have
the
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
right to hold nuclear weapons so they can threaten others as a
reaction
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
just
Post by Steve Frazer
as the US do?
Why do you beleive that murderous thugocracies do? I can only attribute
it
Post by James H. Hood
to a flaw in your upbringing.
The US, UK, China, Russia and other nuclear powers have no right to
prevent
Post by Steve Frazer
other nations obtaining the same technology for their own defence. To
prevent it is hypocrisy of the highest order. What the US are saying is,
"Be our friends and you can have nuclear weapons, or else..."
I believe that nation states have the right to determine their own affairs
without interference from those who have nothing whatsoever to do with
them,
Post by Steve Frazer
i.e the US and EU.
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your
inability
Post by Steve Frazer
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have the
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
Defendario
2005-02-15 02:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimbo
Try this...............
http://207.44.245.159/article8035.htm
and this .....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
Jim
Quoted from the second article:
Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding neoconservative strategy
towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability.
Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given
that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island
of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. [14]

Link to info on Abu Musa Island:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm

In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz –
where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily
trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel
or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption
would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global
Depression. Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks?
Simply stated - their goal is U.S. global domination.

But the Silkworms at Abu Masa are old news. The Iranians have better
missles now, thanks to fUSSR & Red China.

More:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=2373
http://kursk.strana.ru/english/archive/978617257.html
James H. Hood
2005-02-15 19:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimbo
Try this...............
So you can paste two black-helicopter URLs in support of thugocracies with
nukes.....I'm not impressed.
jimbo
2005-02-15 20:21:11 UTC
Permalink
.....'thugocracies' ?

Well lets see then - Korea has nukes, Israel has nukes - gonna bomb them ?

No didn't think so

Wonder why ?.............................................

All about oil baby - so you can stick to fingers up to the rest of the
world.

Bush's arrogance is breathtaking.

Jim

Like I said read it .........
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://207.44.245.159/article8035.htm

you may learn something..............................................

Jim
Post by James H. Hood
Post by jimbo
Try this...............
So you can paste two black-helicopter URLs in support of thugocracies with
nukes.....I'm not impressed.
James H. Hood
2005-02-16 04:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by jimbo
.....'thugocracies' ?
Yep. Why are you cheerleading for them?
Defendario
2005-02-16 19:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by jimbo
.....'thugocracies' ?
Yep. Why are you cheerleading for them?
Aren't you?
;D
Steve Frazer
2005-02-15 19:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your
inability
Post by Steve Frazer
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have the
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer and so I wasn't disappointed.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-16 04:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your
inability
Post by Steve Frazer
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have the
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer and so I wasn't disappointed.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer from somebody who approves of murderous
thugocrats having nukes either.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-16 09:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your
inability
Post by Steve Frazer
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have the
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer and so I wasn't disappointed.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer from somebody who approves of murderous
thugocrats having nukes either.
You've been given every chance to provide an intelligent answer. I'll try
and find someone who can.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-16 18:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
What you attribute to a flaw in my upbringing I attribute to your
inability
Post by Steve Frazer
to rationalise and answer.
I atttribute your desire to see the ability of thugocracies to have
the
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
capability to vaporize millions to flawed rearing.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer and so I wasn't disappointed.
I didn't expect a reasoned answer from somebody who approves of murderous
thugocrats having nukes either.
You've been given every chance to provide an intelligent answer. I'll try
and find someone who can.
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-17 19:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......

What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-17 20:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Why are you supporting of murderous thugocrats having nukes, and why does
calling them what they are offend you?
Steve Frazer
2005-02-20 21:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Why are you supporting of murderous thugocrats having nukes, and why does
calling them what they are offend you?
I'm not offended by you calling them anything, I want to know the answer to
the question. It seems you can't answer it at all.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-17 21:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
by your thinking, what right does a country have to possess nukes?
That is inherently threatening to other countries, right? The Muslims
launched an unprovoked attack on the US, not the other way around.
Based on their rhetoric, if the Iranians get nukes they are likely to
use them. Just as the US can have nukes to protect itself, it can also
act to protect itself by taking out the radical Muslims before they
complete their nuke building program.

-Steve
Steve Frazer
2005-02-20 21:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats
have
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another
nation
Post by Steve Frazer
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the
term
Post by Steve Frazer
'thug'.
by your thinking, what right does a country have to possess nukes?
They developed them or acquired the technology.
Post by Karen Gordon
That is inherently threatening to other countries, right?
Yes, but whether it's threatening or not what right do other nations have to
tell them they can't have them? The only way it is accepable is if nations
agree that none should be llwoed have them or all should be allowed to, not
those who do have threaten those who don't if they get them.
Post by Karen Gordon
The Muslims
launched an unprovoked attack on the US, not the other way around.
Based on their rhetoric, if the Iranians get nukes they are likely to
use them. Just as the US can have nukes to protect itself, it can also
act to protect itself by taking out the radical Muslims before they
complete their nuke building program.
The Muslims? A handful of terrorists who stand for no-one but themselves.
The US has attacked many countries, using whatever justification they can
make up before or after. That's what made the US a target in the first
place.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
Stan Pierce
2005-02-17 22:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Steve Frazer.
The same right as not letting a 4 year old play with matches in the house.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-20 21:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Steve Frazer
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Steve Frazer.
The same right as not letting a 4 year old play with matches in the house.
A bizarre comparison - '4 year old with nation state'. To have more time to
psychoanalyse you would be most interesting.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
Stan Pierce
2005-02-21 01:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Steve Frazer
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another
nation
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Steve Frazer
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Steve Frazer.
The same right as not letting a 4 year old play with matches in the house.
A bizarre comparison - '4 year old with nation state'. To have more time to
psychoanalyse you would be most interesting.
You think Muslims are capable of thinking beyond a mind a four year old ?
Bizarre indeed. I would not trust any Muslim of any age with a box of
matches ! Name me one YOU would trust.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-22 21:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Steve Frazer
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another
nation
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Steve Frazer
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
Steve Frazer.
The same right as not letting a 4 year old play with matches in the house.
A bizarre comparison - '4 year old with nation state'. To have more
time
Post by Stan Pierce
Post by Karen Gordon
to
psychoanalyse you would be most interesting.
You think Muslims are capable of thinking beyond a mind a four year old ?
Bizarre indeed. I would not trust any Muslim of any age with a box of
matches ! Name me one YOU would trust.
Clearly discussion is not possible. Go and play with your crayons.
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
Granbob
2005-02-18 06:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
No right whatever! Every nation has the right to defend itself against
an agressor.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-20 21:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Granbob
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another nation
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
No right whatever! Every nation has the right to defend itself against
an agressor.
*swoon* An answer at last! :-)

Are you sure you didn't want to use the term 'thug' in your answer
somewhere? ;-)
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
Granbob
2005-02-20 23:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Granbob
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats have
nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another
nation
Post by Granbob
Post by Steve Frazer
from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the term
'thug'.
No right whatever! Every nation has the right to defend itself against
an agressor.
*swoon* An answer at last! :-)
Are you sure you didn't want to use the term 'thug' in your answer
somewhere? ;-)
No, I don't think it's helpful to use terms like "Thug" because the term
can be aptly used to describe both sides. Given that Iran is in clear
and present danger of attack from not just one but two nuclear powers, I
think that the government of Iran has a duty to it's people to aquire
the most powerful defensive weapons that it can lay it's hands on and as
quickly as possible in order to maintain a balance of power.
James H. Hood
2005-02-21 03:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Granbob
No, I don't think it's helpful to use terms like "Thug" because the term
can be aptly used to describe both sides.
And the foolish moral relativism crowd chimes in again.
Steve Frazer
2005-02-22 21:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Granbob
No, I don't think it's helpful to use terms like "Thug" because the term
can be aptly used to describe both sides.
And the foolish moral relativism crowd chimes in again.
Shame you snipped the bit you could have learnt from. :-(
--
Steve Frazer

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve_frazer/index.html
(updated Jan 31 '05)
James H. Hood
2005-02-25 06:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
Post by Granbob
No, I don't think it's helpful to use terms like "Thug" because the term
can be aptly used to describe both sides.
And the foolish moral relativism crowd chimes in again.
Shame you snipped the bit you could have learnt from. :-(
Shame, how your moral relativism crowd never learns.

Karen Gordon
2005-02-15 03:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Frazer
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other
nations whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade
Britain because we have nuclear warheads?
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are aligned
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our buildings.
(K): Too bad you got the wrong country. Superpowers should be allowed to
be stupid too.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
(K): Oh, yeah ..... let's bring up every country's past hostilities and
and have them all go on a pay-back invasion spree. I don't think the U.S.
could withstand such a spree, could it?
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to
have an opinion?
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US
can respond in whatever way it is capable.
(K): When did it become a 'response' to invade, and remain in, a country
that was not even involved with the 9/11 attacks? C'mon, American ....
think it through.
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US.
No. It was the US financing of the never ending, unnecessary Israeli
occupation of the Palestinians which caused the terror attack on the
US.
[....[]

(K): Amongst the many, many meddlings of the U.S. in country after country
around the globe. Arming them. Fighting them. Supporting them. Toppling
them. Funding them. Blockading them. Installing dictators. Killing them.

The U.S. is the most dangerous country on earth. And those countries that
are now arming themselves with nuclear weapons know that only too well.
--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-15 04:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
I believe that if the UK, US, France, China, Russia, etc have nuclear
capabilities then they have absolutely no right to dictate to other
nations whether they are allowed to also have them. Should the US invade
Britain because we have nuclear warheads?
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
Post by Karen Gordon
(K): Too bad you got the wrong country. Superpowers should be
allowed to
Post by Karen Gordon
be stupid too.
I can't even guess what you mean by that. The US has removed tyrannies
in Afg and Iraq with the acceptance of the majorities in both
countries. I am very proud of my country for that accomplishment.
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our people
hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
(K): Oh, yeah ..... let's bring up every country's past hostilities and
and have them all go on a pay-back invasion spree. I don't think the
U.S. could withstand such a spree, could it?
no it couldn't. The US had no business being in Yugoslavia. That was
for the Europeans to work out.
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
So the US can act as judge and jury but nobody else is allowed to
have an opinion?
When our buildings are destroyed like they were on 9/11, yes, the US
can respond in whatever way it is capable.
(K): When did it become a 'response' to invade, and remain in, a country
that was not even involved with the 9/11 attacks? C'mon, American ....
think it through.
The US is now safer because Afg and Iraq are not available to be safe
havens for al Queda. Lebanon is next, then Syria.
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by Steve Frazer
This is the narrow-mindedness that has led to terrorism against
the US.
No. It was the US financing of the never ending, unnecessary
Israeli
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by Steve Frazer
occupation of the Palestinians which caused the terror attack on the
US.
[....[]
(K): Amongst the many, many meddlings of the U.S. in country after
country around the globe. Arming them. Fighting them.
Supporting them. Toppling them. Funding them.
Blockading them. Installing dictators. Killing them.
The U.S. is the most dangerous country on earth.
You have great timing. The bad guys in Syria and Iran just blew up a
good guy former PM of Lebanon who wanted Syria to remove itself from
his country. Why do you oppose the US taking the fight to those
people?
Post by Karen Gordon
And those countries that are now arming themselves with nuclear
weapons know that only too well.
Nuclear proliferation is likely to have a devastating affect on people
in the Muslim states. Thanks to our ever improving missile defense,
the US should be safe. It is a typical bigoted Eurocentric viewpoint
that places Western politics ahead of the people of the developing
world.

-Steve
James H. Hood
2005-02-15 19:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
The U.S. is the most dangerous country on earth.
Yes, we're well-known for the danger we present to the thugocracies you
support.
Karen Gordon
2005-02-15 04:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by QuestionIsrael
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
(K): Too bad you got the wrong country. Superpowers shouldN'T be
allowed to be stupid too.
I can't even guess what you mean by that.
(K): S'okay.... we know Americans have difficulty reading past some
typos.

"QuestionIsrael" (***@gmail.com) writes:
The US has removed tyrannies
Post by QuestionIsrael
in Afg and Iraq with the acceptance of the majorities in both
countries. I am very proud of my country for that accomplishment.
(K): But the hijackers who flew into your trade towers were from Saudi
Arabia. Why did your government attack Iraq? And why are they still
there, considering they have the 'big bad dictator' and they admit there
are NO weapons of mass destruction. Will your country always attack an
innocent country for the actions of another country?
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our
people hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
(K): Oh, yeah ..... let's bring up every country's past hostilities
and and have them all go on a pay-back invasion spree. I don't think
the U.S. could withstand such a spree, could it?
no it couldn't. The US had no business being in Yugoslavia. That was
for the Europeans to work out.
(K): The U.S. also "had no business in" Vietnam, Nicaragua, Honduras,
Haiti, Panama, Iran, the Philippines, Iraq in 1958 and 1990, Libya, and
Afghanistan to fight the USSR. Amongst a hundred other countries. Your
country is as imperialist as it gets. I'm surprised that only two major
attacks have been aimed at your country, considering your interference
in every other country's affairs: Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I'd say you
guys had better clean up your world affairs or start building bunkers in
your basements.


--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
QuestionIsrael
2005-02-15 05:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
The US should reserve the right to invade countries that are
aligned
Post by QuestionIsrael
with groups that blow up Americans and fly planes into our
buildings.
(K): Too bad you got the wrong country. Superpowers shouldN'T be
allowed to be stupid too.
I can't even guess what you mean by that.
(K): S'okay.... we know Americans have difficulty reading past some
typos.
The US has removed tyrannies
Post by QuestionIsrael
in Afg and Iraq with the acceptance of the majorities in both
countries. I am very proud of my country for that accomplishment.
(K): But the hijackers who flew into your trade towers were from Saudi
Arabia. Why did your government attack Iraq?
I assume that you accept the US attack on Afg? Iraq was run by
mobsters who were opposed to the US efforts to deny al Queda the safe
haven it needs to plan and coordinate its 9/11 like attacks on the US.
Post by Karen Gordon
And why are they still
there, considering they have the 'big bad dictator' and they admit there
are NO weapons of mass destruction. Will your country always attack an
innocent country for the actions of another country?
No. But dont take my word for it, list the countries which have been
attacked by the US. And consider that Bush/Cheney would not have acted
against Yugoslavia, a clear example of US overreach.

Why do you disregard the cooperation so many leading figures in Iraq
are providing to the American forces? Start with Ayatollah Sistani.
Is he one of those brown skinned people you dont think can make
decisions for themselves?
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by QuestionIsrael
Dont forget, Iran is governed by the same crew that held our
people hostage while Carter was president. Not very friendly!
(K): Oh, yeah ..... let's bring up every country's past
hostilities
Post by Karen Gordon
Post by QuestionIsrael
and and have them all go on a pay-back invasion spree. I don't think
the U.S. could withstand such a spree, could it?
no it couldn't. The US had no business being in Yugoslavia. That was
for the Europeans to work out.
(K): The U.S. also "had no business in" Vietnam
did Russia and China have any right to be there?
Post by Karen Gordon
Nicaragua, Honduras
Russian and Cuban client states. They are free, democratic countries
today. That is good, right?
Post by Karen Gordon
Haiti
like you care what happens in Haiti. Aristede prefered the machete over
the ballot.
Post by Karen Gordon
Panama
Noriega was opposing US efforts to reduce the flow of drugs into the
US.
Post by Karen Gordon
Iran
your going way back!
Post by Karen Gordon
Philippines
if you are refering to the Spanish American war, I cant defend that
one. :)
Post by Karen Gordon
Iraq in 1958 and 1990
tell that to the people living in Kuwait
Post by Karen Gordon
Libya
wasnt that one because they were blowing up passenger jets in mid air?
Post by Karen Gordon
and Afghanistan to fight the USSR.
we helped them defeat the brutal Soviets. What is wrong with that?
Post by Karen Gordon
Amongst a hundred other countries. Your
country is as imperialist as it gets. I'm surprised that only two major
attacks have been aimed at your country, considering your
interference
Post by Karen Gordon
in every other country's affairs: Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
the obvious explanation is that the US is not as imperialist as you say
it is. Like you say, the response of the world to our "intrusions" is
rather muted.
Post by Karen Gordon
I'd say you
guys had better clean up your world affairs or start building bunkers in
your basements.
No. We are focusing our immense wealth and technical brain power on
missile defense. And hopefully ending our support for the Israeli
occupation of the Palestinians.

-Steve
James H. Hood
2005-02-15 19:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
(K): The U.S. also "had no business in" Vietnam, Nicaragua, Honduras,
Haiti, Panama, Iran, the Philippines, Iraq in 1958 and 1990, Libya, and
Afghanistan to fight the USSR.
Wrong. You can stop cheerleading for the communists now, they're long gone.
Karen Gordon
2005-02-20 03:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by QuestionIsrael
Post by Steve Frazer
Post by James H. Hood
You mean, seek support for your desire to see murderous thugocrats
have nukes.
One last chance to answer the question.......
What right does one nuclear capable nation have to prevent another
nation from having a nuclear capability? Try to answer without using the
term 'thug'.
by your thinking, what right does a country have to possess nukes?
That is inherently threatening to other countries, right? The Muslims
launched an unprovoked attack on the US, not the other way around.
(K): "The Muslims launched an unprovoked attack on the US"?!! Where the
hell were you for the past 20 years or so, boy? Reading comic books?
Your fucking country has been invading, poking at, setting up blockades
of, and threatening Iraq for over 20 years. They killed their people,
starved their children, gave their oil to Kuwaitis, and then decided to
go for the kill after 9/11 - which had NOTHING to do with the Iraqis.

You're a product of Bush bullshit. Nothing to be proud of.
Post by QuestionIsrael
Based on their rhetoric, if the Iranians get nukes they are likely to
use them. Just as the US can have nukes to protect itself, it can also
act to protect itself by taking out the radical Muslims before they
complete their nuke building program.
(K): UNTIL any country launches a true "unprovoked" attack on another
country, the bloody U.S.A. has NOTHING to say about the development of
nuclear weapons BY ANY COUNTRY.

And if such an attack by a country happens against a neighbouring country,
it's the role of the UNITED NATIONS to take appropriate action, with the
combined participation of all member countries - AND NOT THE FUCKING U.S.A.
TAKING UNILATERAL ACTION against the mandate of the rest of the countries
of the world.

Get this: IT IS THE U.S.A. THAT HAS BECOME A ROGUE COUNTRY - NOT THE
COUNTRIES THAT IT TRIES TO FINGER AS "DANGEROUS REGIMES". A small majority
of Americans still don't 'get it'. And they are the ones responsible for
re-electing the biggest thug of them all: George W. Bush. May those of
you who voted for that man pay big time.
--
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A truth spoken before its time is dangerous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
James H. Hood
2005-02-20 08:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
And if such an attack by a country happens against a neighbouring country,
it's the role of the UNITED NATIONS to take appropriate action, with the
combined participation of all member countries - AND NOT THE FUCKING U.S.A.
TAKING UNILATERAL ACTION against the mandate of the rest of the countries
of the world.
You fool. This UN for which you're cheerfully whoring is composed mostly of
Turd World kleptocrats who'd just love to grab their neighbors.....they know
damned good and well the UN won't do diddly.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...