[Transcend]

Does this guy ever stop? Us inspectors reported today that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and haven't in years (they ceased nuclear weapons development in 2003 apparently).

To this, the genius that is shrub replies:

U.S. President George W. Bush refused to be deterred by an intelligence report that suggests Iran has halted its bid to build nuclear weapons, insisting that the new information only proves how much of a threat Iran is.

"I view this report as a warning signal," Bush told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

"[The report] says Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program. What's to say they couldn't start another covert weapons program?"

CBC news article

So let me get this straight. Now the fact that they DON'T have a weapons program makes them dangerous?

He has seriously done too much blow. Wow.

 

[LordOpie]

Bush has no need for intelligence.

 

[LordOpie]

ok, a serious post...

The logic is correct... if your enemy is doing something you don't like, just cuz they stop for a moment doesn't mean it's all happy times. (See Palestine's Fatah)

However, this admin has shown zero ability to handle such problems.

 

[J-Dubs]

He's gonna try to do what he wants, regardless of what other people(read: the world) think and know.

 

[LordOpie]

He's gonna try to do what he wants, regardless of what other people(read: the world) think and know.

I wonder if he could win a third term?

 

[Transcend]

I wonder if he could win a third term?

Isn't his approval rating well below 20% now? I don't think even his precious fundies could get him into office at this point.

 

[$tinkle]

So let me get this straight. Now the fact that they DON'T have a weapons program makes them dangerous?

no; they're still testing long-range missiles, & still pursuing nuclear technology research (intel) apart from building facilities. essentially, their program has been shelved. i do not believe we should ignore them, but sleep w/ 1 eye open. of course, any military action is now wholly unjustifiable even by neocon standards.

good read on the NIE here as well: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=299347

 

[$tinkle]

Isn't his approval rating well below 20% now? I don't think even his precious fundies could get him into office at this point.

erm..you may be conflating congress w/ bush:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102829/Congress-Approval-Rating-20-Bushs-Approval-32.aspx (2 weeks ago)

 

[Transcend]

no; they're still testing long-range missiles, & still pursuing nuclear technology research (intel) apart from building facilities. essentially, their program has been shelved. i do not believe we should ignore them, but sleep w/ 1 eye open. of course, any military action is now wholly unjustifiable even by neocon standards.

good read on the NIE here as well: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=299347

I agree. I also agree their leader is a nutter. Bush is clearly bushing for the hawks to agree to a military resolution to a non-existant problem though. Watch them, of course. But the level of paranoia and culture of fear he is trying to instill in the public is ridiculous.

 

[Transcend]

erm..you may be conflating congress w/ bush:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102829/Congress-Approval-Rating-20-Bushs-Approval-32.aspx (2 weeks ago)

Naw, I knew congress was in the toilet, but I didn't know Bush's approval rating had gone up. It was 25% in October.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

 

[$tinkle]

Naw, I knew congress was in the toilet, but I didn't know Bush's approval rating had gone up. It was 25% in October.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

either way, around 100,000,000 americans have a raging hard-on for bush. and that far exceeds even H8R's rep.

 

[Transcend]

either way, around 100,000,000 americans have a raging hard-on for bush. and that far exceeds even H8R's rep.

H8r would frighten me as leader. I'd vote for BV. A nerd in the whitehouse would be grand. National Star Trek day!

Also 100 000 000 Americans support bush. So much for no child left behind. How do you misplace 100 000 000 children?

 

[X3pilot]

What kills me is he talks like this in regards to Iran, but yet we prop up and support Pakistan, who already has nukes, is led by a dictatoral nut, sponsors terrorism and is an extermist regime.

?

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

Transcend-

Did you watch President Bush today focused totally,listening & watching him without any interruptions whatsoever?
Or, are you simply getting your information from news channels after,& off the internet ?

I'm just curious.

 

[LordOpie]

Transcend-

Did you watch President Bush today focused totally,listening & watching him without any interruptions whatsoever?
Or, are you simply getting your information from news channels after,& off the internet ?

I'm just curious.

Why should we focus when he's clearly not?


I'm still amazed that anyone supports Bush after all the crap he's done from a bad invasion to planting queers in the press corp to lob softball questions to outting CIA agents to DOZENS more stupidity to criminal acts.

 

[firemandivi]

Didn't the same so called intelligence agency say back in 2004 that Iran was working towards nukes? Heck in 2003 "inspectors report finding particles at the Natanz nuclear facility that contain a higher percentage of enriched uranium than is needed for a civilian power program"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/26/iran.iaea/
Either way government intelligence is a joke and can't be trusted. If Iran wanted nuclear power only why would they kick out inspectors?
Of course Bush will find a way to twist this around and use it as a way to legitimize a military strike on Iran before he leaves office.
Israel has nuclear weapons but no one ever complains about that. You can bet that if Iran gets nukes the first place they will go is Israel and I'm sure Israel will pay them back 10 fold.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071204/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearuspoliticsisrael_071204194428

 

[$tinkle]

What kills me is he talks like this in regards to Iran, but yet we prop up and support Pakistan, who already has nukes, is led by a dictatoral nut, sponsors terrorism and is an extermist regime.

?

couple points:
- we prop up everybody (don't ask)
- musharraf stepped down as mil leader
- the pakistani gov't does NOT sponsor terrorism
- they're more of a moderate regime, but there is a non-insignificant push from the margins to radicalize

of course, if you or i were to go backbacking there, it would be every bit as dangerous as the south for blacks 50 yrs ago. (surely you can relate, almost being 50)

 

[fluff]

I agree. I also agree their leader is a nutter. Bush is clearly bushing for the hawks to agree to a military resolution to a non-existant problem though. Watch them, of course. But the level of paranoia and culture of fear he is trying to instill in the public is ridiculous.

Ahmadinejad is not their leader.

 

[Transcend]

Ahmadinejad is not their leader.

He's close enough. He's also the nutter who fires up their extremist side, so he is as good as their leader in this regard.

 

[$tinkle]

I'm still amazed that anyone supports Bush after all the crap he's done from a bad invasion to planting queers in the press corp to lob softball questions to outting CIA agents to DOZENS more stupidity to criminal acts.

some of us are more patriotic.

 

[Transcend]

Transcend-

Did you watch President Bush today focused totally,listening & watching him without any interruptions whatsoever?
Or, are you simply getting your information from news channels after,& off the internet ?

I'm just curious.

I'm his personal photographer and inside "the circle". Didn't you know this?

 

[fluff]

some of us are more patriotic.

Depends how you define patriotic surely?

 

[firemandivi]

I agree. I also agree their leader is a nutter. Bush is clearly bushing for the hawks to agree to a military resolution to a non-existant problem though. Watch them, of course. But the level of paranoia and culture of fear he is trying to instill in the public is ridiculous.

Have you seen the movie "Vendetta"????

 

[$tinkle]

Depends how you define patriotic surely?

patriotism cannot be confined to silly definitions

 

[fluff]

This whole philosophy of preemptive strikes is immoral when your intelligence is flawed. Attacking a country because they might one day gain the ability to have nuclear weapons and you don't like them is so perverse as to make one wonder at the sanity of anyone who supports it.

There seem to be people here who decry the Islamic faith because of its radicalism and ability to produce 'terrorists' yet are also in favour of military action against a nation that has never invaded another sovereign state and has no history of aggression simply on the basis of what they might do if they gain a weapon that they may not even be working towards.

 

[fluff]

patriotism cannot be confined to silly definitions

That's the stupidest thing you've said in a while.

 

[X3pilot]

couple points:
- we prop up everybody (don't ask)

Agreed

- musharraf stepped down as mil leader

Just because you turn in the outfit, doesn't mean you still don't exert influence or power

- the pakistani gov't does NOT sponsor terrorism

by declaring areas of your country where terrorist are known to be hiding, no-go zones and pretending they are not there, I call that sponsoring

- they're more of a moderate regime, but there is a non-insignificant push from the margins to radicalize

Moderate for now, i'm afraid, but true.

of course, if you or i were to go backbacking there, it would be every bit as dangerous as the south for blacks 50 yrs ago.

(surely you can relate, almost being 50)

Ouch! I'm only 44!

 

[X3pilot]

This whole philosophy of preemptive strikes is immoral when your intelligence is flawed. Attacking a country because they might one day gain the ability to have nuclear weapons and you don't like them is so perverse as to make one wonder at the sanity of anyone who supports it.

There seem to be people here who decry the Islamic faith because of its radicalism and ability to produce 'terrorists' yet are also in favour of military action against a nation that has never invaded another sovereign state and has no history of aggression simply on the basis of what they might do if they gain a weapon that they may not even be working towards.

Um, I'm pretty sure that when Iranains stormed our embassy and took American citizens hostage, that was an invasion of a sovereign state (our embassy is considered American soil, as is theirs in our country) and kidnapping and hostage taking is pretty up there on the agression scale.

 

[fluff]

Um, I'm pretty sure that when Iranains stormed our embassy and took American citizens hostage, that was an invasion of a sovereign state (our embassy is considered American soil, as is theirs in our country) and kidnapping and hostage taking is pretty up there on the agression scale.

Fair enough, but it's hardly comparable to invasion of another country, or bombing thereof.

 

[$tinkle]

This whole philosophy of preemptive strikes is immoral when your intelligence is flawed.

undisputed

Attacking a country because they might one day gain the ability to have nuclear weapons and you don't like them is so perverse as to make one wonder at the sanity of anyone who supports it.

sanity is quite intact; judgment is flawed. it's the nature of man: atlas shrugs

There seem to be people here who decry the Islamic faith because of its radicalism and ability to produce 'terrorists' ...

i see the decrying (is that a word over there?) not of the faith, but of the extremist element within

...yet are also in favour of military action against a nation that has never invaded another sovereign state and has no history of aggression simply on the basis of what they might do if they gain a weapon that they may not even be working towards.

- u.s. embassy, tehran, 1979
- Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC

 

[$tinkle]

Have you seen the movie "Vendetta"????

no, but i allah akhbar'd a holiday inn express in jakarta

 

[fluff]

i see the decrying (is that a word over there?) not of the faith, but of the extremist element within

My point was the hypocrisy of decrying the ability of the faith to allow such extremism. A fine point but nevertheless valid; there have been very recent threads here with posters blaming Islam itself for being a more violent religion and hence dangerous. Extremists exist in all philosophies.

- u.s. embassy, tehran, 1979
- Battle of Thermopylae, 480 BC

Two in over two thousand years eh, I guess their hit rate hardly registers compared to ours or yours.

 

[X3pilot]

My point was the hypocrisy of decrying the ability of the faith to allow such extremism. A fine point but nevertheless valid; there have been very recent threads here with posters blaming Islam itself for being a more violent religion and hence dangerous. Extremists exist in all philosophies.

having started out as a youngster as a Southern Baptist, you ain't kidding there!

 

[fluff]

It's interesting how many people here appear to have had fairly intense Christian upbringing.

 

[X3pilot]

Only for a little while, now it's very hard for me to live my life the way a set of people interpret a book written by men supposedly handed down from an invisible man to try to control the masses.

 

[$tinkle]

just to insure the recently deceased horse is properly flogged:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

 

[Silver]

couple points:
- the pakistani gov't does NOT sponsor terrorism

Neither does the Saudi government.

 

[Silver]

and kidnapping and hostage taking is pretty up there on the agression scale.

Not anymore it isn't...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece

We've also done a little hostage taking in Iraq, if memory serves me correctly.

 

[MikeD]

our embassy is considered American soil, as is theirs in our country

A common fallacy.

 

[LordOpie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece

awesome!