Bush threatens Iran over nukes.

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1
There ya go again, CAD. Picking on my buddy Moonbeam again... Alls he does is reflects back to the sender the image the sender wants not to see... himself.. and ya picks at the beamer... boo... hisss.

Not picking on him, just making sure he looks in the mirror every once in a while - just like he preaches.

CkG

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: HJD1
There ya go again, CAD. Picking on my buddy Moonbeam again... Alls he does is reflects back to the sender the image the sender wants not to see... himself.. and ya picks at the beamer... boo... hisss.

I admire him. At worst he's amusing. At best he's interesting.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1
There ya go again, CAD. Picking on my buddy Moonbeam again... Alls he does is reflects back to the sender the image the sender wants not to see... himself.. and ya picks at the beamer... boo... hisss.

Not picking on him, just making sure he looks in the mirror every once in a while - just like he preaches.

CkG

Yeah.. I know. You're actually a friendly sort. A pleasure to jabber with. :beer:

 

[LunarRay]

Hay,

The thesis you posted above encapsulates what ought to be evident to the administration... I don't hear that comming from them..

I've a question Re:


Bush considers the Iranian government, and by extension, the Iranians to be evil. Evil is a threat. He has precedent for attacking another country so labeled. Since there was less provocation for a war in concrete terms in Iraq than in any major war in a long time, the Iranians probably simply do not believe in the veracity or stability of Bush. If they are going to be attacked, maybe they can acquire nukes before we strike. The assumption on their part has to be that we will. So, the Iranian government is in my estimation trying to acquire nuclear weapons on what it sees as a defense against a belligerent power. Note- I am as sure as can be that this is not the only means they will use. In addition to building their own bomb, you can bet the farm that they would be trying to get black market USSR bombs from Georgia, the Ukraine and such.

Why would Iran openly state they were going to go nuke? It provokes. I would only do this If I wished to force a bluff. To see what the US would do. I would only do this if I already had the means to defend against all practical options. What other reasons make sense to you?

edit.. after re re reading this I think I see another point.. maybe it is to secure alliance among Islamic states?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Hay,

The thesis you posted above encapsulates what ought to be evident to the administration... I don't hear that comming from them..

I've a question Re:


Bush considers the Iranian government, and by extension, the Iranians to be evil. Evil is a threat. He has precedent for attacking another country so labeled. Since there was less provocation for a war in concrete terms in Iraq than in any major war in a long time, the Iranians probably simply do not believe in the veracity or stability of Bush. If they are going to be attacked, maybe they can acquire nukes before we strike. The assumption on their part has to be that we will. So, the Iranian government is in my estimation trying to acquire nuclear weapons on what it sees as a defense against a belligerent power. Note- I am as sure as can be that this is not the only means they will use. In addition to building their own bomb, you can bet the farm that they would be trying to get black market USSR bombs from Georgia, the Ukraine and such.

Why would Iran openly state they were going to go nuke? It provokes. I would only do this If I wished to force a bluff. To see what the US would do. I would only do this if I already had the means to defend against all practical options. What other reasons make sense to you?

edit.. after re re reading this I think I see another point.. maybe it is to secure alliance among Islamic states?

Well, so far they havent admitted to it, and all of this supposes they are working to get nukes, or intend to shortly.


This can bite the Iranians in a few ways.

Let's assume they do not announce it.

They might get away with it as long as no evidence for the program is found AND Bush does not claim to have proof. A program of this magnitude would leave some trail, and if by some miracle does not, then Bush has shown, shall we say, a propensity to exaggerate. If Bush does so, IMO, it is a prelude to the Iraqi scenario. Bush can use the NPT as his justification to attack.


Now let's go the other way.

Iran looks at the Iraq lesson and determines that no matter what it does, the chance of attack is high. Remember it is perception that matters more than reality, as should be painfully obvious from recent history. Now Iran could announce that it intends to produce weapons, but it does not need to state that as a reason to leave. From the perspective of the Iranians, it might be to their advantage to leave the treaty, claiming that it refuses to be bullied by the international community and leave it at that. Now Bush is in a more awkward situation. His legal justification is gone. Iran is not safe of course, but there is no legitimate reason under international law for the US to attack. Bush does so at his peril. Bush can always, and probably will, fall back on terrorism, liberation, etc. to drum up public support, and will probably work, but it might not. Certainly any "proof" offered will be scrutinized. I do believe that Iran has more support than Saddam did. Saddam was tolerated, but no one really liked him. Conversely, Iran is seen as being representitive of the people, at least much more so than Iraq.

Bush could attack, but the cost politically may be more than he is willing to bear. Not only that, but US troops are spread thin. Occupying Iraq, and invading Iran would be incredibly difficult. Another disincentive.

 

[LunarRay]

Hay,

Yeah... I see. Thanks!

 

[Dari]

you guys can preach about my fears but I don't think you're understanding me: american interests come first. and american interests are good for the rest of the world. old regimes have to pass. corrupt systems have to be put into the dustbin of history. the world needs to evolve, and america is the right leader. when it comes to economics, political dynamics, and social welfare, our own experiences should make us (for the most part) the beacon to which others should follow. There is no fear here. You have a problem, you deal with it, come what may. anyone that threatens you as an individual or as a nation should be dealt the harshest of blows. those of you that prefer to hold dialogue with fanatical ayatollahs are the same one that have contempt for the church. and you're right. in my opinion, religion is another means of controlling the populace. the question is, which side would you prefer to be on; the controller or the controlled? my problem with ayatollahs is that they believe the lie they preach to the masses. even if they don't, they are a direct challenge to american liberties and interests. Give them hydrogen bombs and their prophecies will be self-fulfilling.

to make things easier for everyone to understand, this conflict is about two ideologies: one where man is god or one where an imaginary being is god. the former understands himself and is able to make pragmatic corrections for the betterment of humankind. the latter (religious leaders) uses an imaginary being as a front to control the populace, claiming that discriminatory and sclerotic directives cannot be changed. the two ideologies are eternal rivals. I am a humanist through and through. Religion corrupts.

And to whoever made the quip about the phoenix, Masonry teaches us that the phoenix rises again (and again, and again...etc).

EDIT: god=central figure, not necessarily perfect.

 

[Insane3D]

I think Dari is a reincarnated citizen of the Roman Empire. :frown:

 

[Dari]

those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

So if you are a "skull" (or whatever ) you can't be a "man of God"?

CkG

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

So if you are a "skull" (or whatever ) you can't be a "man of God"?

CkG

I never said that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

Don't worry about the secret society.

what about sovereign status? we can ask a nation to stop what they're doing if we feel it is a threat to us. if they politely refuse and tell us to go f*ck ourselves, then we have no other choice than to make them "reconsider." you ask about sovereign status. don't forget that in july of 2001, two months before 9/11, we reminded afghanistan that there would be consequences if al qaeda did anything to us. they politely told us to go f*ck ourselves. 9/11 happened. we further warned afghanistan to cease and desist helping bin laden. they refused. we went in and corrected their mistake. the point I'm making is that sovereignty can and should be respected. but, there are limits. in this new world, we can no longer wait for a smoking gun (as in the burning twin towers) to go after threats. if we went ahead and attacked afghanistan (to find evidence of any impending attack or to get bin laden) in july of 2001, liberals and apologists the world over would've lambasted bush for being overtly aggressive and a warhawk. well, we respected their sovereignty and look at what happened.

I'm from Manhattan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

HJD1 - You aren't up on your conspiracy? Misc info or just google "skull & bones secret society".

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

Don't worry about the secret society.

what about sovereign status? we can ask a nation to stop what they're doing if we feel it is a threat to us. if they politely refuse and tell us to go f*ck ourselves, then we have no other choice than to make them "reconsider." you ask about sovereign status. don't forget that in july of 2001, two months before 9/11, we reminded afghanistan that there would be consequences if al qaeda did anything to us. they politely told us to go f*ck ourselves. 9/11 happened. we further warned afghanistan to cease and desist helping bin laden. they refused. we went in and corrected their mistake. the point I'm making is that sovereignty can and should be respected. but, there are limits. in this new world, we can no longer wait for a smoking gun (as in the burning twin towers) to go after threats. if we went ahead and attacked afghanistan (to find evidence of any impending attack or to get bin laden) in july of 2001, liberals and apologists the world over would've lambasted bush for being overtly aggressive and a warhawk. well, we respected their sovereignty and look at what happened.

I'm from Manhattan.

If we terminated the plot of 9/11 we would not have know of it on 9/12. The reason I asked where in NYC is because it is somethin in your posts that reminds me of when I lived in NY.. (48th & 8th and 149th & b'dwy) I though it was a bit nutty back then to suppose that because one has an interest in someone else's turf it was with the mighty that went the right to determine who's was who's... still do. OBL who ever is not a good enough reason to invade in preemptive fashion. We are part of the UN where it continues to be a big deal to protect the sovereignty of nations... especially, the ones less able to stand up to the super power... it is this fear of the US that prompts little nations to acquire nukes and thereby put the world at risk... all because we can push them around.. sad!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

HJD1 - You aren't up on your conspiracy? Misc info or just google "skull & bones secret society".

CkG

Thanks CAD... not too secret of a society at all... wuz masters... I like the "october surprise" and "kennedy"

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

Don't worry about the secret society.

what about sovereign status? we can ask a nation to stop what they're doing if we feel it is a threat to us. if they politely refuse and tell us to go f*ck ourselves, then we have no other choice than to make them "reconsider." you ask about sovereign status. don't forget that in july of 2001, two months before 9/11, we reminded afghanistan that there would be consequences if al qaeda did anything to us. they politely told us to go f*ck ourselves. 9/11 happened. we further warned afghanistan to cease and desist helping bin laden. they refused. we went in and corrected their mistake. the point I'm making is that sovereignty can and should be respected. but, there are limits. in this new world, we can no longer wait for a smoking gun (as in the burning twin towers) to go after threats. if we went ahead and attacked afghanistan (to find evidence of any impending attack or to get bin laden) in july of 2001, liberals and apologists the world over would've lambasted bush for being overtly aggressive and a warhawk. well, we respected their sovereignty and look at what happened.

I'm from Manhattan.

If we terminated the plot of 9/11 we would not have know of it on 9/12. The reason I asked where in NYC is because it is somethin in your posts that reminds me of when I lived in NY.. (48th & 8th and 149th & b'dwy) I though it was a bit nutty back then to suppose that because one has an interest in someone else's turf it was with the mighty that went the right to determine who's was who's... still do. OBL who ever is not a good enough reason to invade in preemptive fashion. We are part of the UN where it continues to be a big deal to protect the sovereignty of nations... especially, the ones less able to stand up to the super power... it is this fear of the US that prompts little nations to acquire nukes and thereby put the world at risk... all because we can push them around.. sad!

they are acquiring nukes to play with the big boys, not to protect themselves. you've bought their excuse. there are over 200 countries on this planet and only a handful have nuclear weapons. the other 190 don't feel a need to. iran and n. korea want to be taken seriously and they feel nukes guarantee them a spot on the playground. well, it'll also guarantee them a spot in the hot seat. nukes are no laughing matter and only stable regimes should have them. iran, along with pakistan are very unstable countries. the us doesn't pick on n. korea or iran because they're little. they pick on them because they are absolute threats to our interests. the nuke card they want (or have) is there to give them more leverage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dai the Übermensch
German term for "Overman" or "Superman." Hence, in the philosophy of Nietzsche, an extraordinary individual who transcends the limits of traditional morality to live purely by the will to power.

So glad you stepped out of the closet, Dai.

"we can ask a nation to stop what they're doing if we feel it is a threat to us." (I THOUGHT YOU WEREN'T AFRAID. WHAT'S THIS STUFF ABOUT THREATS? if they politely refuse and tell us to go f*ck ourselves, then we have no other choice RIGHT, YOU KNOW ALL THE OPTIONS INSIDE YOUR FEARFUL BOX than to make them "reconsider." you ask about sovereign status. don't forget that in july of 2001, two months before 9/11, we reminded afghanistan that there would be consequences if al qaeda did anything to us. they politely told us to go f*ck ourselves. 9/11 happened. we further warned afghanistan to cease and desist helping bin laden. they refused. we went in and corrected their mistake. the point I'm making is that sovereignty can and should be respected. but, there are limits. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. HOW LUCKY FOR US. in this new world, we can no longer wait for a smoking gun (as in the burning twin towers) to go after threats. SAYS YOU. NOTHING AT ALL HAS CHANGED BUT FOR THE FACT WE GOT HIT ON OUR OWN SOIL.. HAPPENS EVERY DAY ALL OVER THE WORLD. IT'S A FIRST FOR PANSY ASSED AMERICANS THOUGH. HAVE YOU LOOK UP POST TRAMATIC STRESS SYNDROME? if we went ahead and attacked afghanistan (to find evidence of any impending attack or to get bin laden) in july of 2001, liberals and apologists the world over would've lambasted bush for being overtly aggressive and a warhawk. well, we respected their sovereignty and look at what happened. YEAH, WE GOT A FLEA BITE AND WENT INTO A STAMPEDE

You are the secular humanist, Dai, the man without a center, the man without a religious precept of absolute right and wrong to guide him, the man who can burn Jews when the time for that comes ripe. Your instrument is rationality, but your invisible motivation, the darkness into which you cannot see, is nothing at all but fear. If you could make the world in your image of correctness you would bring about every thing you fear. Your way leads to disaster. The phoenix rises as the Buddha, not as Adolph Hitler.

 

[Moonbeam]

Caddy: What are you responding to? the nose comment? That is certainly not obtuse, infact it is a fairly accurate description of your posting style.
-----------------------------------------------
Damn, Caddy, if you weren't so obtuse you'd know and not offer up such an absurd guess. You are a bull in a China shop. You're like a butcher at a neurosurgeon's convention. Get you foot off my patients brain. You're like the guy that jumps in when everybody's right up to their noses in sh!t. You make waves at the worst of times. But carry on, you can't help it. Subtle's not your style.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

HJD1 - You aren't up on your conspiracy? Misc info or just google "skull & bones secret society".

CkG

Thanks CAD... not too secret of a society at all... wuz masters... I like the "october surprise" and "kennedy"

Well, the society's name and a few members are known but the "real workings" are quite the amusing mystery. I've heard and read many different theories about this "group". Some are somewhat believable and others are sheer lunacy. Who knows for sure - heck it could be part of the "matrix" for all I know

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Dari
those of you that think bush is a man of god should remember that he, and his father before him, were members of the secret society. clinton was not. and reagan got honorable mentions. they, bar reagan, were all humanists.

What secret society?

re: your other post.. what about sovereign nation status? Does the notion of sovereinty have any bearing on the issue of allowing nations function in their own interest and manner. What, beside might, give us the right to dictate their policies regading what we preceive as our nationl security interests.

Where in NYC are you from?

HJD1 - You aren't up on your conspiracy? Misc info or just google "skull & bones secret society".

CkG

Thanks CAD... not too secret of a society at all... wuz masters... I like the "october surprise" and "kennedy"

Well, the society's name and a few members are known but the "real workings" are quite the amusing mystery. I've heard and read many different theories about this "group". Some are somewhat believable and others are sheer lunacy. Who knows for sure - heck it could be part of the "matrix" for all I know

CkG

I just saw the matrix. Deep... Bush wears sun glasses... but, is not too fast on his feet.. so to speak..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Caddy: What are you responding to? the nose comment? That is certainly not obtuse, infact it is a fairly accurate description of your posting style.
-----------------------------------------------
Damn, Caddy, if you weren't so obtuse you'd know and not offer up such an absurd guess. You are a bull in a China shop. You're like a butcher at a neurosurgeon's convention. Get you foot off my patients brain. You're like the guy that jumps in when everybody's right up to their noses in sh!t. You make waves at the worst of times. But carry on, you can't help it. Subtle's not your style.

Nope - and never will be. I call things as I see them - sometimes I'm right and sometimes I end up wrong. I just don't like people who think they are "elite" (not as in a forum ranking, but as in their state of mind)

Carry on my limerick weaving peacock.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope - and never will be. I call things as I see them - sometimes I'm right and sometimes I end up wrong. I just don't like people who think they are "elite" (not as in a forum ranking, but as in their state of mind)
----------------------
Then I suggest you address yourself to Dari. You don't want your love for me blinding you to who's the elitist here do you. Open your mind. YOU have nothing to worry about. Nothing there to fall out.

----------------
Don't worry about the secret society.
--------------------
Don't worry about the secret society indeed. Who would worry about the secret society? But I'm fascinated by the secret society. Imagine an organization that knows what's best. Tell me more. please, Dari, about the secret society.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ahh the youth of today. Hitler's wet dream.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Ahh the youth of today. Hitler's wet dream.

That quote is almost worthy for sig material.

But I have to disagree with it. If anything the cynicism of today's youth is the problem.