|
"America is the source of terrorism" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
give me a break. you're the one who blindly believes and follows the goverment. and you call me naive. you're the one who's so biased that you:
a. eigther refuse to even acknowledge crimes commited by our goverment against other nations
b. if you do, you try to justify them.
if you knew ANYTHING about history and how power works, its always the ones in power who are corrupt, opressive, and impieralistic. (not to mention masters of deciet, i.e. our goverment and mainstream corperate owned american media). |
a. i don't accept what happened atomically in WW2 as crime, nor do i accept what we have done in the Middle East. in fact, i would dare equivocate them. moral relativeism? i don't think so. i don't feel i need explain the course of history that brought us through the atomic age up to present, dealing with a country that exports jihad. i won't. it's futile here, with you.
b. who's government is more corrupt and oppressive? Iran? your country? imperialism is over.
your trust issues are your business
...meanwhile France, Germany, and Great Britain remain in talks with Iran...the world keeps turning. |
|
|
| Zild |
| You're so indoctrinated its almost not funny. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Someone once said that there's no greater danger than an ideologue in a position of power. Ironically, it's threads such as these that bring the ideologues out from the wood works irrespective of their political leanings, both claiming moral/ethical superiority. Quite humorous how their arguments are so intrinsically similar yet so topically antagonistic to each other. Bismarck provided several valuable lessons ... learn from them. 99% of the arguments here wouldn't stand the test of common sense. |
"Logic is a little bird tweeting in meadow; logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, which smell bad!"
-Spock |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
| quote: | | Originally posted by hardcore trancer Also there are no REAL proof that Iran is going after nuclear weapons,however your government likes you to think that way. |
don't go there. |
Unfortunately, HT is quite correct on this one. This is coming from Bush's OWN commission looking into the Iranian nuke matter:
| quote: | March 9, 2005
Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT
ASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.
The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.
The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.
The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.
In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.
One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.
That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.
Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.
A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.
The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.
In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.
In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.
"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."
The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.
The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.
In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."
In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.
A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time. At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.
Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/i...800&partner=AOL |
Not that I personally believe that the Iranians aren't likely making strides towards nukes, but unfortunately our current evidence, or to be more specific - Bush's own current evidence simply doesn't support such conclusions.
If Bush really wanted to cut to the heart of the matter, he should be tellin' Pooty-poot to stop delivering nuke material to Iran. But then again, he sees into Putin's heart and sees a good, sincere man, so I guess such wishes won't be occurring anytime soon... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Bush can't stop pooty from doing jack . or Iran for that matter. thats why we don't talk to them...officially.
in regards to Hardcore trancer being right about carnal nuclear knowledge regarding Iran, this is the crux of it| quote: | | "The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do." |
this is why we dicuss things like EU negotiations with Iran. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
You're so indoctrinated its almost not funny. |
indoctrinated to what? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
imperialism is over.
|
far from over. supporting corrupt/puppet regimes for economic and strategic interest, how is that not imperialistic?
| quote: |
im·pe·ri·al·ism (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
|
|
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
indoctrinated to what? |
C'mon you're not that dense. Surely you know the answer. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
indoctrinated to what? |
to obey power/the system, to not question it and think like they want you to think. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
They look at us the exact same way. There are two sides to the story and no Bush isn't a mass murder himself and Saddam might be but America sure supported him when it served our interests. We're the only country to ever use nuclear force so for us to try and take every else's nukes away or stifle their defense programs if extremly hypocritical. |
we used two nukes in world war two to save lives!! if we didnt scare japan like that, we'de have to invade the home islands against a suicidal japanese nation, ready to die for one man. millions would have died. around 300,000 casualties came out of the atomic bombs. but think about if we would have had to invade japan. it was not hypocritical. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Boy, how we love to stray... America is not a source of terrorism as per the original article in the original thread; we're not training folks to send overseas to attack our own interests. I don't think we can really describe what the Al-Queda consists of at the moment either, other than a loosely aligned miltant arm which opposes demotratic change in the Arab world.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Correct me if Iam wrong here but wasnt the U.S. the only country that has used nukes in the past?
|
Um, yea and lets hope the last.
| quote: |
isnt the U.S. the one invading and threatening countries?
|
Really?
Quick, give me a list of countries annexed by the evil empire of America.
Yea, thought as much.
| quote: |
so shouldnt they be the ones to abandon their
nukes?
|
It's a nice idea but unfortunately nukes have been used as a deterant for so long (eg.Cold War) it's almost a blue chip in negotiations; the reason everyone wants one.
If a country has a nuke, then they MUST be taken seriously and get an immediate ticket to the best seats at the negotiating table right?
That strategy doesn't seem to be working too well for N.Korea right about now...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have no nukes on this earth as well.
I'd also like robot maids to do my dishes and laundry too though.
The point is, we can always dream when that time does come, until then, we must learn to accept them for what they are; strictly a negotiating tool. Lets just hope they stay that way... |
|
|
|
|
