Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Iranians will be happy if we bomb their nuke sites

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Iranians will be happy if we bomb their nuke sites
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what John Bolton said today on Hardball with Chris Matthews.. i saw it live i couldn't believe it..

i've been waiting for a transcript, but it's not out yet.. it's not on youtube yet either but i found this site carrying it.. i didn't play it cuz i saw it live so i don't know if it works:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/21/john-bolton-on-hardball-im-not-a-neocon servative/

WTF is wrong with these people? i'm not particularly against limited strikes in Iran if they are conducted efficiently, but to think and say that the Iranian people will undersatand we are just trying to help them shows an intellectual handicap..

and Bush sent this guy to the UN? every day in '02 '03 and '04 i was telling myself i was just being paranoid, and now i'm finding out things were/are much much worse than even i ever imagined...

this is like saying Americans were happy about 9-11 cuz NYC is where they perform the most abortions and have the most drug dealers or we understand there's some corruption on Wall St or something [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibull
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hannibull     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you will not win the hearts of the rest of the world by bombing other countries or contemplating to do so, in fact you breed terrorism this way, it's that simple
Posts: 1091 | From: Brugge, Belgium / Dallas TX USA | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:

this is like saying Americans were happy about 9-11 cuz NYC is where they perform the most abortions and have the most drug dealers or we understand there's some corruption on Wall St or something [Roll Eyes]

Hey, we resemble that remark damnit!!! [Razz] Btw... let Israel do the bombing of Nuke sites in Iran... everyone expects it from them and they don't care about their reputation lol They did it to Sadaam back in the day no? ... they did it to Syria recently was well no?... no fallout from that then...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bolton is a screwball jerk that longs for the simplified world of Nazi Germany, particularly its racial practices. But, then, so are all his kind and so has been the republican party for decades.


(Do you ever wonder why the neocons can't see they are preaching the same game as Al Qaeda? Cant they understand they are every bit the terrorist that Ben laden is?)

One thing positive about them......it appears they have united the rest of the world against them.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so has been the republican party for decades.


ridiculous...

the only reason Bush was able to get this mess going the way he did was because of 9-11..

a few years ago? there was a big push to start banning guns from the Dems.. that ALSO was part of the Third Reich's rise to power...

it's not all cut-n-dried as you'd like it to be...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW? you should listen tot hat interview, Bolton vehemently denies being a neo-con... just more proof he's delusional.... i wonder if these neo-conservatives were dropping acid in college and never came down?

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You talk that republican BS in order to smoke screen the facts.

"there was a big push to start banning guns from christhe Dems"

is a fiction akin to a claim that because Pat Robertson would dictate christianty to all if he had the power and claims to be a republican, then the republicans are organized to push requiring christian membership in order to vote. Because some overly self important jackass that claims party affiliation wants something does not justify the claim that it is a party goal.

The facts are that the republicans have been planning these efforts of war with the Arabs and asaults on the Constitution for decades and they still give money to the worst of the lot, hoping to conceal the actual facts of the pending election under the ridiculous claim that their current scapegoat, "illegal immigration", (similar to their claim that the second amendment is in danger of being overturned, when the real danger is what the Party is doing with the rest of the Constitution) are a greater danger to the Nation than what the Party has dealt us in the mid-east and the attacks on the Constitution.

The third Reich is alive again in the guise of the Party.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ewww i hate to agree with Bgeesus lol jk

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
budg. i don't talk that GOP BS. it's a fact.

get over it.
what part of the statement is BS? be specific.

the Dems would ban private guns if they could and the Nazis and pre-Nazi's were banning guns too...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. . . their current scapegoat, "illegal immigration", . . . .
you guys see this?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/112107dnmetimm igration.213cfc62.html

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"the Dems would ban private guns if they could..."

That part is BS. You are hyped to the gills with that sort of republican smoke screening BS and you constantly reproduce it. No doubt you believe it. In truth, though, it amounts to the equivalent of claiming the wishes of Pat Robertson is the official republican platform position.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
turbokid
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for turbokid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
why is it that most of the "blue" states are also the same states with the most restrictive gun conrol laws?


every piece of legislation restricting guns that i can think of have been introduced by democrats.
i'd be interested to see individual voting records on gun laws though.

nowthen, back on topic. you guys do realise that the same people saying iran is building nuclear weapons are the same punks saying saddam was? ok, just wanted to make sure you remember that [Smile]
also the same guy who said saddam wasnt building weapons is the same guy who says iran isnt building weapons.

"there is no evidence that Iran is running a nuclear weapons program"
-Mohamed ElBaradei Oct. 28 2007


the Agency had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq
-Mohamed ElBaradei march 7 2003


its the same game, lets not buy it this time eh.

--------------------
"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over."
Herbert Hoover 1930

Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"why is it that most of the "blue" states are also the same states with the most restrictive gun conrol laws?"

Actually, for the most part, it isn't "blue states", but the Northern east coast and the southern west coast and there it seems limited to huge metropolitian populations. Maybe it is because most of those people have no possible normal access to life in the outdoors and it simply has no meaning of any kind to them. (I reject the common often stated argument that those that support gun ownership mostly do so in order to have weapons for protection in the home or on the streets. Most of us gun owners almost never have a gun at close hand and never imagine keeping our guns where they could be used for protection in that manner and if we did they more likely would serve as clubs than as guns. If I awake in the middle of some night to note some person or persons is forcing his way into the front of my house, I won't bother to run to get a gun for protection, I'll be using the time I have to force my way out the back to the protection of not being there.)

One curious situation is in Washington, D.C. If the republican party had actually been protecting the right of individuals, to "keep and bear arms", as is so often is the claim of the Party faithful, then, since the House of Representives reigns absolute over the Capital's laws and the Party has ruled the House totally for years (until only recently) why didn't they rewrite the rules on gun ownership there so that there needed to be no appeal pf local gun ownership laws to the Supreme court. They didn't think for all those years that they should protect the rights of gun ownership where they had the absolute power to do so. In truth, they didn't because their claims of protecting the 2nd Amendment is only more of their smoke screening scare tactics to get people to not see their real agenda.

Question: Other than Guliani and Romney, how many other republican presidential candidates have in the past vociferously stated support of taking guns away from the public?

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by turbokid:
why is it that most of the "blue" states are also the same states with the most restrictive gun conrol laws?


every piece of legislation restricting guns that i can think of have been introduced by democrats.
i'd be interested to see individual voting records on gun laws though.

nowthen, back on topic. you guys do realise that the same people saying iran is building nuclear weapons are the same punks saying saddam was? ok, just wanted to make sure you remember that [Smile]
also the same guy who said saddam wasnt building weapons is the same guy who says iran isnt building weapons.

"there is no evidence that Iran is running a nuclear weapons program"
-Mohamed ElBaradei Oct. 28 2007


the Agency had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq
-Mohamed ElBaradei march 7 2003


its the same game, lets not buy it this time eh.

there's a difference this time.

that's another reason i am so mad at dubya and dick. they've utterly destroyed the trust of anybody in this country with lick of common sense..

the buildup to invade Iraq was the worst kind of lying.

the difference this time is that Iran is operating thousands of centrifuges and we KNOW that they are capable of producing enriched Uranium.
most people arent aware of the processes involved in producing nukes. the Iranians are about halfway to being able to produce weapons grade materials... they are also working on delivery systems...




i am not saying we should attack them tomorrow, as a matter of fact? i HOPE that we can resolve the situation diplomatically which is another that thing dubya and dick have utterly destroyed, our diplomatic corps, and the whole basis of our diplomatic policy..

i am strongly anti-nukular proliferation. including our own...

i am not stupid enough to think we should get rid of all our nukes, but i am especially against the development of more tactical nukes, because that's how a full scale strategic nuke war will begin...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Iraqi Shiite Leader Defends Iran

By SAMEER N. YACOUB – 4 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's most influential Shiite politician said Sunday that the U.S had not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence here, underscoring a wide gap on the issue between Washington and the Shiite-led Baghdad government.

A draft bill to ease curbs on ex-Saddam Hussein loyalists in government services also drew sharp criticism from Shiite lawmakers, opening old wounds at a time when the United States is pressing the Iraqis for compromise for the sake of national unity.

The Americans have long accused the Iranians of arming and training Shiite militias, including some linked to the U.S.-backed government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

U.S. officials have also alleged that Iran has provided weapons used to kill Americans — a charge the Iranians vehemently deny.

"These are only accusations raised by the multinational forces and I think these accusations need more proof," Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, told reporters.

Al-Hakim, who has been undergoing treatment for lung cancer in Iran, said the Iranians have insisted in meetings with Iraqi officials that "their true will is to support the Iraqi government" and to promote stability.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T506CO3

the politics in Iraq are getting worse...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
turbokid
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for turbokid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what i find interesting is all the claims by "experts" who almost always remain anonymous, about weapons being smuggled into iraq and nuclear weapons. but even Gen.Pace says he has seen no proof of iranian governmnet involvment in weapons smuggling. and the IAEA inspectors say the enriched uranium is not highly enriched enough for weapons, but enough for electricity.
but all that aside, i'd like to take a look at this logically. lets say iran gets uranium highly enriched enough for weapons, and produces enough quantity for a bomb, without secret agencies like the CIA, or mossad finding out. ok so now they have 1 nuclear weapon, untested.
Are we to believe that ahmadinejad would be so foolish as to use it on israel or hand it off to a group like hezbollah, when the obvious outcome would be the full force of israels nuclear arsenal, not to mention backup from the US? The outcome is a gauranteed lose/lose for iran. Any outcome of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon will result in war. Are we sure this is where iran is headed? they deny it, IAEA finds no proof, so whats the real story?
And with the previous actions in other countries in south america, and the middle east, including iran in the 50's with overthrowing elected leaders and installing dictators, who are we to trust? the US government?
Furthermore, and i'll try and keep this short, if we promote democracy and freedom, and condemn guys like Chavez and ahmadinejad, but support Saudi arabia, with their excellent human and womens rights record. and pakistan, even though they suspended the constitution and are arresting opposition leaders, and their ISI has been caught several times funneling money to the taliban. Or egypt, depite the suppression of free speech, and human rights, who are we to trust? The US government? Are these the kind of democracies our leaders approve of? Ones that suppress the people and let others plunder the energy and natural resources? If the answer is yes, then i can see why there is so much interest in iran. You have a leader that refuses to accomodate foreign interests sitting on a sea of oil. Just like Chavez. And both are "evil" dictators and must go.

--------------------
"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over."
Herbert Hoover 1930

Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"what i find interesting is all the claims by "experts" who almost always remain anonymous,"

They don't need to tag those claims with their names because we know they are the same war mongering republicans that did the same thing about Iraq. They hope and pray that they can create the same unreasoned fear that let them get away with rigging the 04 elections, because that is the only hope they have in 08. It worked before, so why not try again?

Scare hell out of the ignorant and gullible and they won't listen to questions about the economy and will refuse to listen to problems about the falling dollar and skyrocketing health care cost. Spend millions and millions of dollars out of the treasury on propaganda to convince the public that they are in danger from terrorist and equate "wet back" with "terrorist" and you get the voting public so worked up over nothing you can divert more funds to Haliburton and clan and away from global warming, which, compared to Saddam Hussain or Iran is thousands of times more likely to endanger America. They are spending our money to propagandize us so as to to maybe keep at least e 40% vote in the Senate that allows the republican party to continue their war and their transfer of public funds into the offshore non-taxable bank accounts of the very very wealthy. If they are not stopped, there will soon be not enough finances in the U.S. to keep us viable, let alone free.

Lets say it out loud for a change. Yes, Bush and his henchmen planted and talked up lie after lie about Saddam and Iraq to get us into war there, then continued the process to keep us in that war. But it was the republicans, with their Party loyalty, party before country, enthusiasm that made those lies work. We now know that the powers that be in the republican party knew all along that it was all a pack of lies and they hunkered down, bought off the news organizations by passing out favors to leading journalist to get them to proliferated the the lies so the public bought into the fear. Without the agreement of the republican party and their Party first naziism and a right-wing favoring press that sold out to the Party, Bush and ten times the in-house neocons couldn't have lied us into invading Iraq, because it isn't American to make war for oil or to provide a smoke screen cover up for a stolen election.

It isn't Congress or the democrats that won't do something to end the Iraq war, it is nothing but the Party first republican party!

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
turbo, if you have access to CSPAN? you can actually find the names of the people making the claims. it takes time, and you have to keep your firearms unloaded otherwise you'll be replacing alot of TV's, unless of course you don't mind being lied to. [Big Grin]



your assessment about timelines is absolutely correct.

nobody has seen weapons grade stuff in Iran...

however.

there are some serious logical disconnects to their arguments for even pursuing nuclear for peaceful purposes..
starting with the fact that they have to import gasoline cuz they can't refine enough of their own.

any business person would look at that fact and decide the Iranians are up to no good.

PS Hillary voted to declare the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization too.. she's "in" with the Bushies budgee.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, I knew that.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
turbokid
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for turbokid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:




nobody has seen weapons grade stuff in Iran...

however.

there are some serious logical disconnects to their arguments for even pursuing nuclear for peaceful purposes..
starting with the fact that they have to import gasoline cuz they can't refine enough of their own.

any business person would look at that fact and decide the Iranians are up to no good.


glass, do you think ahmadinejad is being dodgey about his programs for the same reasons saddam was?
i remember a discussion we had a while back about foolish pride, and wanting other countries to believe they have weapons when they really dont. maybe he wants to look tough in the eyes of the palestinians?
about iran importing gas, yes it seems wierd that a oil rich country would have to import gas, but one could argue that they are looking further into the future than alot of american policy makers do. Perhaps they realize that oil isnt gonna be around forever and they mind as well use the record prices to sell everything they have to fund a nuclear energy program, while the rest of the shortsighted countries struggle and go to war to provide energy to their country.
or hell, if your into conspiracy theories, maybe there are some backdoor agreements between the US and oil companies and iran for iran to keep the rhetoric up and the threat of war just around the corner to frighten the speculators into driving up oil to.. say 100 bucks a barrel. thereby making a win/win for iran and the oil companies.

But i could be completely off base. they could be preparing a nuclear holocaust.
however taking into account how much iran wanted to help topple the taliban, and how iran came to the US and offered help in stabilizing iraq in exchange for the US dismantling MEK, and the US refused, then gave support to MEK, who now carry out terrorist attacks inside iran. i'd have to say that iran WAS trying harder than the US to make peace. who really wants war here?

--------------------
"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over."
Herbert Hoover 1930

Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"who really wants war here?"

First, I suspect you really meant to say. "Who, here, really wants war?", because no one I can think of wants war here.

However, there are those that surely do want war in Iran. The republicans do, so they can wheel out their fear tactics and holler "We will save ya. Re-elect us cause the democrats can't protect you and we are killing moslems there so they won't come kill us here."

It worked before, didn't it?

Somebody need to note that we started working on nuclear power when we still were in control of world oil prices and when we were still an oil exporting nation. It takes a bit of time to get nuclear power into more than theoretical production.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and wanting other countries to believe they have weapons when they really dont.

the issue isn't whether they do or don't now.

the issue is whether they intend to build them or not.

i see no need to attack them cuz we think they might intend to build them. that's why Dubya and the neo-cons are so dangerous.. they propose just that, and have already done just that in Iraq.

as for your conspiracy theories? i watch for evidence of collusion too..
Putin is also in the mix when it comes to making oil overpriced..

still? the good news about the high price of oil is that we'll move off it quicker.. the quicker the better...

why go nuclear when the real solutions are so much easier...

making solar panels is quite profitable...

it's about swagger IMO.. they intend to become a military power to spread their faith...

Amadinejad opened his speech at Columbia by invoking the Imam al- Mahdi

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al- Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his (rightfulness ?).


http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php

Imam al- Mahdi is supposed to come bearing God's Sword... (nukes?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

the Imam is apparently also a major part of the religious differences between Sunni's and Shi'a...


the Sunni's in Pakistan have nukes already...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share