Saw the President on O'reilly and he finally said after being asked the question 3 different ways from O'reilly that no way he would let Iran start creating nuclear weapons. Plus, Iran also appears to be saying they're going ahead with weapons programs. Could this be turning into the next Iraq along with Syria mentioned in another thread?

The good news is that Bush said he would like to work things diplomatically with international support. But, some of you I know won't buy that. Or maybe he's learning that "going it alone" isn't the way to fight terrorism.

Iran does harbor terrorists however and possibly going to war with them may be in the future.

great! lets go fight another useless war. if we minded our own business in the first place. these countries wouldnt want to bomb us. they could continue blowing themselves and their neighbors up.

[quote=Jibgolly";p="56227] if we minded our own business in the first place. these countries wouldnt want to bomb us. [/quote]

Great idea - after all, a lesse faire attitude towards foreign policy has been lights out for us in the past.

[quote=Jibgolly";p="56227]they could continue blowing themselves and their neighbors up.[/quote]

And once one had eradicated the other, they would have just packed up their bombs and called it a day, right? I'm sure there would be no further attacks on anyone else they saw as being against their beliefs

Hey Jibgolly aka crack endorser aka epidemic creator aka spokesperson for the misguided and the miseducated, you must be spending waaay too much time in your bedroom with the music on too loud in your earphones...you missed what happened over the last 3 years. We were attacked, im serious you can ask one of your neighbors, they'll fill you in on everything, buy you have to come out of your room once in awhile. What your not 'getting' is that radical Islam declared Jihad on the US in 1978. Wheew im just happy YOU do not hold office, we would ALL BE DEAD.

glad you're not holding office either NeUrO.

ok. picture this.

9/11 attrocities, ocurred. a tragic day.

iranians took to the streets. chanting. not "death to america" but "condolences america".

iran harbours terrorists? name me a country bigger than germany that doesn't have terrorists floating about within it's borders. can you back-up your throw-away statement?

iran is a whole different ball game for george w. he would never get the UK backing.

iran are currently enriching uranium for nuclear power. not weapons. they already have weapons. :lol:

i still don't know why the US thinks it can dictate who can and can't have nukes?

personally, i think, everyone should disarm. aint going to happen in my lifetime.

are you serious phanton menace? we we're attacked? :roll: guess i should pull my head out of my ass and watch the most trusted name in news like you've been doing. lmao.

bla bla bla. so i'm not the most educated when it comes to foreign poilcy. oh and thats right, i could give a fuck! so you guys on your soapboxes can sniff my ass.

you people crack me up. you jump all over someone who doesnt know as much about politics as you as if they're ignorant alabama born rednecks. there's a lot of other things happening in this world that are positive and i try to focus on those. so feel free to call me uneducated and misguided. again i could give a fuck. you're young, so why dont you go outside more instead of consuming your life with issues you have ZERO control over.

i rendered my opinion, and if you deem it neccessary to bash me, then so-be-it. i really dont care. have a nice day, and try getting laid, you seem to need it. :Tongue:

[quote=Jibgolly";p="56517]bla bla bla. so i'm not the most educated when it comes to foreign poilcy. oh and thats right, i could give a fuck! so you guys on your soapboxes can sniff my ass. i rendered my opinion, and if you deem it neccessary to bash me, then so-be-it. i really dont care.[/quote]

:roll: Shut the fuuuuuuuck up Jib. Tampons are meant to be used for your puss not bubblegum dumbass.

and again, bla bla bla

:roll: Shut the fuuuuuuuck up Jib. Tampons are meant to be used for your puss not bubblegum dumbass.[/quote]

Now im sorry but this comment I read like 3 or 4 times and it has to be the funniest insult i've heard in weeks. nice one.

But jib relax bro, you have to admit its more fun arguing politics like self indulgent ecocentric politicians, its like an alter ego thing for me, atleast. But I still think that most of what you say about politics is irresponsible and without basis. The ironic thing is that 'I' probably should be going out LESS, regardless I think if your going to vote its YOUR responsibility to be educated on the facts. Thats what I think your lacking. I have to say though I've heard some of your mixes, and your not lacking the skillz there so, big up to that.

^ all true. i dont dive into politics, because basically i just dont care. dont take that as being un-american. thats far off from the truth. 98% of my time is devoted to music. and only music. i even abandon my girlfriend on the couch a few times a week cos i'm busy with tunage.

i always seem to ruffle some feathers when i post over here. :NotMe:

Don't worry about it jib. People will say I'm un-american by not voting, or that I can't talk politics for the same reason. I saw screw em. People seem to have a very vague understanding of everything that goes with being an american. Choosing not to participate in politics is just as american as doing so. :Bingo:

Re: Bush on Iran

Well...you don't have to be American not to vote Civic :wink:

Personally, I'd go bonkers if Bush really went into Iran for allegedly (!!) building nuclear weapons. The US has many nuclear warheads despite the reduction of those (on the treaty with Russia). Then who.the.fuck.is.Bush to tell others they can't have 'em? I don't believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, I rather believe the uranium is used for power.

Inside Iran there's still a struggle going on between the fundamentalists (religious) on one side, and the reform-oriented (politicians) on the other side. The fundamentalists are trying to keep the progressive Muslims from expanding their power and installing a more liberal kind of government. But, as one of the more liberal Muslims from parliament put it: "The train (reform) is moving, no matter who's on board. It'll keep moving."

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Yao";p="56683] The US has many nuclear warheads despite the reduction of those (on the treaty with Russia). Then who.the.fuck.is.Bush to tell others they can't have 'em?[/quote]

yeah, but we're the good guys. :ROFLMAO:

:lol:

use the force george

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Jenks";p="56695]yeah, but we're the good guys. :ROFLMAO:[/quote]

No you're not. :Tongue:

yAO thats my problem with you. Your so far out there mate...I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but you disappoint me every time. If you dont feel were the good guys, with genuine intentions, your disallusioned and biased. Call me the same if you want...but I can prove to you...that the successful track record for humanitarian aid, liberating not occupying, and freeing the oppresed will FAAAAAR surpass ANY NATION on our globe. WARNING: DONT CHALLENGE ME ON THIS..YOU"LL LOOSE!

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Jenks";p="56695][quote=Yao";p="56683] The US has many nuclear warheads despite the reduction of those (on the treaty with Russia). Then who.the.fuck.is.Bush to tell others they can't have 'em?[/quote]

yeah, but we're the good guys. :ROFLMAO:[/quote]

In a lot of places in the world that's quickly becoming a misconception.

Re: Bush on Iran

Maybe so, but I for one would rather be considered a "bad guy" for ignoring the UN and deposing a brutal dictator than for beheading strangers and murdering schoolkids.

If the rest of the world wants to consider America the "bad guy" because it's taking the steps to ensure 9/11 doesn't happen [i]anywhere[/i] ever again - then shit, call me Darth Vader.

Well said Sully. Personally, I don't know that countries like North Korea shouldn't be allowed to do the research their doing. Where as Iran is a whole nother ballgame. They could too easily fall into the wrong hands.

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Yao";p="56683]I don't believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, I rather believe the uranium is used for power. [/quote]

Why would a country that boasts the world second largest oil fields (after Saudi Arabia) need to develop uranium for power?

[url]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html[/url]

As i understand it there are a number of countries who are looking at uranium as a legitimate source of power, don't be fooled, Iran does not require nuclear power they seek nuclear weapons. As they have signed treaties saying they well not develop these weapons, they should not be allowed to. Plain and simple

^^Very good point and I agree fully.

[quote=Civic_Zen";p="57019]Well said Sully. Personally, I don't know that countries like North Korea shouldn't be allowed to do the research their doing. Where as Iran is a whole nother ballgame. They could too easily fall into the wrong hands.[/quote]

explain this please

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=davetlv";p="57042][quote=Yao";p="56683]I don't believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, I rather believe the uranium is used for power. [/quote]

Why would a country that boasts the world second largest oil fields (after Saudi Arabia) need to develop uranium for power?

[url]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html[/url]

As i understand it there are a number of countries who are looking at uranium as a legitimate source of power, don't be fooled, Iran does not require nuclear power they seek nuclear weapons. As they have signed treaties saying they well not develop these weapons, they should not be allowed to. Plain and simple[/quote]

why should have different sets of standards for different countries. Just look at the immediate neighborhood Iran is in and see the examples galore; A military dictatorship with a government that came to power by a coup, is home to various fundamentalist religious groups, many of them with plenty of power and a history of active terrorism is next door and admits or even brags about it's nuclear capabilities. Yet you never hear anyone (not at least in these parts of the world) question Pakistan's nuclear ambitions or how realistically it can fall into the hands of terrorists. Why? Can any rationale and unbiased soul out there argue against the fact that some of the fundamentalists within the Israeli government and/or power structure are just as dangerous as their fundamentalist counterparts within the Iranian government? Then why isn't the danger posed by the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region in Israel never a concern? If you need more examples, look at former Soviet states of Central Asia.

Just because Iran has oil doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to devlop nuclear power capablilites. Afterall, did it ever cross your mind that oil is a non-renewable resourcer? there's only a finite amount of it, what will they do when they're all out of oil?

Re: Bush on Iran

Was just going to raise that point, DTV. It?s a good one, and i?m sure you know this fact better than most. IMO Iran is going for the nuke for polictical reasons, their proximity to Isreal could well be a factor?!

[b]Iran's nuclear program dates back to the years of the shah, who purchased nuclear technology from the USA in 1973[/b]

Just like any Iraqi WMD?s that may be found - still has the "Made in the USA" sticker on the urainum.
[url=http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/iran.html]Source[/url]

I firmly believe the largest danger to world stablity is none other than POTUS, the famous shaved monkey in chief. It is Georges crazy ideas and suspect stratergies that threaten us all, also his realtionship to the loony house of Saudi really scares me.

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="56310]Hey Jibgolly aka crack endorser aka epidemic creator aka spokesperson for the misguided and the miseducated, you must be spending waaay too much time in your bedroom with the music on too loud in your earphones....[/quote] hahahahahahahaahaLOLhahahahahah damn jibgolly,you sure know how to send a man to the brink of insane loss of control.this quote reminded me of the old school wrestling promos....

actually the larget danger to world stabilty is global warming. we are heading for disaster.

Re: Bush on Iran

Even if Iran has enough oil...most oil producing countries see more in exporting it for foreign currency. That is a fact. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, it's rather because they feel threatened, thus for defensive reasons, not offensive. Do you think it's strange they've been feeling treatened by either Israel or the US the past few decades? I don't.

And as I've stated before, quoting myself:

"Inside Iran there's still a struggle going on between the fundamentalists (religious) on one side, and the reform-oriented (politicians) on the other side. The fundamentalists are trying to keep the progressive Muslims from expanding their power and installing a more liberal kind of government. But, as one of the more liberal Muslims from parliament put it: "The train (reform) is moving, no matter who's on board. It'll keep moving."

Don't ignore this, it's the government that's still in power (although that may be hard to believe) and that government is definitely NOT intent to start a nuclear war or any kind of agression against Europe or the US. I personally think Iran is NOT the threat the Bush administration makes it look like, not in the way they want you to believe it. However, I do not deny the possibility of the fundamentalists having contact with Al-Qu'aeda. But that is not to be dealt with through an invasion.

Give it some time...Iran is on it's way. But give it some time, for god's sake!

Re: Bush on Iran

And, for the record: Iran may not be as democratic as most European countries or the US, but it sure as hell is no dictatorship! President Khatami was elected in democratic elections, and is a progressive Muslim. Problem is that the religious clergy still controls much of parliament, and the council of elders is entitled to either discard a canditate or approve it. And they're the ones trying to put as much fundamentalists in parliamentas possible. But the government/Khatami is not accepting that.

That is the problem in Iran: the most influential religious people can wield their influence in politics, and that should be dealth with. It's not a totally secular state...hence the struggle between religious fundamentalists and the reform-oriented politicians. But the latter ones are still in power. Get it?

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Hos";p="57529] why should have different sets of standards for different countries. Just look at the immediate neighborhood Iran is in and see the examples galore; A military dictatorship with a government that came to power by a coup, is home to various fundamentalist religious groups, many of them with plenty of power and a history of active terrorism is next door and admits or even brags about it's nuclear capabilities. Yet you never hear anyone (not at least in these parts of the world) question Pakistan's nuclear ambitions or how realistically it can fall into the hands of terrorists. Why? Can any rationale and unbiased soul out there argue against the fact that some of the fundamentalists within the Israeli government and/or power structure are just as dangerous as their fundamentalist counterparts within the Iranian government? Then why isn't the danger posed by the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region in Israel never a concern? If you need more examples, look at former Soviet states of Central Asia.

Just because Iran has oil doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to devlop nuclear power capablilites. Afterall, did it ever cross your mind that oil is a non-renewable resourcer? there's only a finite amount of it, what will they do when they're all out of oil?[/quote]

There are different standards ONLY becasue Iran has signed the NPT (in fact as of 2000 only Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed it). By signing it you have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and to open your facilities to regular inspection by the IAEA. Should every country on this planet be a signatory to the treaty? In my opinion yes, but thats another arguement.

Now to your points about Israel . . . Let me tell you the difference between between Israeli fundamentalists and Iranian ones. We imprison ours for plotting murder and carrying out terrorist attacks. Racists political parties are banned by law, where as Arab parties not only have 9 seats in the Knesset but also receive state funding. Where as Iranian fundamentalists are revered by a population who live in fear of a quasi religious state not many of them wanted in the first place.

Let me tell you another difference. Israel, for all its faults and believe me there are many, is a democracy, which is more then can be said about Iran. We dont fund anti arab or muslim organisation to blow up thousands of people on foreign soil, whereas Iran has for past twenty years have been the biggest sponsers of not only anti israel but anti jewish terrorism this world has seen in the last 50 years.

I don't know what stockpile of nukes my country has, but heres a simple reason why the world is not concerned. No Israeli sees it as his or her duty to kill innocent men, women and children as a way to get into paradise.

Now, back to oil. . . I understand that oil is a non-renewalble energy source and at the end of the day the whole world will have to find other sources of energy. If, and in my opinion its a big if, Iran is generally seeking a nuclear capability as a means of energy, then the NPT allows them to do so under strict criteria. If they meet this criteria they should be allowed to develop such a capablility under the supervision of the IAEA like every other signatory to the NPT.

I have a very good feeling Iran is next - even Kerry will go to war with Iran.

dave I agree with your comments 100%, very well spoken. Morgan, you should not be scared by Bushs pro defense policies that save all our asses even when we dont hear about it. (Fact: we need to be right 100% of the time, terrorists need to be right once) and YOUR saying these 'suspect strategies and crazy ideas'....THREATEN US??? hahahahah Man your sardonic and breviloquent comments make me think you have more of a thunder-pussy than a set of balls. What should 'scare' you is your naive and mendacious conspiracy theories, your isolating yourself pal.

Hos, if you put a gun in the hand of a police officer and another in the hand of a convicted murderer, hmmmm which one you going to trust with the gun??? Your saying there should not be 'different standards' for certain governments or regimes that have nuclear capabilities???!Your pathetic.

Re: Bush on Iran

[quote=Yao";p="57591]Even if Iran has enough oil...most oil producing countries see more in exporting it for foreign currency. That is a fact. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, it's rather because they feel threatened, thus for defensive reasons, not offensive. Do you think it's strange they've been feeling treatened by either Israel or the US the past few decades? I don't. [/quote]

I completely agree with you Yao. Maybe some should remember that the US is the only country to have ever dropped a nuke on another country.

I think its going to come down to everyone being armed before we can start making progress and having discussions about disarming. :(

[quote=stuntman";p="57618]... even Kerry will go to war with Iran.[/quote]

No he wouldn't, wait, yes he would, no wait no he wouldn't, wait I think he would. :wink:

i'm all for arming myself. legally that is. my dad has been carrying a gun on his hip for years. cant think of any other way to feel much more safe. :NotMe:

Jib your right...something about having a pistol strapped to your waist gives you a sense of security. 'go ahead...make my day' hahahah clint eastwood was the man!!

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="58003]Jib your right...something about having a pistol strapped to your waist gives you a sense of security. 'go ahead...make my day' hahahah clint eastwood was the man!![/quote]

If you seroiusly think that in the western world you need, for your own security to carry a gun on your hip then you are a fool.

In the UK during the irish troubles, the UK didn?t see fit to introduce a PATRIOT act, we have some tough laws relating to homeland security but in the UK it is still illeagal to spy on normal people, unlike the USA.

Do you honestly believe that it is safer for an American in the middle east today than it was 4 years ago? Of course not, this stupid war has just incouraged any person with a greviance agaist the west to form a little terroist cell and start kiddnapping, killing and bombing.

Let me tell you a little story, i took a weeks anti terriost course, we were trained by a specialist Army unit just back from ireland. i got talking to the head guys, and they were very certain that the only way to solve the terrorist threat was to sit the people down and talk a resolution. They were very clear on this point, you cannot fight terror with force, ulimately it is self defeating.

If a specialist terror unit tells me this after losing a good few people to terror then i believe them.

Ask yourself why terrorists hate the west. Then ask yourself has there ever been a sucessful instance when the USA has forced a regime change on country?

Amercia should have learnt from it?s past mistakes, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Brazil, Iraq (again), Vietnam the list goes on.
Who the fuck has given you the right to undermind/overthrow DEMOCRATAITLY elected goverments justg because that goverment does not fit in with the US way of thinking.

Don?t even think you can justify an Iraqi invastion as saving the poor repressed people, bullshit. look at Saudi Arabia, becasue they have a very large amount of oil they are allowed to keep there Dictactorship, repress there people, give no rights to their women, cut people hands & heads off. FFS do you really think any of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi.

But then i guess the Iraqi ambassitor wasn?t drinking and smoking on the balcony with POTUS a few days after, maybe if he was Iraq would still be a soverign state.

do you think the US will bomb the crap out of Monaco for being a monarchy?

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="57622]Morgan, you should not be scared by Bushs pro defense policies that save all our asses even when we dont hear about it. (Fact: we need to be right 100% of the time, terrorists need to be right once) and YOUR saying these 'suspect strategies and crazy ideas'....THREATEN US??? hahahahah Man your sardonic and breviloquent comments make me think you have more of a thunder-pussy than a set of balls. What should 'scare' you is your naive and mendacious conspiracy theories, your isolating yourself pal. [/quote]

The problem here is that noone can be right 100% (except in theory) and I believe that the US made just too many "mistakes" to remain trustworthyand lost a lot of hteir credibility. For example why Iraq had to be attacked immediately, when the mission to Afganisthan was far from complete (the circumstances in Afganisthan have still not settled down yet). However, I am still amazed how Americans willingly watch billions of their money being spent on wars outside their countries, which were not neccessary at all... True, Sadam was removed from power, but the conditions in Iraq are still very far from a free, democratic country, that would respect civil rights...

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="57622] Hos, if you put a gun in the hand of a police officer and another in the hand of a convicted murderer, hmmmm which one you going to trust with the gun??? Your saying there should not be 'different standards' for certain governments or regimes that have nuclear capabilities???!Your pathetic.[/quote]

But what if the police officer becomes corrupted? And as it has been said, it was only the US who ever used the nukes... :Tongue:

Re: Bush on Iran

I think Morgan is right about terrorism being fought with force: it's like chopping a hydra's head off while a new one is already trying to attack you.

But sometimes reason doesn't do the trick: Muslim fundamentalists won't listen, won't negociate. It's always the moderate Muslims, but they have little influence on the hardliners. That frightens me: what if talking doesn't help anymore?