With friends like these...
When ever life gets you down, just remember that it could be worse: Pat Robertson could be your friend. From American Progress
Hopefully Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon doesn't have more friends like television evangelist Pat Robertson. Robertson -- who considers Sharon his "good friend" -- yesterday said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land": "The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' ... He [Sharon] was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or United States of America.
Israel has suspended contact with evangelist Pat Robertson for suggesting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.
The controversy has cast doubt on plans for a Christian tourism center that would showcase the growing flow of money and influence from U.S. church groups.
Israeli leaders see the Christian allies as tireless lobbyists in Washington and elsewhere. The evangelicals also funnel millions of dollars each year to [illegal] Jewish settlers in the West Bank and — before last year's pullout — the Gaza Strip.
Pat Robertson has no credibility. He's a hypocrite. Remember when he called for Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez to be assassinated? Right... because God wants Chavez dead for calling the US government a bunch of terrorists and because he doesn't want to sell Venezuelan oil to the US. Robertson really needs to shut up and take a good look at what kind of person he is instead of getting on tv and pointing out divine reasons as to why Sharon got a stroke. That's just easy.
note to self: take Robertson off my New Years gift basket list.
Not to mention he headlined the argument for stopping "The War Against Christmas" . . . what ever happened to spiritual fruit over religious nuts?
"he doesn't want to sell Venezuelan oil to the US."
Even worse - he wants to sell it at discount price in the U.S. to help the needy.
British withdrawal from Iraq to start within months - Straw
Visiting Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it was hoped Britain's 8,000 troops would start to withdraw from Iraq in a matter of months.
I'm firmly convinced that the real Pat Robertson died half a century ago and that the quivering bobble-head that we see stammering on Christian Broadcast News is an animatronic replica. So it's really not fair to blame Pat :)
I quite agree with you about this unholy alliance. If Israel imagines it will get the support of right-wing Christians, then... too bad for Israel...
U.S. : 4-Year-Old Boy on Government 'No-Fly' List
HOUSTON - Edward Allen's reaction to being on the government's "no-fly" list should have been the tip-off that he is no terrorist.
"I don't want to be on the list. I want to fly and see my grandma," the 4-year-old boy said, according to his mother. Sijollie Allen and her son had trouble boarding planes last month because someone with the same name as Edward is on a government terrorist watch list. "Is this a joke?" Allen recalled telling Continental Airlines agents Dec. 21 at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport. "You can tell he's not a terrorist." She said it took several minutes of pleading and a phone call by the ticket agent to get on the plane to New York.
Allen, a Jamaican immigrant, said workers at La Guardia Airport were even more hard-nosed before their Dec. 26 flight home. She said a ticket agent told her: "You're lucky that we're letting you through instead of putting you through the other process."
The Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list was established immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to prevent people who may have terrorist ties from boarding commercial flights.
"I know the government is trying to protect because of the terrorist attacks, but common sense should play a role in it," Allen said. "I don't think he should go through the trouble of being harassed and hindered."
He might have had a some C4 in his huggies. You never know. That's just too funny.
Apparently according to the Transportation Security Administration, the airlines have the discression to let children under 12 get on the plane even if their names end up on the no fly list.
Well if he hadn't done anything wrong, he wouldn't be on the list, now would he. I trust the government on this.
Thanks guys , what else can you do but laugh when you read something like this , i just had to post it
Nice. It's good to know that we can count on our government to keep us safe from malicious rugrats and America-hating anklebiters the world over.
Dude, you know how much stuff that boy could have had in his diaper?
In sarcasim, the lefties should be happy. After all, this confirms they ARE NOT racially profilling here in the US, even if all of Europe is.
And... how does it confirm that there is no racial profiling? If there is even one case of a non-minority being profiled, there can therefore be no racial profiling?
Dr Howdy , thankyou for your very very , very , very long comment , sadly it is not even slightly on topic so i have deleted it
It appears to be another one of your poems
It would seem you are posting it here to draw attention to your work. which would be a little odd considering the claims you make on your site about how many readers you have of your work , i doubt you would gain much from posting here
Saying that your comments are welcome if you wish to debate the topics here that i post on
I allow free speech on this site aslong as there is no abuse or extreme attitude such as racism in the comments
but i do like to keep my posts on topic and i would apreciate you refraining from posting long unrelated poems here
thanks for stopping by
Looks like I missed something.
Anyway, I've said it before, free speech is not yours to grant.
DJEB... did you notice this part In sarcasim?
It was a friggin joke you cabbage head.
Man, I for one am glad. Have you ever seen a four year old throw an all out shit fit? He probably would have been sitting behind me kicking my seat anyway! It's great to see my tax dollars hard at work.
I wish they would put all of Ms. Mumford's pre-K class on the no fly list as well. They called me a "doodie head" and proceeded to laugh at me.
* sarcasm, sorry I couldn't resist.
G: i know things get a little heated sometimes but please try to attack or abuse the comment not the person
I know its a fine line to draw but i really dont want people calling other people names
call it a cabbage head comment and i couldn't care less , but insults against people very quickly put us back in the school yard
i know its only playing around with word order but i want to keep an element of respect for everyone and i want to draw the line at attacking the words of each other
I know your not the only person who does such things , hype can often attack you here , but i dont like personal attacks and i have decided to make it a rule
Djeb : yes it was our friend 'thought and humor' with another one of his very long poems , i wouldnt mind so much but he only puts 4 words on each line , it took up so much space you lose the point of the thread
phishy : very amusing :-)
How quickly you turn to insult...
I did see the "in sarcasm" part. However, I felt compelled to comment. Sorry if I put a bee in your bonnet.
I agree with somethingphishy, I fly five times a year and if the country could just put everyone under the age of 6 on the no fly list, I'd have no complaints ;)
cabbage head isn't much of an insult..
cabbage means head.
unless i am missing something.
i responded to Gump's assertion on Daily Dissent.
if racial profiling is the only thing he can come up with, then well all is lost on Gump. that is the main reason why i don't post on his site. no point. he knows he is wrong. he is not dumb. he is stuck though. stuck in a hard spot. unless he can grow out of it. he is a lost cause. FJ is not lost. FJ is seriously delusional. FJ reminds me of Damon Wayans on In Living Color, when he plays the character who uses all these large complicated words, but incorrectly. he is incoherent.
LOL hype , well i decided i should draw the line somewhere , its not personal against anybody i just feel personal insults just lower the level of debate
I think FJ does it on purpose , he just enjoys winding people up , i tend to just ignore him , he really isnt worth the effort
"i just feel personal insults just lower the level of debate"
There are those who believe that insults are all there is to debate. However, for someone who is supposed to be a Marine - one of a group of "warriors of the finest kind... tempered with compassion, respect, and maturity." [see the "Parental guide" on the official Marine website] - to go around insulting others it should be a bit of a shock. I don't think that is the kind of behaviour they are trained to engage in.
are you serious? sarcasm maybe? the recruits are broken using many techniques including ridicule.
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
personal insults are always going to be part of debate and/or arguments.
the world isn't far from a giant school yard, if you get my drift.
sometimes in order to make your point, you have to be able to get the momentum, and to do that you may have to use personal attacks. otherwise, nobody is listening.
That is why I really like comedy.
I suppose personal attacks might be necessary if one lacks content...
Maybe he was actually on the "not allowed to fly the plane" list
The only thing more comical than a four year old on a no fly list is the thought that common sense could have anything to do with government policy.
Seven US soldiers lost their lives today in Iraq as the insurgants stepped up attacks in this first week of the new year .
But the tragedy for the Iraqi people has again been the headlines around the world after two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in the Iraqi cities of Kerbala and Ramadi on Thursday in Iraq's bloodiest day for four months. This being only a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings across the country.
Violence has killed more than 240 people and wounded more than 280 in the five days since the New Year started, a death toll comparable with some of the nation's bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
The complete list of major events in Iraq this morning is quite a read . But there is no better way to find out what life is really like in the country than to read the blog of a Iraqi girl living through this nightmare . The title of her latest post tells you as much in two words as any journalist could in a hundred .
The score is tsunami 200,000, Darfur 400,000.
Here's Mark Fiore's latest: Gentle Genocide.
Crazy stuff, huh? Especially when you consider one was a natural disaster, and the other is man made.
I am becoming more and more of a fan of Mark Fiore's work after each new animation
he has a way of using getting the Very serious across , wrapped up in a decent dose of sarcasm and humour
Ps glad you like the blog bullseye , hopefully you will pop in again soon
There are alot of factors G , the UN can only act apon world authority ,
If the UN was all powerfull they would have stopped the invasion of Iraq wouldn't they ?
there are very few (in my view) without blame for the lack of action on Dafur and that includes (but certainly is not exclusive to) your government
US indeed. Infact, when Colin Powell referred to it as a genocide, he was highly condemned by the UN because that word means they have to ACT.
H, I am trying to figure out if you actually are ignoring this, or just missing the duplicity that the US should wait for UN concent on Iraq, but then we should excuse the UN's lack of action on Darfur.
Either they are a body to be concidered or not, but we dont get to selectivly choose when to do it. The US, as many of my fellow citizens have pointed out, do not have the monopoly on being able to dish out justice and assistance. Now, if the UN is truely the "world body", and a "world concensus", then why are they not acting to stop the atrocity there?
Does the world not care? Do they like to see the people there killed? Are they powerless to stop it?
If all the above are false, then there must be another motive for the extreme lack of Action. I contend that the UN is a bunch of political misfits orginized (like a union) to empower the otherwise marginal nations. THe only problem with that is that it doesnt work. You cant stik 150 nations in a room and expect anything near concensus on issues that require sacrafice by those nations.
The ideal is not realized in the UN, and Darfur is a testement 400,000 deaths long to prove it.
G: you getting confused on what the UN is and what it does
it merely represents the collective view of the worlds nations
the reason Iraq was discussed at the UN is because MEMBER STATES brought the subject to the UN
the UN can't just make it own choices , if it could then all the complaints that the right wing make about the UN would be true
for the UN to take action it would have to pass through the UN security council and that would mean one of the member states pushing hard for it to be on the agenda
so the question i ask (of every country) but as your american i ask it of you
why has your country NOT pushed this in the UN ? why did you push Iraq so hard but fail to insist the security council take instant action on Dafur ?
the UN is not some seperate competition you have to fight with, its belongs to everybody , but it only works when you work WITH the system
I am no expert on dafur so take that as read , but when it comes to the UN you have been tuned to view it as an outside enemy and so does john bolton
if the UN fails to do something then the US is as much to blame as everyone else
infact often the US uses its veto to block international efforts
Powell was flat out right when he called it genocide. The SC (a group of 15 representatives of countries at the UN, not the UN itself) should have not only have condemned the genocide but actually used the word. Indeed, I commended the early U.S. actions.
"Now, if the UN is truely the "world body", and a "world concensus", then why are they not acting to stop the atrocity there?"
I really think we can expect more out of the G77 and the GA than the SC. It is a bit too easy to go after just the U.S. when the rest of the North is more than willing to ignore the issue. However, as the Flash video suggests, the American people, being on the whole very decent, would demand action if the media would mention it as much as whether or not Brad will give Angelina a baby or not.
"I contend that the UN is a bunch of political misfits orginized (like a union) to empower the otherwise marginal nations. "
I disagree in part. Many unions have the merit of being quite democratic. Ignoring the problem that you can "represent" democracy like you can quench thirst with a representation of a glass of water, did you vote for the old man with anger-management problems and an embarrassing lack of social skills to be your representative at the UN? How many of the representatives at the UN were elected by the people they are supposed to represent? None.
Are they all misfits, though? No. But unfit for their positions almost down to the last man (or woman). As for "marginal nations," I don't think you area saying that a given nation is more important or more entitled than another, are you?
At any rate, no, the ideal is not realised.
Not to be compared dude...and by the way, this is just the Goliath's way of revenge(if you know who i refer to)
Something I forgot to mention...
"[I]n the days after the September 11th attacks, President Bush issued an ultimatum to the world: Either you're with us, or you’re with the terrorists.
"Three-and-a-half years later, it's been revealed the Bush administration has allied itself with a government listed as a state sponsor of terrorism and one that the administration has accused of committing genocide against its own people: Sudan. This major expose in the Los Angeles Times revealed the U.S. has quietly forged this close intelligence partnership with Sudan. The Sudanese government has since publicly confirmed it's working with the Bush administration and the C.I.A.
Israeli PM enters 8th hour of surgery after suffering serious stroke
Ariel Sharon was admitted to hospital in Jerusalem last night after suffering a second stroke in three weeks. A spokesman for the hospital said that the Israeli prime minister had experienced a "significant" stroke, following the mild one that required hospital treatment on Dec 18.
There were unconfirmed reports that Mr Sharon, 77, had suffered paralysis of his lower body. Officials said the 77-year-old leader was unconscious and had experienced a "massive" brain haemorrhage. Dr Shlomo Mor-Yosef, director of Hadassah Hospital, told reporters at the hospital on Wednesday night that Mr Sharon had "massive bleeding".
The Israeli leader's powers have been transferred to his deputy Ehud Olmert.
A small press conference held at the hospital (o5:15 GMT) confirmed that the PM would remain in surgery for at least the next few hours and that 'his brain has not yet stopped bleeding'
More details here ( BBC windows media video)
Iraq's bloodiest day in weeks
A suicide bomber caused carnage at a Shi'ite funeral and gunmen ambushed a vital fuel convoy outside Baghdad amid a wave of attacks that killed more than 50 people on Wednesday, the bloodiest day in Iraq for weeks.
Meanwhile, switching from using boots on the ground to air power in an attempt to reduce US casualties has not gone to plan after an airstrike on house in the northern industrial city of Bayji yesterday. The attack enraged Iraqi Officials when warplanes killed nine members of an Iraqi family, including women and young children, during a bombing strike More news from today in Iraq include the usual kidnap , murder and carnage we have come to expect . So the only thing missing is the standard White House speech to tell us all how well things are going , oh here it is .
This switch to air power is a little troubling. The reality of it is, no war has ever been won on air power alone. Inevitably, you need soldiers on the ground. Even a primarily air war like the Kosovo war wasn't won on air power alone: Milosevic blinked after finally being threatened with ground troups. In this case, you have insurgents hiding in homes, holes, etc. You aren't going to beat them by bombing them. Most likely, you'll hit innocents, which has just occured with that family, because really, smart bombs are only so "smart." Sure you may reduce your own casualties, but you aren't going to win that way.
Quite right, cb.
CB , spot on again , as Djeb said 'Quite right'
Likud members: Bomb Iran
In conference organized Saturday night by Minister Yisrael Katz, 400 Likud members vote to 'bomb nuclear reactor before it is too late'; party's central committee expected to convene Sunday to approve change in constitution initiated by Likud Chairman Netanyahu
About 400 Likud members, who took part Saturday evening in a conference organized by Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz in the town of Hod Hasharon, voted by a large majority to "bomb Iran's nuclear reactor before it is too late," in the words of Likud member and Ra'anana Deputy Mayor Uzi Cohen.
According to Cohen, "we have been following the Iranians for a long time now, but the defense establishment chiefs issue warnings without doing anything."
"We must act as (former Prime Minister Menachem) Begin did when he bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor," he said.
Source : Here
I wonder how Israel would feel if the Arabs were to decide to bomb their nuclear reactor ?
The IAEA has said the jury is out on Iran's intentions and any attempt to attack Israel would certainly bring total annihilation from the west. Iran (like Israel) surely has a right to defend itself and the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that Iran has signed (and Israel has not) allows them the legal right to pursue nuclear energy .
What if Eygpt or Saudi or Turkey decide to pursue their lawful right to nuclear power , will Israel attack them too ? Not one country apart from Israel is questioning Iran's right to have nuclear power . But will anyone pressure Israel into following the rule of law itself and signing the NPT , of course not . For it is one rule for the Arabs and another rule for the rest of us.
Just one question, when was the last time you heard the leader of Israel threaten to wipe Iran off the map?
I think that the one thing that continues to amaze me is that people will want to ignore statements from the Iranian President which he means quite literally. I don't see on your list of statements his statement re: wiping Israel off the map which he said three times at least in public.
Further, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have no need for Nuclear technology for several reasons but the main one is that they are not looking to gain nuclear arms because they are protected by the nuclear arms of the US and its military (Egypt gets double indemnity since Europe sees the Suez Canal as a mega important factor in their economics for the ability to import and export goods and energy resources).
It would be interesting to imagine that Iran simply wants it for energy purposes, but only the truly blind would imagine that a nation sitting on top of some of the worlds largest oil and natural gas deposits needs nuclear energy for lighting up its own population.
The truth of the matter is that it wants it for the purpose of building nuclear weapons technology. It needs it because they need to secure their hegemony over the region (when I say region, I don't mean simply the Middle East, but including Central Asian nations which are leaning towards capitalist free markets and full democracy). It needs to secure this hegemony because it's economy is largely dependent on its energy exports. The revenue of these energy exports is controlled by "supply and demand" economics. As a member of OPEC, where Saudi Arabia, a western leaning nation, exports the largest amount of oil and thus impacts the price of oil (and wields the most power in OPEC). This impact of pricing effects Iran's economy and causes its economy to fluctuate.
With nuclear hegemony, it hopes to at least offset, if not directly negate, the protection Saudi Arabia (and the gulf states, also large exporters) enjoy and thus gives it more bargaining power at the table when decisions are made about increasing or decreasing production (in fact, Iran would be happy for certain nations to decrease their production since it would drive up oil prices and provide them with the revenue it can't get from other exports of minerals, ores and other goods).
It also seeks to employ similar tactics against the central Asian states, once Russian republics, which export a large amount of oil and natural gas in their own rights. Further, many European nations, along with the US, have oil and gas production agreements with these Central Asian nations and have nominal protection through the expansion of NATO partnership programs which Iran sees as a threat and rightly assumes their nuclear ability within the region and directly in their faces will have greater impact on the regional politics and economy than a distant protector.
Russia is willing to help them arm for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that, with the continual democratization and westward leaning Central Asian Nations right across the Caucuses and Caspian sea (One of Russia's largest energy producing sectors) and compacts between these nations and their western allies that also insures the steady supply of oil and natural gas (including the increased output to offset increased demands and keep the prices down) impacts Russia's economic security since their major revenue and GDP growth is directly related to (by about 80%) the increase in oil and natural gas prices over the last three years.
Without this increase, Russia would be a completely failed state (which is also why Russia has re-nationalized many of its energy companies since it believes it needs to control all of the revenue to survive).
Further, by becoming Iran's partner, not only does it have a second hand to help control the Caucus and Caspian Sea nations, but it can also influence Iran within the OPEC construct which, with nuclear weapons, gives them a mighty controlling power over output and production which keeps the oil and gas prices up which helps both the Russian and Iranian economy by keeping the price up.
This is not simply a question of "rights" under the non-proliferation treaty although, if you are going to talk about them then you should point out that Iran's refusal to make their nuclear processes transparent to insure "non-proliferation" of nukes makes them outside of their treaty obligations.
Last, if one wants to discuss who is most likely to use a nuclear weapon against their enemies, real or perceived, I'd bet odds on it's Iran at least 2 to 1 over Israel since Israel is protected by the US and several treaties (with Egypt by the way and Saudi Arabia if you didn't know which is why they are less likely to complain if these nations considered nuclear technology for energy as opposed to Iran).
You can't simply ignore the president of Iran talking about wiping countries off the map and then say they have the "right" to nuclear energy without adhering to ALL of the non-proliferation treaty they signed.
It's kind of naive, don't you think?
PS...did you know that Iran was Russia's number one trade partner for non-energy exports (Russia to Iran?).
One final thought, so, while you are pointing out the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and, from the rest of your blog, the supposed dangers to liberty that the US and the war on "terror" (I prefer to call it the war on Islamists), you fail to note one of the most important factors in the Iranian nuclear construct which is that, with nuclear weapons (like the old USSR), it is likely that Iran can and will continue to oppress, torture and kill its own people in quite illiberal methods for quite illiberal reasons (another reason it wants nuclear weapons since it will force western democracy movements from without to stop supporting overtly their internal democracy movement and thus keep the illiberal oppressive leaders in power for decades to come).
so, I take it that's okay with you as long as it's Iranians doing it to Iranians?
Just wanted to get clarification.
"[T]he one thing that continues to amaze me is" people who show up here calling others naive and such and making accusations without evidence. For the love of God, do you have no respect for our time?
Ignore statements from Iran? Hello? Thanks for bothering to check the archives before shooting your mouth off.
As for Iran's nuclear energy, of which you seem to be trying to prove you know little, in 1957, the U.S. helped the Shah get enriched uranium for civilian power plants. In 1974, the Iranian government under the Shah began constructing two reactors at Bushehr with West German help.
After the Islamic revolution the Ayatollah halted construction of these plants on the grounds that they were "un-Islamic." However, the U.S. puppet state of Iraq attacked Iran causing great damage to oil production facilities hindering its energy supply. [Read that twice if it didn't sink in.] Iran then continued to aquire equipment to produce nuclear fuel.
In 1995, President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani inked a deal with Russia to fininsh the two reactors at Bushehr and to build a centrifuge plant and a research reactor. Russia agreed to take back the plutonium-containing spent fuel from the reactors.
As for countries desiring hegemony over the region, one only need look at your country which not only explicitly stated those desires in internal documents, it has spent the last 50 years doing just trying to fulfill them.
Next, on the relationship past and present between Russia and Iran, you demonstrate again that you have not looked at this site. Not even one week ago, I posted on this, and it seems I must again. From Dilip Hiro's The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide:
"On 1 October 1927 the Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Guarantee and Neutrality with Iran. The signatories agreed to refrain from aggression against each other and to remain neutral in the event of aggression by a third country. 'Each of the contracting parties agrees to take no part... in political alliances or agreements directed against the safety of the territory or territorial waters of the contracting party or against the integrity, independence or sovereignty,' stated Article 3. The same applied to economic boycotts or blockades organised by third parties."
As for Iran's democratic movements, the student movement was doing very, very well until Dubya shot his mouth off about the "axis of evil" and put Iran on a list of nations it would target with nukes. This had the predictable and predicted effect of giving fuel to the hardliners in Iran to crush any dissent (hard to miss as the same thing occured in the U.S. with respect to dissent after 9/11).
Just one question(looks like a big one), when was the last time you heard the leader of Israel threaten to wipe Iran off the map? I havnt but when did Israel start pre anouncing any of their wars , you see israel has started wars where , Iran does not have a history of starting any conflicts in recent history , Infact during a number of Israels recent wars Iran could have joined the fray and they made the choice not too ,
I think that the one thing that continues to amaze me is that people will want to ignore statements from the Iranian President which he means quite literally. I don't see on your list of statements his statement re: wiping Israel off the map which he said three times at least in public. I infact did post on it of you cared to look Here though how you are so sure of this man to take him literally on this subject but refuse point black to take his word when he says that nuclear weapons are un Islamic amd he does not desire them ,
Further, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have no need for Nuclear technology for several reasons but the main one is that they are not looking to gain nuclear arms because they are protected by the nuclear arms of the US and its military (Egypt gets double indemnity since Europe sees the Suez Canal as a mega important factor in their economics for the ability to import and export goods and energy resources). ah i see , your combining nuclear power with nuclear weapons almost every country signed up to the NPT is trying to get nuclear power in one form or another thats a wonderful part of the treaty you see you allow isnpections and in return the world allows you to pursue nuclear power , including reactors (as this article is about) the Saudi arabia and Egypt already have nuclear prrograms , almost all countries do , the point is not wether Iran has a nuclear program , 190 of the 191 member states of the UN agree that Iran is allowed a nuclear program , the point is Iran trying to make a BOMB and that you dont know i can assure you mohamed alberi di and the IAEA are the only people to trust and they say the jury is out ,
It would be interesting to imagine that Iran simply wants it for energy purposes, but only the truly blind would imagine that a nation sitting on top of some of the worlds largest oil and natural gas deposits needs nuclear energy for lighting up its own population. have you not studied economics , they can sell a higher percentage of their oil if they generate their power using fusion , it means they can export almost all their oil and the profits are possibly billions , maybe we are just blind to economics
The truth of the matter is that it wants it for the purpose of building nuclear weapons technology. then you should not be telling me you should be on the phone to the IAEA , they are inspecting and they dont know but you do , hmmm were you one of those people that told me saddam had big bad weapons too ? the problem is that you do not know this .but you continue to build your house on it the next three paragrahs seem to give me your take on why Iran is behaving in the way that you percieve they are doing , but you dont tell me who you are , what your position is within the Iranain leadership ? or if not what credible sources you bring to proove your point that Iran IS building a bomb ,, you seem so certain you just want me to come along with you for the ride , if you wish to make such predictions please supply sources (credible), you can not attack a country over speculation ,that behavour created the slaughter in Iraq and let me be clear I respect Israel right to existence but i also respect Irans rights under an international law .
This is not simply a question of "rights" under the non-proliferation treaty although, if you are going to talk about them then you should point out that Iran's refusal to make their nuclear processes transparent to insure "non-proliferation" of nukes makes them outside of their treaty obligations. ( if they were outside there treaty obligations then the IAEA would report them as such to the UN security council , it has not been done , hence they are not outside)
Last, if one wants to discuss who is most likely to use a nuclear weapon against their enemies, real or perceived, I'd bet odds on it's Iran at least 2 to 1 over Israel since Israel is protected by the US and several treaties (with Egypt by the way and Saudi Arabia if you didn't know which is why they are less likely to complain if these nations considered nuclear technology for energy as opposed to Iran). more speculation without any base , only two nuclear bombs have ever been used in anger and both were used by the United states , look at the recent history of Iran , sure you can link them with terrorism , *but not half as much as you can link the CIA and MOSSAD* but on a pure military front they have not started a war with anyone , the US will be the next country to use a nuke (again) they already planned for it Here
You can't simply ignore the president of Iran talking about wiping countries off the map and then say they have the "right" to nuclear energy without adhering to ALL of the non-proliferation treaty they signed. I never implied they should , somehow you have percieved a belief i do not hold , i strongly do not want Iran to gain the bomb and i have total faith in the IAEA to make the right choices , Inspections must be carried out to the letter and any concerns put before the security council , I also beleive that Israel (at the same time) should sign the NPT and disarm
One final thought, so, while you are pointing out the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons again you have left my article and jumped into your opionion ... i do not believe Iran has a right to nuclear weapons , i beleive they have a right to self generated nuclear power , there is a big difference , just ask the people of Hiroshima
and, from the rest of your blog, the supposed dangers to liberty that the US and the war on "terror" (I prefer to call it the war on Islamists), funny I tend to call people who use such words Islamophobes , xenophobe just doesnt seem strong enough
you fail to note one of the most important factors in the Iranian nuclear construct which is that, with nuclear weapons (like the old USSR), it is likely that Iran can and will continue to oppress, torture and kill its own people in quite illiberal methods for quite illiberal reasons (another reason it wants nuclear weapons since it will force western democracy movements from without to stop supporting overtly their internal democracy movement and thus keep the illiberal oppressive leaders in power for decades to come). ( you mean just like they do in the US , oh , no .. sorry , we dont call it kidnap and torture we call it extraordinary rendition” then we torture people in the same prisons that saddam tortured people in , then we let the shia have a go at torturing the sunni , yea we are a great example
so, I take it that's okay with you as long as it's Iranians doing it to Iranians? again the great mystic has given you the wrong answer but such is life
Just wanted to get clarification. hope i have helped thanks for your (question)
Ah Djeb , that was quick , glad to see you back safe and sound
since when did Israel decide to announce "pre-emptive strikes"??? Doesnt that sort of negate the whole surprise thing? Wouldnt that make it pretty hard to fly their air craft into Iranian airspace without falling down to earth in a bunch of different pieces?
I think this is another shot by Israel to try and get the EU-3 and US to be their "muscle". I would be shocked to find out that they are announcing their plans to commit a surprise attack.
But, since we have the debate police on hand, I better hurry and state that this is just suposition on my part.
The guy in Iran is a nut job, if he gets nukes he will use them.
I really, really don't understand your confusion, g. The U.S. announced just that before attacking and invading Iraq. And surprised to find out that they would plan to carry out a surprise attack? Ever heard of Osirak?
And you,"j," you know this because...?
Djeb, we announced our full scale invasion. You dont normally announce a surgical air strike. It would be the same as JFK announcing to Cuba and the world that he planned the overfly for recon of the Ruskie missiles.
It doesnt work that way, you SHOULD know better.
But I guess that kind of "planning" and "strategy" isnt something they cover in liberal arts.
A full scale invasion that was billed as...? If you answered "pre-emptive strike," you are correct.
BTW, tell me more about my education background. You're 100% wrong so far, so it should be entertaining to see what you can invent next.
Oh good lord, I have no idea DJEB. Hell you may have graduated from the Zimbigiee School of Buisness/Agriculture for all I know. The comment was meant as a jab at the things that obviously seem important to you, and the things that you lack in your reasoning. It wasnt supposed to be an actual account of your resume.
DJEB, you cant hide landing 3 Amphibs full of Marines complete with 3 air wings, two armored regiments, and all the support structure for it. EVERYONE knew we were comming. But guess what... the date was still secret.
Now, like I said, we were comming with everything for a full out assault. This would include SAM supression, followed by selective C&C strikes, then a full ground assault enforced with air.
What Israel is talking about is flying a couple of jets in with bombs. They wouldnt get far if Iran was waiting for them retard.
dont you think Iran would already be waiting for them G ?
you seem to assume that aslong as nobody tells them , Iran will be suprised by this sudden attack on their reactor ?
no country on earth would fail to react to foreign fighter jets entering their airspace G , I dont doubt the Iranians have already practised how to respond
I understand your reasoning on covert action , but flying into Iran and bombing a reactor is hardly covert
on the personal insult ' retard ' please dont , call the comment retarded if ' you ' believe it is , but not the poster
Oh, I'm sorry. That "bullshit statement" was another "figurative measure." Again though, if you have found some fault in my reasoning, point it out with logic. You will find that I will respond to that much better that "impressionist theories."
On the preemptive strike, I'm only repeating what was said by the Bush Admin itself. As for Israel, I again ask ever heard of Osirak?
On the insult, I don't expect much from you, but insluting the developmentally impared to try to get at me? Grow up.
What's wrong, kat? I thought you wanted a reply. The least you can do is come here an apologise for making false accusations.