Logic, information and fact, you say? Man oh, man. You never sway.

You mean like how you first state that the American people will get fooled "a second time" on Iran. Then soon after you state that Iran is more than likely developing nuclear weapons? Huh? Hey! Huh? Hey! That's inconsistent and thus ILLOGICAL. You
can't have it both ways.

So then you concoct a half-baked, no fully baked, theory - and I use the term lightly - that Iran likely has a nuclear weapons program as a result of George Bush. Errr ... ok. What was all that in the 90's then? The US sanctions on Iran under Clinton and the non proliferation act under Bush I? Wow, your anti-Americanism musta been running low on gas to dream that one up. What's next? Would the Middle East have been peaceful the past 14 centuries without GWB.

Anti-Americanism. Anti-GWBism. Your version is confusianism not confucianism but just in case remember that "to learn and to practise what is learned time and again is pleasure, is it not?".

Alexism. version 1.2.

Yes, you ignored the FACT that previous US administrations and the rest of the world have been dealing with Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems for the better part of a decade.

Look 'er up. All of this INFORMATION is publicly available.

You didn't conveniently ignore that part of my prior post because you couldn't debate against logic, information and fact, did you?

No, you're (no, it is NOT "your" :rolleyes: ) NOT right but you are a liberal commie pinko Fidel lover.

You left out the fag part...

He is Canadian you know.....



:okthumb:

sucks to be you , Alex :)






;-))

You left out the fag part...

He is Canadian you know.....



:okthumb: [/b][/quote]
Oh, but I like Canadians. Nick, for example! And Shania Twain.

Fags are alright too. Man, that Gay "top 50" I ran back in the day rocked.

I rock!!

Alex sucks!!


SWEEEEEET

:)

;-)))))




and mmmmm Shania Twain ..... :)

:ph34r: Maybe you better check the fluoride content of your local water supply .... :ph34r:

I am opposed to nuclear proliferation. I would be less concerned if Canada was developing an independent nuclear capability than I am over Iran doing it. I am not any more concerned about Iran doing it than I would be if Poland or Japan started to do so.

Regardless of what the flag-draped bobbleheads chanting "Bush" and "9/11" might think or bleat, the biggest threat of a nuclear Iran is regional.

Hell's bells ... if I were Iranian, with Russia to the North and potential U.S. satellites to the east and west, I would want my own nukes too.

If I were an Iraqi (assuming that one country comes out of whatever process will follow the "elections" in January), I'd have to think that a nuclear Iran was a threat that warranted consideration of a WMD program for defensive purposes.

Personally, based on geography and demographics, I think it's nuts that Australia doesn't have a nuclear deterent.

One of the reasons I advocate larger, stronger conventional forces for the U.S. military is to reduce the possibility that we not find ourselves in a situation where the "nuclear option" is the only option available. I have never thought of nuclear weapons as just one more toy in the toybox; some of the folks on the neo-con side aren't so inclined.

Excellent....




;-)))

Colin, it isn't that they have a program BECAUSE of the boy, but they potentially have used the current "overextension" of US forces as a chance to jump ahead, with less fear of "being caught". The boy didn't cause it, but he has made it much easier for them to move ahead with it. That is all IF (big if) they are in fact going that way. My opinion is that news like this coming from Colin Powell isn't likely to make the world sit up and take notice, considering what his last call on WMD lead to.

As for the rest, well...

The middle east has never been a peaceful place (nice attempt to use an extreme exaggeration to make me look bad, you failed), but there has been a notble shift in the targets of their anger. It use to be themselves, between countries, groups, clans... now they appear to be uniting... and they have focused the anger.

Nick, it's fun over here. It's enjoyable to no end to see people using junior high debating techniques in order to avoid discussion, lowering themselves quickly to name calling, bizarre absolutes, or pointless misdirections to avoid saying "you might be right".

You will learn to love it! :rokk: :rokk: :rokk:

Ale :bjump:

I always remind myself its just words on a message board , therefore its like water off a ducks ass :)

Otherwise you could go nuts...



wibble..
penguin
screeech.


;-)))

The truth. I like it! That talk of "logic, information, and fact" must have had you feeling light-headed.

/me searches for posts where Alex first disagrees, then changes his opinion and says "you might be right"...

LOL

Alex two things in this "game" I know for certain

1) do not piss with serge ( unless the money warrants it)
2) do not debate Math , staistics , or logic with Colin
3) if Anthony asks you if you'd "like to see something nice" , don't look.It isn't.

Ok the three things I know...

I believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

I believe that an Iranian nuclear weapons program threatens the security of the United States because it threatens the stability of the Middle East.

I believe this IN SPITE of the fact that the Bush Administration agrees with me. I'd be lying if I didn't say that causes me to pause and wonder.

:ph34r: Maybe you better check the fluoride content of your local water supply .... :ph34r:
[/b][/quote]
I only drink bottled water..

Lewis Black, baby...

hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! thank you DJ for the obscure but completely hilarious reference ;-))))) :rokk:

Same shit, different century. Really. Are you familiar with the history of the Middle East?

They were much more united under the Ottaman Empire than they are today. You expecting the Caliph to come back or something? Not going to happen. 1683, baby. East meets West. West wins. 250 years until she went bust. Hasn't been the same since.

Then there was pan-Arabism. Yeah, that turned out well. Now Nasser gave 'er a try but didn't get anywhere. Nasser assassinated. Saddat assassinated. And that was the high period this century of Middle East aspirations to reunite. And the Ayatollah Khomeini? Run Rushdie, run!

The Middle East uniting? What a joke. Half the Middle East sold out to the US letting us set up operations there to attack Iraq. Iran, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia hate Iraq. The Turks wanna kill the Kurds. The Kurds wanna form their own the state. The surrounding nations support Palestine but they all reject the refugees. None of them want the tired, poor huddled Palestinian masses. What gives?

Their modes of self-identification are too fragmented. Shiite or Sunni. Persian, Turkish, or Arab. Arabic, Farsi or Turkish. Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi and so on.

There goes Colin with his junior high debating again..

Give Alex a brain-noogie until even his hair can't stand him...

Oooops, too late...

Mike W....my favorite line is...

"The only thing worse than a Democrat or a Republican is when these pricks work together."

and the problem with this is? :P


While on the whole I like Canadians, I seriously wonder about the sanity of native born Canadians
after all Canadians invented curling and play it and not the naked womens curling I have been trying for years to get to be an Olympic event


The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship
Just let the USA run the world and we will be benevolent
I promise

he he he

Colin, diversions... diversions... back to the subject at hand. Colin Powell calling "WMD" is as likely to get people excited as someone yelling "free ice cream" at the north pole.

Is the "reliable information" as good as the ones about Iraq trying to buy aluminum tubes? Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs? Those lovely "tips" from the middle of nowhere, used in Presidential speeches even after the CIA said it was likely not true?

He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.

DJ, one of the nicest things about expressing opinions (as opposed to be all seeing, all knowing) is that you can always allow that the other point of view might be correct. More often than not, in the middle of these discussions, we go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the actual subject, and as a result the conversation strays...

Alex

:okthumb: Your mama!

I agree with you there, Alex. The man is Secretary of State though and it is his job. This is an ongoing issue, not a new one. All he did was answer a question a reporter asked stating that he's seen evidence that "suggests" Iran has been "working on a delivery system". No surprise there. US administrations have been dealing with that issue since the 90s.

IMHO - The real underlaying policy is how do we get the mullahs from power? Sanctions is one way to undermine their hold on power, however since we have many bewildered people in the west then we need to give them a reason :awinky: ... Nuclear weapons could be one of the reasons, however with the current climate in world politics, then the western world will probably end up with doing nothing, and just letting the iranian people get oppressed for the next 10 years. And in those 10 years we will have to fight off mullahs trying to start civil wars in their neighbour countries - like Iraq, Afghanistan, and spreading their fundamentalist belief to muslims in europe, russia, china etc.... once the 10 years are over, then I´m sure someone will say "why didn´t the US do more to remove the mullahs from power?", and then the US will blame canada ;-))))

Rolo, might I ask the obvious (but sort of dumb) question:

Who has the right to say the Mullahs have to go?

It's a serious issue. Is the US and the US alone the judge of "good leadership" (maybe the boy can remove himself)? How do you decide that someone "has to go"? Is not the act of attempting to remove of kill the current leaders of a country in fact a declaration of war on them?

I am really starting to feel that the US wants to make everyone free, even if they have to force them to be free (which isn't really very free, now is it?).

Alex

Thats a really good question. I have some too. Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex

LOL

Alex , you are always right.



























in your own mind

In your post that I replied to, you implied that being "forced" to be free isn't "really free". At the end of World War II the nonconsensual governments of Japan and Germany were forced into becoming constitutional democracies. They were forced ... and now they are free. What does the scale have to do with my observation? If Afganistan, Iraq or both become stable democracies then I would argue that they are free and it happened as a result of war. History shows over and over again that you can occupy a nation's capital, replace its leaders and leave the people with a far better life than they had before. All of this happens against the will of many of the citizens themseves who in the end realize it was actually all for the better. Yes, the same people who were armed and fighting back. Bizarre? Nope. Just the way it goes.

I guess you could take the point that no one is free. After all, we are all slaves to our governments in various degrees. The concept of "free" would loose its meaning in that case though. At any rate, I prefer to think of myself as living under Rousseau's "Social Contract".

-------------- repeat ------------------

Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

I don't think a single person disagreed with you. Most here have the same belief you do. Iran is likely to be developing nuclear weapons. The debates in this thread are about what type of action should be taken to prevent that - not about the reliability of the "source" of Powell's intelligence. Questionable "intelligence"? Well, duh. All intelligence is questionable. If it weren't they wouldn't call it "intelligence". What did Powell say in the first place? He said he has information which "SUGGESTS" they are developing a nuclear weapon.