National Intelligence Estimate: Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 [Archive] - Page 2 - Debate Policy

red states rule

12-12-2007, 06:38 AM

Since Dems live and breath polls...

Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program

Friday, December 07, 2007
Advertisment
Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women (see crosstabs).

The survey was conducted following release of a government report saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe that the United States should continue sanctions against Iran. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and 21% are not sure.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is Very Likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the future and another 34% believe Iran is Somewhat Likely to do so.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree.

Among conservatives, just 8% believe Iran has stopped and 81% disagree.

Despite the Iranian government's protestations to the contrary, an earlier survey found that 67% believed that Iran’s nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy.

Another survey found that, most voters doubt the United States can count on its European allies when dealing with Iran. Just 1% of Americans view Iran as an ally of the United States. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States.

Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/just_18_believe_iran_has_stopped_nuclear_weapons_d evelopment_program

retiredman

12-12-2007, 07:30 AM

desire and pursuit are two different things.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 07:32 AM

desire and pursuit are two different things.

playing the word game again - the Clinton legacy lives on the world of MM

retiredman

12-12-2007, 07:35 AM

playing the word game again - the Clinton legacy lives on the world of MM

word game? I would suggest that every tinhorn dictator on the planet desires nuclear weapons. Our 16 national intelligence agencies have just got done saying that Iran, although it may DESIRE weapons, is not PURSUING them. Are you really smarter than all of them? Shit....you can't even string five sentences together without the help of CTRL-C/CTRL-V!!:laugh2:

red states rule

12-12-2007, 07:46 AM

word game? I would suggest that every tinhorn dictator on the planet desires nuclear weapons. Our 16 national intelligence agencies have just got done saying that Iran, although it may DESIRE weapons, is not PURSUING them. Are you really smarter than all of them? Shit....you can't even string five sentences together without the help of CTRL-C/CTRL-V!!:laugh2:

So now libs believe the intel agencies after smearing them for 4 years over Iraq?

Oh yes, little Adolph saw the error of his ways and is now behaving himself.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 07:53 AM

So now libs believe the intel agencies after smearing them for 4 years over Iraq?

Oh yes, little Adolph saw the error of his ways and is now behaving himself.

I asked if YOU believed them, after defending them for four years. Do you? and if not, why the change??

red states rule

12-12-2007, 07:56 AM

I asked if YOU believed them, after defending them for four years. Do you? and if not, why the change??

There is no reason to think this nut has given up on wanting nukes. He has all the materials he needs to make them - why should he stop

He knows the Dems will leap to his defense - like they are the other terrorist groups in the world

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 08:02 AM

Let me refresh your memory then.

<blockquote>And as for listening to the White House and the likes of Newt Gingrich, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz bitch about intelligence being used to fix a policy is like listening to John Wayne Gacy complain about men who get their kicks from raping and killing teen-age boys. They need to save their phony outrage for the remaining hard-core retards who are still credulous enough to believe their bullshit.

As for the NIE itself, it's not an opinion piece. The White House its remaining neo-con supporters are all in a lather because the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The Bush administration and its fellow travelers, such as yourself Sir Evil, are all pissed off because the well oiled propaganda machine that was cranked up to convince Americans that the only course was war with Iran just had a monkey wrench thrown into it. During the run up to the war with Iraq, had the objections of the intelligence community received a similar airing to this most recent NIE, the Bush administration could not have sold America on invading Iraq.
Here is where you are wrong Bully, I support some things by the administration but far from everything. The difference is that you have such hatred for the administration that anyone showing any sign of support to any of their decisions is automatically clumped into a single category of a 100% Bush supporter.
Now I think the administration has been pushing for tougher sanctions on Iran but that is a far cry from war, Of course that hatred makes that assumption for you.

The analysis presented in the NIE in no way infringes on Bush's authority to pursue any misguided, crack-pot, dangerous course of action he wants to pursue. It simply robs him of the ability to rely on his own half-baked, misinformed, feckless personal beliefs. He and the rest of his administration can no longer say that Iran is building nukes. The intelligence community gave the President its best judgment on the matter. The real question now is whether or not Chimpy McPresident and Unca' Dick will stop indulging their Iranian fantasy.</blockquote>
So let me understand this, they invaded Iraq for personal fantasies? And now they wish to do this again with Iran? I wonder if George & Dick also play a mean game of electronic battleship in their spare time. :rolleyes:

Are you going to debate the issues? Or are you simply going to waste more bandwidth with the puerile, insipid insults which you mistakenly characterize as rational argument? My money is on the latter. Dismissed.

What are you looking to debate Bully, the facts that you presented on the "fixed" intel? Hasn't happened yet. That the war in Iraq was all based on the "fixed" reports? We have done that one million, and two times already.
That George & Dick live out daily fantasies when talking war? Well that is kind of like your own personal opinion as well, not to interesting, and not really worth debating.

Dismiss me if you would like but you are yet to lay out anything here that isn't just pure opinion. The stuff of "fixed" intel, yet not a single thing seriously done about it until this day. The NIE report with the assumption that Bush already had us in war with Iran. Ok Bully, grab one of those bedpans and tightly wrap it around your head, it will be way better then tinfoil....

retiredman

12-12-2007, 08:02 AM

There is no reason to think this nut has given up on wanting nukes. He has all the materials he needs to make them - why should he stop

He knows the Dems will leap to his defense - like they are the other terrorist groups in the world

the only reason to think he has stopped his pursuit of nukes would be the well reasoned National Intelligence Estimate. But you seem to think that you are smarter than all the combined intelligence gathering agencies of the US.... so, I guess that is all that needs to be said!

red states rule

12-12-2007, 08:05 AM

the only reason to think he has stopped his pursuit of nukes would be the well reasoned National Intelligence Estimate. But you seem to think that you are smarter than all the combined intelligence gathering agencies of the US.... so, I guess that is all that needs to be said!

Well reasoned as long as it fits your predetermined view and your hate for Pres Bush

Libs like you will always side with America's enemies if it means going against Pres Bush

retiredman

12-12-2007, 08:13 AM

Well reasoned as long as it fits your predetermined view and your hate for Pres Bush

Libs like you will always side with America's enemies if it means going against Pres Bush

So...you do think that you are smarter than the combined membership of the sixteen national intelligence agencies...

that is all I wanted to hear. We're done.:dance:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 08:15 AM

But you seem to think that you are smarter than all the combined intelligence gathering agencies of the US.... so, I guess that is all that needs to be said!

Yep, and you think you are smarter than everyone else. Good thing all those combined Intelligence agencies have the power of seeing the futre, and exactly what Iran will do with their resources. :rolleyes:

red states rule

12-12-2007, 08:20 AM

Yep, and you think you are smarter than everyone else. Good thing all those combined Intelligence agencies have the power of seeing the futre, and exactly what Iran will do with their resources. :rolleyes:

This from the same moonbat who blasted the intel folks for their WMD report. All that matters to MM is if it goes against what Pres Bush says - other facts are not important

retiredman

12-12-2007, 08:20 AM

Yep, and you think you are smarter than everyone else. Good thing all those combined Intelligence agencies have the power of seeing the futre, and exactly what Iran will do with their resources. :rolleyes:

You are wrong. I most certainly do NOT think that I am smarter than everyone else..... but I certainly AM smarter than YOU!:lol:

And the NIE did not talk about the future...it talked about the present and it talked about what has happened since 2003...but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 08:24 AM

retiredman

12-12-2007, 08:25 AM

Your arrogance out oozes like pus from a boil

trust me...nothing out-oozes YOU! :lol:

red states rule

12-12-2007, 08:28 AM

trust me...nothing out-oozes YOU! :lol:

Oh, what a comeback

Mr Arrogance is at a loss for words

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 08:28 AM

You are wrong. I most certainly do NOT think that I am smarter than everyone else..... but I certainly AM smarter than YOU!:lol:

And the NIE did not talk about the future...it talked about the present and it talked about what has happened since 2003...but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Ok, Ok, I can't compete with such genius on the daily scheme of things, I bow to your superiority, and wonders of such intelect.....:rolleyes:

I think everyone in the world is pretty sure that Iran does not have the capabilites at the moment, that is the easy part, but whats next?
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that being the current report is another piece to spin while attempting to say that it proves everything the Bush admin. has been saying is a lie. I can certainly understand when the admin. says that "we will not let Iran have nuclear capabilites" it was simply suggesting that they will not let them keep the program for their peaceful purposes or we are goint to war...

glockmail

12-12-2007, 09:34 AM

MM stared this string of insults with his post 260. Lets get back on track.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 09:46 AM

Ok, Ok, I can't compete with such genius on the daily scheme of things, I bow to your superiority, and wonders of such intelect.....:rolleyes:

I think everyone in the world is pretty sure that Iran does not have the capabilites at the moment, that is the easy part, but whats next?
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that being the current report is another piece to spin while attempting to say that it proves everything the Bush admin. has been saying is a lie. I can certainly understand when the admin. says that "we will not let Iran have nuclear capabilites" it was simply suggesting that they will not let them keep the program for their peaceful purposes or we are goint to war...

the current report is the best estimate of the best minds in America's intelligence community...all of whom work for the executive branch of the government. I think that Bush was fearmongering about Iran....Hell...we don't want to let any non-nuclear country have nuclear capabilities...the sentence you quote it fluff and has Iran in int only because Bush wants to ramp up thre fear.... it is why he mentioned mushroom clouds before invading Iraq, and it it why he mentions WWIII when talking about Iran. It's fear. I am personally insulted when the president tries to mislead me by fear... and that would be the case regardless of the party of the president involved.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 09:51 AM

Oh, what a comeback

Mr Arrogance is at a loss for words

no loss for words. I was wondering what the term "out oozes" means. You used it...can you explain it?

Sertes

12-12-2007, 10:16 AM

I think everyone in the world is pretty sure that Iran does not have the capabilites at the moment, that is the easy part, but whats next?

Sorry, you missed (or pretend to have missed) the other half:

2) NIE judge the earliest possible date Iran could be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, and even that is very unlikely. Iran could be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges that it would be unlikely before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)

That is, while no program is currently running (currently is mid 2007, as the report is built at that time, on data available at that time), EVEN IF IT WOULD RESTART, there's no chanche whatsoever to produce enough HEU for one weapon until late 2009 at best, or 2013 by a reasonable estimate of U.S. Bureou of Intelligence and Research

There are no unclear parts in NIE report, you either accept it fully (along with IAEA study which has the same conclusions) or you do dismiss it entirely.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:22 AM

Sorry, you missed (or pretend to have missed) the other half:

That is, while no program is currently running (currently is mid 2007, as the report is built at that time, on data available at that time), EVEN IF IT WOULD RESTART, there's no chanche whatsoever to produce enough HEU for one weapon until late 2009 at best, or 2013 by a reasonable estimate of U.S. Bureou of Intelligence and Research

There are no unclear parts in NIE report, you either accept it fully (along with IAEA study which has the same conclusions) or you do dismiss it entirely.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to make sense of the english language you dumb fucking cannoli!

"Sorry, you missed (or pretend to have missed)" what I said, read this very slowly now so it sinks in:

I think everyone in the world is pretty sure that Iran does not have the capabilites at the moment, that is the easy part, but whats next?

Ok now dipshit, read the part in bold in see if it makes any sense to you. :rolleyes:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:24 AM

the current report is the best estimate of the best minds in America's intelligence community...all of whom work for the executive branch of the government. I think that Bush was fearmongering about Iran....Hell...we don't want to let any non-nuclear country have nuclear capabilities...the sentence you quote it fluff and has Iran in int only because Bush wants to ramp up thre fear.... it is why he mentioned mushroom clouds before invading Iraq, and it it why he mentions WWIII when talking about Iran. It's fear. I am personally insulted when the president tries to mislead me by fear... and that would be the case regardless of the party of the president involved.

Ramping up the fear to what, heavier sanctions? Yeah I know that applying more sanctions has me shaking in my shoes...

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:31 AM

Ramping up the fear to what, heavier sanctions? Yeah I know that applying more sanctions has me shaking in my shoes...

maybe not...but I bet WWIII does!:lol:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:37 AM

maybe not...but I bet WWIII does!:lol:

This clearly show why you are an idiot. How does heavier sanctions equate to WWIII? Because they claimed military issues remained a option? Like other countries I'm sure there has been plans drafted for the possibilities. The only fear is for those idots like yourself that assume applying more sanction on Iran automatically means we are going to war.

For a guy who claims to be so smart you sure come of sounding like a fucking retard often.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:58 AM

This clearly show why you are an idiot. How does heavier sanctions equate to WWIII? Because they claimed military issues remained a option? Like other countries I'm sure there has been plans drafted for the possibilities. The only fear is for those idots like yourself that assume applying more sanction on Iran automatically means we are going to war.

For a guy who claims to be so smart you sure come of sounding like a fucking retard often.

OK... let's see if we can go over this slowly using small words so that the dumb brother has a chance of understanding it.

I never equated heavier sanctions to WWIII. You had said that heavier sanctions would not frighten you. I have never suggested that George Bush has ever tried to frighten America with heavier sanctions on Iraq...what I have suggested is that Bush HAS tried to frighten American with WORLD WAR THREE, YOU STUPID MORON!!!! I certainly do not think that applying sanctions will cause such a conflagration. I am suggesting that our president leads by fear. Like he did before the Iraq war....get America good and scared and then they'll follow you because they think you'll protect them from what you've just got done frightening them with.

I hope that clears it up for you.:laugh2:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 11:15 AM

OK... let's see if we can go over this slowly using small words so that the dumb brother has a chance of understanding it.

I never equated heavier sanctions to WWIII. You had said that heavier sanctions would not frighten you. I have never suggested that George Bush has ever tried to frighten America with heavier sanctions on Iraq...what I have suggested is that Bush HAS tried to frighten American with WORLD WAR THREE, YOU STUPID MORON!!!! I certainly do not think that applying sanctions will cause such a conflagration. I am suggesting that our president leads by fear. Like he did before the Iraq war....get America good and scared and then they'll follow you because they think you'll protect them from what you've just got done frightening them with.

I hope that clears it up for you.:laugh2:

Yes it has cleared up the fact that I already suggested, and that is you simply have the opinion that Bush was aiming to take us into war with Iran but those plans were put on hold because of this NIE report. And ONCE again I will point out that I have stated already that I think NOBODY believes that Iran has the capabilities at the moment.

Now tell me dickhead, how does a report that says they stopped the nuclear program in 2003 suggest what the uranium they are processing now will be used for?

I get it, lets just assume they are doing the right thing so Bush doesn't take us into war by seeking heavier sanctions.

Yeah, I was terribly afraid that WWIII was on the horizon over heavier sanctions....fucking retard.:rolleyes:

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:27 AM

Yeah, I was terribly afraid that WWIII was on the horizon over heavier sanctions....fucking retard.:rolleyes:

there are two types of people who don't get frightened by George Bush's sabre rattling and references to World War Three. Morons like you who are too fucking stupid to come in out of the rain. and people like me who don't trust our president any further than we can throw him.

We may arrive at our fearlessness from different directions, but we do have it in common.:laugh2:

Gaffer

12-12-2007, 11:35 AM

Sertes

12-12-2007, 12:34 PM

iran is not going to have nukes until 2009, 2010, 2015 and so on. If they don't use them immediately they will at least threaten the surrounding countries with them. They are working on ICBM's. And other ways to deliver the bomb once they have it.

So how long do we wait? At what point do we take action? Sanctions only work if EVERYONE takes part and that will never happen. Do we wait until they are right on the verge of having the weapon? Do we wait till they have it? Do we strike before they can complete it? Can the intelligence community give an accurate estimate on where iran stands with completion of the bomb? Do we strike before iran does? or do we wait for iran to strike first?

A lot of questions, just to support your crazy idea of attacking yet another nation that is no threat for anyone.

The chimp and his master were pushing to bomb Iran before end of term, now they cannot because at least this time their lies were uncovered.

But let we try answer your questions, to be constructive:

So how long do we wait? We wait until they resume their nuclear program, because if they don't, we are settled

At what point do we take action? When they're close to completion, that is 2013 if they started today

Do we wait until they are right on the verge of having the weapon? What use is to do otherwise, to scare the Iranian civilans to death for no reason?

Do we wait till they have it? Just a month before, maybe two to be on the safe side

Do we strike before they can complete it? That depends on what U.N. decides at THAT time, probably yes.

Can the intelligence community give an accurate estimate on where iran stands with completion of the bomb? They already did. Read the fucking original

Do we strike before iran does? Hopefully before, that is IF they resume their program, they assemble a bomb and a vector, and acutally try to use it.

or do we wait for iran to strike first? Well, doing that for the 12.000 nukes the eastern block had assured 60 years of peace, I don't see why it shouldn't work this time too. That is (again) IF they resume their program, they assemble a bomb and a vector.

Sertes

12-12-2007, 12:37 PM

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to make sense of the english language you dumb fucking cannoli!

"Sorry, you missed (or pretend to have missed)" what I said, read this very slowly now so it sinks in:

I think everyone in the world is pretty sure that Iran does not have the capabilites at the moment, that is the easy part, but whats next?

Ok now dipshit, read the part in bold in see if it makes any sense to you. :rolleyes:

Sorry, my fault, I didn't understand that "at the moment" means to you "whitin at least the next 6 years". I should study "Sir Evil version of English" too.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 01:36 PM

there are two types of people who don't get frightened by George Bush's sabre rattling and references to World War Three. Morons like you who are too fucking stupid to come in out of the rain. and people like me who don't trust our president any further than we can throw him.

We may arrive at our fearlessness from different directions, but we do have it in common.:laugh2:

Negative! There is a single type of moron that fears this so called sabre rattling, and it's called democrats.

So even if you aren't implying that more sanction is the begining of war which you are very obviously trying to suggest, where on earth do you come up with WWIII even had we gone to war with Iran? So that constitutes WWIII or the simple fact that the administration suggest a nuclear armed Iran could spark WWIII.

Try to spin it any way you want to but the bottom line all your so called smarts still has you looking like a fucking idiot.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 01:38 PM

Sorry, my fault, I didn't understand that "at the moment" means to you "whitin at least the next 6 years". I should study "Sir Evil version of English" too.

Indeed you should because any idiot can get the gist of at the moment[u] or [u]in the future.

Now read more careful cannoli, and perhaps your future posts won't come out sounding half assed.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Negative! There is a single type of moron that fears this so called sabre rattling, and it's called democrats.

So even if you aren't implying that more sanction is the begining of war which you are very obviously trying to suggest, where on earth do you come up with WWIII even had we gone to war with Iran? So that constitutes WWIII or the simple fact that the administration suggest a nuclear armed Iran could spark WWIII.

Try to spin it any way you want to but the bottom line all your so called smarts still has you looking like a fucking idiot.

What is clear to a moron, is not really always all that clear to anyone else.

I said nothing, implied nothing, suggested nothing about sanctions in any way.

and where do I come up with WWIII? I dunno...I listen to the president? maybe you should put down your crayons, turn off the cartoon network, grow the fuck up and realize that is was YOUR president who "came up with WWIII"!:laugh2:

what an idiot!

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 01:51 PM

What is clear to a moron, is not really always all that clear to anyone else.

I said nothing, implied nothing, suggested nothing about sanctions in any way.

and where do I come up with WWIII? I dunno...I listen to the president? maybe you should put down your crayons, turn off the cartoon network, grow the fuck up and realize that is was YOUR president who "came up with WWIII"!:laugh2:

what an idiot!

Back track a bit more dingleberry, what is it the president said about WWIII? What has the president been trying to do as far as Iran was concerned.

You suggested nothing about sanction because I did, that is what they have been aiming for recently but you somehow feel this NIE report is somehow saving the world from WWIII.

The fucking moron here is the person making posts of pure assumptions that we were heading for unavoidable war because of his hatred for Bush. The one pumping up the whole "he is trying to instill fear" to lead us into a war.
Purely opinion, nothing factual, and as usual well imagined to be the right thing.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 02:00 PM

Back track a bit more dingleberry, what is it the president said about WWIII? What has the president been trying to do as far as Iran was concerned.

You suggested nothing about sanction because I did, that is what they have been aiming for recently but you somehow feel this NIE report is somehow saving the world from WWIII.

The fucking moron here is the person making posts of pure assumptions that we were heading for unavoidable war because of his hatred for Bush. The one pumping up the whole "he is trying to instill fear" to lead us into a war.
Purely opinion, nothing factual, and as usual well imagined to be the right thing.

what he SAID is not as important as what he DID...he scared people.

Your analysis of my words is about toddler level. Really fucking stupid. No shit. I do NOT think the NIE is saving the world for anything. I think it is merely forcing Bush to soften his rhetoric. I have NEVER suggested we were headed for unavoidable war. EVER. Bush IS trying to lead with fear.... I doubt he would dare invade Iran given his low approval ratings and the state of US military assets, but fear is his only rallying cry these days. And of course, I am expressing my opinion...this is a fucking MESSAGE BOARD, MORON! And when YOU express YOUR opinion, do you imagine it to be the WRONG thing?????:laugh2:

Sertes

12-12-2007, 02:02 PM

Indeed you should because any idiot can get the gist of at the moment[u] or [u]in the future.

Now read more careful cannoli, and perhaps your future posts won't come out sounding half assed.

Your apology is accepted.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:10 PM

what he SAID is not as important as what he DID...he scared people.
:lol::lol::lol:
Are ya Skeered you spinless little man?

Your analysis of my words is about toddler level. Really fucking stupid. No shit. I do NOT think the NIE is saving the world for anything. I think it is merely forcing Bush to soften his rhetoric. I have NEVER suggested we were headed for unavoidable war. EVER. Bush IS trying to lead with fear.... I doubt he would dare invade Iran given his low approval ratings and the state of US military assets, but fear is his only rallying cry these days. And of course, I am expressing my opinion...this is a fucking MESSAGE BOARD, MORON! And when YOU express YOUR opinion, do you imagine it to be the WRONG thing?????:laugh2:

Ok so if the fear is what he is trying to lead with is what, sanctions or war?
Or what the fuck is he trying to make people fear? Not a fucking thing, just more rants from leftist idiots trying to spin things in a negative direction to further the whole cause of votes.

Do I imagine my opinion to be the wrong thing? certainly it will be to some but at least I'm not jumping to conclusion based of things that there is no facts to support. The fact is that the administration has been trying to get another round of sanctions on Iran, it was said many times that they are seeking a diplomatic approach. When the administration suggested we could face WWIII with a nuclear armed Iran it is a far reach to suggest that is leading by fear! But then again someone spineless like yourself Just might see it that way. :rolleyes:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:12 PM

Your apology is accepted.

Terrific! Now go grab a bottle of wine, a pizza & go fuck yourself....:fu:

retiredman

12-12-2007, 02:15 PM

Ok so if the fear is what he is trying to lead with is what, sanctions or war?

nonsensical moronic sentence... what the fuck does that even MEAN????

I swear... talking with you is like talking with a toddler.:laugh2:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:18 PM

nonsensical moronic sentence... what the fuck does that even MEAN????

I swear... talking with you is like talking with a toddler.:laugh2:

Another very typical move, instead of answering the question you reply quoting a typo.

Ok, a little clearer now retard:

so if the fear is what he is trying to lead with, is it for, sanctions or war?

glockmail

12-12-2007, 02:23 PM

nonsensical moronic sentence... what the fuck does that even MEAN????

I swear... talking with you is like talking with a toddler.:laugh2: Pot, meet kettle.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 02:25 PM

Another very typical move, instead of answering the question you reply quoting a typo.

Ok, a little clearer now retard:

so if the fear is what he is trying to lead with, is it for, sanctions or war?

it was your very first sentence. If you offer me a seven course meal, and the first course you offer is a dog turd, I doubt that I am going to stick around to try the "dessert".:laugh2:

And I have no idea where Bush is trying to mislead us to.... I only know that I am not following him there. I personally think that Cheney would LOVE to conduct some form of military action against Iran before the end of this presidency, but that is only my opinion. I do NOT think that fear is necessary for Bush to convince Americans that we should increase sanctions against Iran...the vast majority of Americans don't even know what that means and even fewer would be aware of any direct consequences of them.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:31 PM

And I have no idea where Bush is trying to mislead us to....

And that about sums up the majority of what you had to say within this thread.

I only know that I am not following him there. I personally think that Cheney would LOVE to conduct some form of military action against Iran before the end of this presidency, but that is only my opinion. I do NOT think that fear is necessary for Bush to convince Americans that we should increase sanctions against Iran...the vast majority of Americans don't even know what that means and even fewer would be aware of any direct consequences of them.

Well then once again as it can't be much easier than this:

WHAT IS IT THAT BUSH IS DOING THAT WE SHOULD BE IN FEAR OF OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION???

Really, it's not that hard!

retiredman

12-12-2007, 02:44 PM

Well then once again as it can't be much easier than this:

WHAT IS IT THAT BUSH IS DOING THAT WE SHOULD BE IN FEAR OF OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION???

Really, it's not that hard!

Bush is not doing my own opinion.:laugh2:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:47 PM

Bush is not doing my own opinion.:laugh2:

Another typical answer. And who are those that should still be playing with crayons?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

retiredman

12-12-2007, 02:54 PM

Another typical answer. And who are those that should still be playing with crayons?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
your sentence, which I diagrammed with color, asks: "what is it that Bush is doing"...

"that we should be afraid" of refers to what he is doing

as does
"other than your own opinion"

as in....

"what is bush eating that would make him sick other than a rotten egg."

Do yourself a favor. Learn how to use the fucking language and then let's talk.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 02:58 PM

"what is bush eating that would make him sick other than a rotten egg."

I dunno, your momma?

Just can't answer the question because you are simply backpedaling on your own spin.

What a worm......

bullypulpit

12-12-2007, 03:06 PM

Here is where you are wrong Bully, I support some things by the administration but far from everything. The difference is that you have such hatred for the administration that anyone showing any sign of support to any of their decisions is automatically clumped into a single category of a 100% Bush supporter.
Now I think the administration has been pushing for tougher sanctions on Iran but that is a far cry from war, Of course that hatred makes that assumption for you.

Here's where YOU are wrong, Evil. I understand that you haven't been marching in lockstep with the Bush administration and its willing dupes. What you fail to understand is that I don't hate Bush. Hatred requires personal involvement and emotional energy, the first of which I lack and the second of which he isn't worth. I maintained an open mind about his candidacy until I reviewed his record in Texas as governor and earlier. I voted for Nader in 2000, and was resigned to Bush being a lackluster one term wonder. But that went away with 9/11. Since then the Bush administration have sought every means at their disposal, and then some, to accrue power to the executive branch in pursuit of the "unitary executive". This is just another term for a dictator...Something which is completely antithetical to the Constitution and the Republic.

So let me understand this, they invaded Iraq for personal fantasies? And now they wish to do this again with Iran? I wonder if George & Dick also play a mean game of electronic battleship in their spare time. :rolleyes:

Personal fantasies...? Well having read PNAC's <a href=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, forces and Resources For a New Century"</a>, it seems to be more of a group wet-dream than a personal fantasy. US hegemony in the Middle East.

What are you looking to debate Bully, the facts that you presented on the "fixed" intel? Hasn't happened yet. That the war in Iraq was all based on the "fixed" reports? We have done that one million, and two times already.
That George & Dick live out daily fantasies when talking war? Well that is kind of like your own personal opinion as well, not to interesting, and not really worth debating.

You don't debate...you simply stoop to name calling and sarcasm. As for facts, I and others have provided numerous links to facts which are a matter of public record, yet you refuse to accept the facts. None are so blind as those who will not see. Your ignorance is willful.

Dismiss me if you would like but you are yet to lay out anything here that isn't just pure opinion. The stuff of "fixed" intel, yet not a single thing seriously done about it until this day. The NIE report with the assumption that Bush already had us in war with Iran. Ok Bully, grab one of those bedpans and tightly wrap it around your head, it will be way better then tinfoil....

One of Nancy Pelosi's first acts upon assuming the House speakership was to take impeachment proceedings against Bush and his administration "off the table". The years in which the Republicans held the majority and failed to act was the abdication of their constitutional duties. Both cases are gross malfeasance on the part of our elected officials. Now, I'll wrap a bed pan around my head if you give your ears a good tug an pop your head out of your ass.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 03:15 PM

I dunno, your momma?

Just can't answer the question because you are simply backpedaling on your own spin.

What a worm......

look...moron...I don't understand your fucking question...it is nonsensical. If I knew what you were asking me, I would try to answer it. Don't call me a worm just because your command of the english language is so deficient you can't even write a coherent sentence!

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 03:16 PM

Here's where YOU are wrong, Evil. I understand that you haven't been marching in lockstep with the Bush administration and its willing dupes. What you fail to understand is that I don't hate Bush. Hatred requires personal involvement and emotional energy, the first of which I lack and the second of which he isn't worth. I maintained an open mind about his candidacy until I reviewed his record in Texas as governor and earlier. I voted for Nader in 2000, and was resigned to Bush being a lackluster one term wonder. But that went away with 9/11. Since then the Bush administration have sought every means at their disposal, and then some, to accrue power to the executive branch in pursuit of the "unitary executive". This is just another term for a dictator...Something which is completely antithetical to the Constitution and the Republic.
Fair enough...

Personal fantasies...? Well having read PNAC's <a href=http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, forces and Resources For a New Century"</a>, it seems to be more of a group wet-dream than a personal fantasy. US hegemony in the Middle East.
Ok, another personal opinion.

You don't debate...you simply stoop to name calling and sarcasm. As for facts, I and others have provided numerous links to facts which are a matter of public record, yet you refuse to accept the facts. None are so blind as those who will not see. Your ignorance is willful.

The fact are not so good when nothing comes of them are they Bully? You see them for facts, other don't.

I also said with one of my first posts to you that I have read most of these so called facts, you just continued to ramble with them. I think if you go back you will see that I may of been sarcastic as I always am but you were the first to drop the name calling. Either way it really doesn't bother me Bully, I have fun with it even if it's the same stuff we so called debated years ago.

One of Nancy Pelosi's first acts upon assuming the House speakership was to take impeachment proceedings against Bush and his administration "off the table". The years in which the Republicans held the majority and failed to act was the abdication of their constitutional duties. Both cases are gross malfeasance on the part of our elected officials.

Again with all the evidence you claim you & others have produced one would think it would be enough to get the job done.

Now, I'll wrap a bed pan around my head if you give your ears a good tug an pop your head out of your ass.

You have a deal! :D

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 03:17 PM

look...moron...I don't understand your fucking question...it is nonsensical. If I knew what you were asking me, I would try to answer it. Don't call me a worm just because your command of the english language is so deficient you can't even write a coherent sentence!

Please simply explain the fear factor? How is Bush doing this? Just something of your own opinion again?

retiredman

12-12-2007, 03:22 PM

Please simply explain the fear factor? How is Bush doing this? Just something of your own opinion again?

I think when Bush raises the spectre of World War Three one should expect it to result in an increase in fear. Are you old enough to remember bomb shelters in the back yard, nuclear drills in school where little children got down under their desks, air raid warnings? America has been afraid of WWIII before, and mentioning it again would logically cause the fear to rise. One would not expect such a reference to bring upon feelings of euphoria, would one?

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 03:41 PM

I think when Bush raises the spectre of World War Three one should expect it to result in an increase in fear. Are you old enough to remember bomb shelters in the back yard, nuclear drills in school where little children got down under their desks, air raid warnings? America has been afraid of WWIII before, and mentioning it again would logically cause the fear to rise. One would not expect such a reference to bring upon feelings of euphoria, would one?

And if Iran does in fact succeed in their nuclear ambitions it's a very possible reality. Again coming back to the current NIE report, and how you & many others are trying to spin it. Fact is the administration has expressed a diplomatic approach with Iran on many occasions, seeking more sanctions was the current approach. Suggesting Bush is using any kind of scare tactics when talking about Iran is a total reach.

What is a more likely fear:
1 - Bush's rhetoric as you see it
2 - Iran actually having nuclear capabilities

As far as I am concerend it's a no brainer, and with the uneeded controversy of the NIE report, and how Bush was already trying to mislead us into another war is nothing more than political spin. There is nothing, not a damn thing that suggest Iran that is now enriching uranium will not seek to create nuclear weapon, nor any kind of guarantee that they won't.

Simply put, if Iran does develop nuclear weapons there will indeed be WWIII.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 04:07 PM

Sertes

12-12-2007, 04:18 PM

Simply put, if Iran does develop nuclear weapons there will indeed be WWIII.

Since both IAEA and all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded there's no nuclar weapon program running in Iran, if you still want to claim the opposite, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then you should open an apposite thread in the conspiracy theories section

:dance:

glockmail

12-12-2007, 04:33 PM

Sertes

12-12-2007, 04:48 PM

None of these agencies is reporting that as anywhere close to conclusive. In fact they use so many cya staments they essentially say nothing.

Are you sure you read the original? You should really do.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 04:54 PM

Are you sure you read the original? You should really do. You made the claim. Link to some summaries and prove yourself right.

Sertes

12-12-2007, 05:16 PM

You made the claim. Link to some summaries and prove yourself right.

I did it in the first message, please take a review of it. It contains both the NIE findings and the link to the original.

As for IAEA, the following are highlights from the August (latest) document:

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

The last word from El Baradei, IAEA Director General is on IAEA official website:

Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate on Iran

4 December 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.

(from the homepage, click the fourth blue link, the direct link is this: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html)

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 06:28 PM

Since both IAEA and all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded there's no nuclar weapon program running in Iran, if you still want to claim the opposite, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then you should open an apposite thread in the conspiracy theories section

:dance:

You really are a dumb fucker!

Again may I remind you what I said:

Simply put, if Iran does develop nuclear weapons there will indeed be WWIII.

Ok now, detect the bolded part again and it should start to echo some sense in that hollow space between your ears.

Secondly I don't care who claimed what about Iran, go back through the thread and see where I have mentioned one single time that they did have any kind of nuclear capabilities. I did say several times that not a single report can conclude that they are not going to seek a nuclear weapon.

Now let this sink in my little ravioli, Iran are not to be trusted with water pistol, they are the living neanderthal, and dumb little semi-brown people that have been chanting death to different countries for the past quarter century.
Their leader publicly says that another country should be annihilated, wiped off the map, and you think they should be trusted with any kind of nuclear material?

If you still want to twist the word of what I have been saying then you shouldn't post anywhere except the conspiracy section. Once it has been seen that you can make a reply without the obvious retardation syndrome you might be allowed to be taken somewhat serious, and be able to post amongst the normal people here. Until that time have another pizza & go fuck yourself. :fu:

retiredman

12-12-2007, 09:04 PM

And if Iran does in fact succeed in their nuclear ambitions it's a very possible reality. Again coming back to the current NIE report, and how you & many others are trying to spin it. Fact is the administration has expressed a diplomatic approach with Iran on many occasions, seeking more sanctions was the current approach. Suggesting Bush is using any kind of scare tactics when talking about Iran is a total reach.

What is a more likely fear:
1 - Bush's rhetoric as you see it
2 - Iran actually having nuclear capabilities

As far as I am concerend it's a no brainer, and with the uneeded controversy of the NIE report, and how Bush was already trying to mislead us into another war is nothing more than political spin. There is nothing, not a damn thing that suggest Iran that is now enriching uranium will not seek to create nuclear weapon, nor any kind of guarantee that they won't.

Simply put, if Iran does develop nuclear weapons there will indeed be WWIII.

and if pigs grow wings, they'll fly. the fact is... the mention of WWIII is fearmongering, especially when he KNEW at the time he said it, that his own best intelligence said that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 09:38 PM

I did it in the first message, please take a review of it. It contains both the NIE findings and the link to the original.

As for IAEA, the following are highlights from the August (latest) document:

The last word from El Baradei, IAEA Director General is on IAEA official website:

(from the homepage, click the fourth blue link, the direct link is this: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html)
Aren't you the one who belives that 911 was an inside job?

glockmail

12-12-2007, 09:39 PM

retiredman

12-12-2007, 09:55 PM

puppet?

I have absolutely NO problem acknowledging and praising American military success and dominance in Iraq.

As I have said earlier, I do not believe that Iraqis are as keen on multicultural democracy as Americans are. Our own generals have said that the BIGGEST threat facing the achievement of our long term objectives in Iraq is NOT Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army or the Sunni militias, or the dysfunctional Iraqi police force, but rather the inability of Iraqi political leaders to exhibit the will necessary to form a government that works.

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:00 PM

and if pigs grow wings, they'll fly. the fact is... the mention of WWIII is fearmongering, especially when he KNEW at the time he said it, that his own best intelligence said that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program.

You are just as retarded if not more than Sertes, at least he can be slightly excused for being a conspiracy theorist but you are just a fucking idiot who is simply spinning reality.

We know what was said, we know how you have said, two very different things.

Again, Iran with nuclear capabilities is a very real threat of WWIII, wanting more sanctions to but pressure on them in hopes that they do not go that route is a far cry from fearmongering ya old fucking idiot.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:04 PM

You are just as retarded if not more than Sertes, at least he can be slightly excused for being a conspiracy theorist but you are just a fucking idiot who is simply spinning reality.

We know what was said, we know how you have said, two very different things.

Again, Iran with nuclear capabilities is a very real threat of WWIII, wanting more sanctions to but pressure on them in hopes that they do not go that route is a far cry from fearmongering ya old fucking idiot.

Again... pigs with wings are a real threat to air traffic safety. I have no problem with more sanctions. I have a problem with fearmongering. Mentioning WWIII is fearmongering. period. and what two very different things have I said? I'll wait.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 10:11 PM

[1]puppet?

I have absolutely NO problem acknowledging and praising American military success and dominance in Iraq.

As I have said earlier, I do not believe that Iraqis are as keen on multicultural democracy as Americans are. [2]Our own generals have said that the BIGGEST threat facing the achievement of our long term objectives in Iraq is NOT Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army or the Sunni militias, or the dysfunctional Iraqi police force, but rather the inability of Iraqi political leaders to exhibit the will necessary to form a government that works.

1. Yes, of Harry Reid.
2. Sounds remarkably like Democrats. :lol:

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:13 PM

Again... pigs with wings are a real threat to air traffic safety. I have no problem with more sanctions. I have a problem with fearmongering. Mentioning WWIII is fearmongering. period. and what two very different things have I said? I'll wait.

Two different things? what you said, and what Bush said, that's two different things.

Simple - Bush is trying to lead by fear when he speaks of WWIII when you know damn well that is in reference to Iran, and if they were to have the capability of nuclear weapons. And if you think telling the world anything different about Iran is the truth well then you are just plain naive. Irans leader has said enough himself to prove what kind of problems we would see if they were nuclear armed.

You are simply trying to spin the truth to make it out that the admin. had a hard on for another war when it was very clear they are going the diplomatic route. Understoof though, it's the same crap your party is pushing to garner more votes.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:18 PM

1. Yes, of Harry Reid.
2. Sounds remarkably like Democrats. :lol:

1. Offer proof of that claim or retract it.

2. perhaps. it also sounds like military commanders.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:21 PM

Two different things? what you said, and what Bush said, that's two different things.

Simple - Bush is trying to lead by fear when he speaks of WWIII when you know damn well that is in reference to Iran, and if they were to have the capability of nuclear weapons. And if you think telling the world anything different about Iran is the truth well then you are just plain naive. Irans leader has said enough himself to prove what kind of problems we would see if they were nuclear armed.

You are simply trying to spin the truth to make it out that the admin. had a hard on for another war when it was very clear they are going the diplomatic route. Understoof though, it's the same crap your party is pushing to garner more votes.

I understand that the WWIII remark was made in reference to Iran. I am suggesting that, to a large number of Americans who lived through the cold war, raising the spectre of WWIII in any context is fearmongering. Did YOU ever have to crawl under your desk when you were six years old scared shitless of a russian bomb lighting up the sky? Fearmongering. period.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 10:29 PM

1. Offer proof of that claim or retract it.

2. perhaps. it also sounds like military commanders.

1. Harry Reid: "The war can't be won." Maineman: "The war can't be won."

2. You just said that the military has done a fine job. Democrats, however, are doing poorly (see Congress).

Sir Evil

12-12-2007, 10:35 PM

I understand that the WWIII remark was made in reference to Iran. I am suggesting that, to a large number of Americans who lived through the cold war, raising the spectre of WWIII in any context is fearmongering. Did YOU ever have to crawl under your desk when you were six years old scared shitless of a russian bomb lighting up the sky? Fearmongering. period.

I have not, I am old enough to of been around then. However if that reality scares you would it not then be smart to keep Iran under wraps, or do you simply see Iran as never having the ambition to seek nuclear arms. Unfortunately this whole fiasco of the NIE report tied in with the democratic party spinning it the way they have getting further sanctions at this point is goning to be a tough task.

The administration used this "fearmongering" as you would call it simply to paint the reality of what would be with a nuclear armed Iran, and to further the sanction cause, not to get approval for a war.

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:37 PM

1. Harry Reid: "The war can't be won." Maineman: "The war can't be won."

2. You just said that the military has done a fine job. Democrats, however, are doing poorly (see Congress).

1. If harry reid orders a big mac and I order a big mac, that doesn't make me his PUPPET. That means we agree on something. And I have said that the military can certainly win their battles - each and every one - but that the mission of a democratic multicultural government in Iraq is not achievable by the US Military, and, IMHO, not achievable by the Iraqi politicians. If Harry has said that, good for him...if not, then we disagree.

So, therefore, I take it you have no proof that I am Harry Reid's "puppet". Retraction coming anytime soon?

2. I do say the military is doing a fine job. Democrats are doing what they can, given their razor thin majorities/pluralities in congress.... and an obstructive president. That will all change with a democrat in the white house in 01/09.:dance:

red states rule

12-12-2007, 10:39 PM

1. If harry reid orders a big mac and I order a big mac, that doesn't make me his PUPPET. That means we agree on something. And I have said that the military can certainly win their battles - each and every one - but that the mission of a democratic multicultural government in Iraq is not achievable by the US Military, and, IMHO, not achievable by the Iraqi politicians. If Harry has said that, good for him...if not, then we disagree.

So, therefore, I take it you have no proof that I am Harry Reid's "puppet". Retraction coming anytime soon?

2. I do say the military is doing a fine job. Democrats are doing what they can, given their razor thin majorities/pluralities in congress.... and an obstructive president. That will all change with a democrat in the white house in 01/09.:dance:

You are a liberal moonbat who does give a shit about the troops or his country

All you care about is power for your party and the hell with everything else

glockmail

12-12-2007, 10:44 PM

1. If harry reid orders a big mac and I order a big mac, that doesn't make me his PUPPET. That means we agree on something. And I have said that the military can certainly win their battles - each and every one - but that the mission of a democratic multicultural government in Iraq is not achievable by the US Military, and, IMHO, not achievable by the Iraqi politicians. If Harry has said that, good for him...if not, then we disagree.

So, therefore, I take it you have no proof that I am Harry Reid's "puppet". Retraction coming anytime soon?

2. I do say the military is doing a fine job. Democrats are doing what they can, given their razor thin majorities/pluralities in congress.... and an obstructive president. That will all change with a democrat in the white house in 01/09.:dance:

1. Sorry- you're his puppet, as well as Pelosi's lap-dog.
2. Newt had a thin margin as well and they accomplished many things. But you're deflecting the issue, that Iraqis are having a difficult time governing themselves, not unlike the US after the Revolution or the Civil War. (Or like the Democrats today!)

red states rule

12-12-2007, 10:45 PM

retiredman

12-12-2007, 10:48 PM

1. Sorry- you're his puppet, as well as Pelosi's lap-dog.
2. Newt had a thin margin as well and they accomplished many things. But you're deflecting the issue, that Iraqis are having a difficult time governing themselves, not unlike the US after the Revolution or the Civil War. (Or like the Democrats today!)

1. Your saying I am his puppet is not proof that I am. Do you have any?

2. Clinton was willing to compromise. Comparing Iraqis today to Americans after the revolution or civil war is yet another example of your ignorance of the cultural differences in play.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 10:50 PM

1. Your saying I am his puppet is not proof that I am. Do you have any?

2. Clinton was willing to compromise. Comparing Iraqis today to Americans after the revolution or civil war is yet another example of your ignorance of the cultural differences in play.

You follow the Dem talking points to the letter

Clinton did nothing except appease and hope the terrorists would go away. Much like how todays Dems are doing today

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:00 PM

You follow the Dem talking points to the letter

Clinton did nothing except appease and hope the terrorists would go away. Much like how todays Dems are doing today

I am curious. How do you get those supposed democratic talking points you are always mentioning? You obviously do if you compare what I write to them? I have never seen them. what is your source and how long does it take you every day to read and memorize them to be able to make such a claim.

After '94, Clinton appeased republicans in congress.... do try to stay on point.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 11:02 PM

1. Your saying I am his puppet is not proof that I am. Do you have any?

2. Clinton was willing to compromise. [3]Comparing Iraqis today to Americans after the revolution or civil war is yet another example of your ignorance of the cultural differences in play.

1. There are plenty of examples. I chose to stop at one.
2. Clinton knew when to follow; that was hs greatest asset. Unfortunately now he's following the Queen Bitch!
3. That's my point, and why I say that you are a bigot about Arab culture. It took 11 years to simply write a constitution for the US, and nearly 100 years for civil rights to be legislated after the Civil War (thanks to the Democrats, BTW). Yet when Iraq is not functioning like a swiss watch after 4 years Reid cries "failure" and you repeat it.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 11:08 PM

I am curious. How do you get those supposed democratic talking points you are always mentioning? You obviously do if you compare what I write to them? I have never seen them. what is your source and how long does it take you every day to read and memorize them to be able to make such a claim.

After '94, Clinton appeased republicans in congress.... do try to stay on point.

In 94, after 2 years of liberalism being rammed down their throats, the voters tossed out Dems

Clinton had to move away from the kook left

But he still appeased terrorists, which led to 9-11

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:11 PM

1. There are plenty of examples. I chose to stop at one.
2. Clinton knew when to follow; that was hs greatest asset. Unfortunately now he's following the Queen Bitch!
3. That's my point, and why I say that you are a bigot about Arab culture. It took 11 years to simply write a constitution for the US, and nearly 100 years for civil rights to be legislated after the Civil War (thanks to the Democrats, BTW). Yet when Iraq is not functioning like a swiss watch after 4 years Reid cries "failure" and you repeat it.

1. do YOU agree with President Bush on issues? Do you agree with him on Iraq? do you agree with him on the gay marriage amendment? are you, therefore Dubya's PUPPET?
2. cheap shot. insult.
3. I "repeat" nothing. I arrive at my own conclusions and I state them. I have stated my skepticism concerning the ability of sunnis and shiites in Iraq to even become willing to create a democracy.... your continued comparisions of American experiences with governance with what is facing Iraq is MY point: you are ignorant of the cultural differences and your comparisons, therefore, are apples and oranges.

glockmail

12-12-2007, 11:21 PM

1. do YOU agree with President Bush on issues? Do you agree with him on Iraq? do you agree with him on the gay marriage amendment? are you, therefore Dubya's PUPPET?
2. cheap shot. insult.
3. I "repeat" nothing. I arrive at my own conclusions and I state them. I have stated my skepticism concerning the ability of sunnis and shiites in Iraq to even become willing to create a democracy.... your continued comparisions of American experiences with governance with what is facing Iraq is MY point: you are ignorant of the cultural differences and your comparisons, therefore, are apples and oranges.
1. I am much more conservative than W.
2. Shot is dead on. Clinton followed Greenspan and Newt, which is why the economy went so well then. If he had followed Hillary it would have been a disaster.
3. There's that ugly racist again! :slap:

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:25 PM

1. I am much more conservative than W.
2. Shot is dead on. Clinton followed Greenspan and Newt, which is why the economy went so well then. If he had followed Hillary it would have been a disaster.
3. There's that ugly racist again! :slap:

1. deflection. do you agree with Bush on gay marriage? do you agree with him on Iraq? do you then admit that you are HIS puppet?
2. cheap. insult. and yet you complain to me about insults all the time. physician, heal thyself.
3. no racism at all. I understand cultural differences. you obviously don't...moreover, not only do you not understand them, you seem determined to ignore them and to remain ignorant. sad.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 11:27 PM

1. deflection. do you agree with Bush on gay marriage? do you agree with him on Iraq? do you then admit that you are HIS puppet?
2. cheap. insult. and yet you complain to me about insults all the time. physician, heal thyself.
3. no racism at all. I understand cultural differences. you obviously don't...moreover, not only do you not understand them, you seem determined to ignore them and to remain ignorant. sad.

Libs like you are the most racist bunch of people one could meet

glockmail

12-12-2007, 11:29 PM

1. deflection. do you agree with Bush on gay marriage? do you agree with him on Iraq? do you then admit that you are HIS puppet?
2. cheap. insult. and yet you complain to me about insults all the time. physician, heal thyself.
3. no racism at all. I understand cultural differences. you obviously don't...moreover, not only do you not understand them, you seem determined to ignore them and to remain ignorant. sad.

1. Deflection.
2. Ditto.
3. You're a racist about arabs; a bigot about Sunnis/ Shites.

red states rule

12-12-2007, 11:30 PM

1. Deflection.
2. Ditto.
3. You're a racist about arabs; a bigot about Sunnis/ Shites.

Maybe if they could vote for Dems he would love them and want to give them free handouts

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:44 PM

1. Deflection.
2. Ditto.
3. You're a racist about arabs; a bigot about Sunnis/ Shites.

1.no. you claimed I was a puppet of harry reid and used as your proof the fact that I had similar views on some issues. I dispute that and ask if your showing of proof would not also show that you are Bush's puppet.
2. calling Hillary a bitch was a cheap shot that brought nothing to the debate...calling you on it and calling you on your hypocrisy is legit.
3. not so. I have never claimed any superiority over arabs. I only point out that the arab culture is different than ours. Are you really suggesting it is not?

82Marine89

12-12-2007, 11:50 PM

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:52 PM

And calling Ashcroft, asscroft is legit? I'm glad you're not a hypocrite or I might have had to call you on it.

just a typo ;)

82Marine89

12-12-2007, 11:53 PM

just a typo ;)

Twice?

retiredman

12-12-2007, 11:55 PM

Twice?

oddly enough, I make that mistake quite often. damn.

Sertes

12-13-2007, 03:35 AM

Aren't you the one who belives that 911 was an inside job?

Yes, one of the many, among one third of americans and more than 50% of the europeans.

Are you using 9/11 as an "ad personam" attack, to pretend you don't have to address the Iran issues?

stephanie

12-13-2007, 04:00 AM

red states rule

12-13-2007, 06:11 AM

Well then...that Thar settles it...

50% of Europeans believe that 9/11 was an inside job...

SO IT MUST BE TRUE...:rolleyes:

Or then again..that might be a telling sign of the intelligence of the Europeans...who it seems only get their news from their oh so reliable media...maybe you all should actually talk to some real Americans who actually live here...but WHATEVER...

Who gives a shit what Europeans think about 9-11 being a inside job? Only the left wing moonbats believe that BS

red states rule

12-13-2007, 06:17 AM

Back to the topic at hand, the holes in the Iran intel report are striking

All Mixed Up Over Iran
By Victor Davis Hanson

Last week's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate states, with "high confidence," that Iran quit trying to get a nuclear bomb in late 2003. That's exactly the opposite of what the NIE reported just two years ago, when it claimed Iran's ruling mullahs were still developing nuclear weapons.

The reaction here at home to the new NIE was a good deal clearer than the often mealy-mouthed wording of the report. By an overwhelming margin, according to a Rasmussen poll conducted after the new NIE report's findings were made public, Americans don't buy that Iran has quit trying to go nuclear.

They may be wiser than the intelligence minds who put together the new NIE. After all, oil-rich Iran continues to enrich uranium even though it doesn't need new sources of energy. This enriched uranium can be used as terrorist dirty bombs or diverted to nuclear weapons rather quickly.

So isn't it a lose/lose situation if Iran still could be working toward being able to develop a bomb while our own intelligence services have now assured the world that that's not the case?

Yes -- but the full answer is more complex, because the world itself has changed since the 2005 NIE even more than the unreliable opinions of our intelligence services have.

Two years ago, the growing furor over the Iraqi war had created the conventional wisdom that Iran had come out the real "winner." Tehran's archenemy, Saddam Hussein, had been removed. And Iran was able to tie down the U.S. in Iraq through its Shiite terrorist proxies.

Meanwhile, with the U.S. busy in Iraq and the West split (former allies like France and Germany damned almost everything the U.S. did in the Middle East), Iran's ruling mullahs got a pass to cause more trouble in Gaza and Lebanon with subsidies to Hezbollah and Hamas.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/all_mixed_up_over_iran.html

Sertes

12-13-2007, 06:39 AM

Well then...that Thar settles it...

50% of Europeans believe that 9/11 was an inside job...

SO IT MUST BE TRUE...:rolleyes:

Or then again..that might be a telling sign of the intelligence of the Europeans...who it seems only get their news from their oh so reliable media...maybe you all should actually talk to some real Americans who actually live here...but WHATEVER...

You failed to comment about the "one third of the american believes it".

Maybe that should ring a bell.

But this is not the right place to discuss it, as I was explaining to glockmail

red states rule

12-13-2007, 06:42 AM

You failed to comment about the "one third of the american believes it".

Maybe that should ring a bell.

But this is not the right place to discuss it.

So? If this crackpot story was true, the liberal media would be all over it. It is a BS story created by the kook left

Sertes

12-13-2007, 06:47 AM

So? If this crackpot story was true, the liberal media would be all over it. It is a BS story created by the kook left

You didn't notice but this crackpot story has leaked, and it's not created by the kook left. Again it's not the correct place to discuss it. We're discussing facts, not conspiracy theories, here.

If you really want to see the real issues on 9/11, try answering "where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11" ?
The discussion is here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=160793&postcount=46

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 06:49 AM

among one third of americans

Prove this statement to me, that 1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. You have ONE chance, then I beat your ridiculous assertion into submission, then back to the topic at hand.

red states rule

12-13-2007, 06:53 AM

You didn't notice but this crackpot story has leaked, and it's not created by the kook left. Again it's not the correct place to discuss it. We're discussing facts, not conspiracy theories, here.

If you really want to see the real issues on 9/11, try answering "where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11" ?
The discussion is here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=160793&postcount=46

Please seek professional help - and please prove your statement 1/3 of Americans believe your bullshit

stephanie

12-13-2007, 06:55 AM

red states rule

12-13-2007, 06:58 AM

He can't and won't...because he gets his talking points from the lamestream media and evidently can't think for himself...How sad...

To think we were all allies at one time...I guess it only means something if and when us US people have to shed blood for others...

No problem...:cheers2:

Pres Bush stood up to the terrorists, and the libs around the world were shocked

They are seeing right now in Iraq how appeasement never worked and never will. Hell look at the world leader Europe has given us. Hitler, Stalin, Benito Mussolini - and they lecture us how to run our government

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 06:59 AM

please prove your statement 1/3 of Americans believe your bullshit

He can't and won't...because he gets his talking points from the lamestream media and evidently can't think for himself...How sad...

Meatball boy will undoubtedly come back with some obscure poll of about 700 people, and claim it as fact that a sampling of .00001% of 300 million people proves his point. This is what happens when you live and breathe on conspiracy sites.

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:01 AM

Meatball boy will undoubtedly come back with some obscure poll of about 700 people, and claim it as fact that a sampling of .00001% of 300 million people proves his point. This is what happens when you live and breathe on conspiracy sites.

Can you move his posts to the kook conspiracy forum? :lol:

stephanie

12-13-2007, 07:05 AM

I wanted to go puke when he posted this 50% if Europeans think our own country staged 9/11...

But I had to step back and think...and say...you're welcome for all our help...and thank you very much for standing behind US AMERICAN PEOPLE...

If I wanted to be a very vindictive person...I'd say...Screw ya all thank you for nothing...:cheers2:

glockmail

12-13-2007, 07:06 AM

1.no. you claimed I was a puppet of harry reid and used as your proof the fact that I had similar views on some issues. I dispute that and ask if your showing of proof would not also show that you are Bush's puppet.
2. calling Hillary a bitch was a cheap shot that brought nothing to the debate...calling you on it and calling you on your hypocrisy is legit.
3. not so. I have never claimed any superiority over arabs. I only point out that the arab culture is different than ours. Are you really suggesting it is not?
1. My proof is that I disagree with W on my issues. You, on the other hand, seem to parrot Reid. But you can call me a puppet of Bush all you want. I have thick skin.
2. It is a deflection since you are using the fact that I insulted Hillary to ignore the legitimate statement I made about Bill. Its also bullshit as you are attempting to equate my insult to a public figure with your personal insults to me and other posters here.
3. You are suggesting that arabs due to their culture cannot possibly create a society where peace can exist. That makes you a bigot.

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:07 AM

I wanted to go puke when he posted this 50% if Europeans think our own country staged 9/11...

But I had to step back and think...and say...you're welcome for all our help...

If I wanted to be a very vindictive person...I'd say...Screw ya all thank you for nothing...:cheers2:

There is a ray of hope. Look at the recent elections in France and Germany. The libs lost badly

glockmail

12-13-2007, 07:14 AM

Yes, one of the many, among one third of americans and more than 50% of the europeans.

Are you using 9/11 as an "ad personam" attack, to pretend you don't have to address the Iran issues?

In the words of Bill Clinton: "SHAME - ON - YOU".

But the reason I bring that up is that on one hand you mistrust the US government to the point were you imagine them murdering their own citizens, and on the other you trust the US Government to be 100% accurate with Iranian intelligence that they disseminate to the public.

Damn it's so fun to point out hypocrisy.:laugh2:

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:16 AM

stephanie

12-13-2007, 07:18 AM

There is a ray of hope. Look at the recent elections in France and Germany. The libs lost badly

BIG DEAL...

what the hell does it matter who is elected over there..

I am so sick...of our so called allies and this is what they think.....we are the cause of all the worlds problems, or we aren't worth sticking up for...

but if that is how they feel...then they wonder why we say...screw you..but who would be the first to step up to help them...

They make me sick...

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:21 AM

BIG DEAL...

what the hell does it matter who is elected over there..

I am so sick...of our so called allies and this is what they think.....we are the cause of all the worlds problems, or we aren't worth sticking up for...

but if that is how they fell...then they wonder why we say...screw you..but who would be the first to step up to help them...

They make me sick...

Did you hear the speech French President Nicolas Sarkosy gave to Congress? The libs had to sit there and listen to a speech Ronald Reagan would have given

glockmail

12-13-2007, 07:28 AM

BIG DEAL...

what the hell does it matter who is elected over there..

I am so sick...of our so called allies and this is what they think.....we are the cause of all the worlds problems, or we aren't worth sticking up for...

but if that is how they feel...then they wonder why we say...screw you..but who would be the first to step up to help them...

They make me sick...

I think it makes a huge difference that the Europeans are following the lead of America by electing leaders who are strong on defense. By doing so maybe they can avoid futue conflicts like the Crusades and World Wars.

glockmail

12-13-2007, 07:28 AM

Did you hear the speech French President Nicolas Sarkosy gave to Congress? The libs had to sit there and listen to a speech Ronald Reagan would have given Yes it was inspiring. I can buy French vodka again! My French-American friends no longer have to live with my ridicule! :cheers2:

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:29 AM

I think it makes a huge difference that the Europeans are following the lead of America by electing leaders who are strong on defense. By doing so maybe they can avoid futue conflicts like the Crusades and World Wars.

It also makes the libs war on reality harder to fight

stephanie

12-13-2007, 07:39 AM

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:41 AM

I'm glad you all see and think there will be a difference..

But...I see every day over in Europe in their media that we..the United States is the reason for all their problems..

I'm not so damn confident...and seeing this post...that 50% of Europeans believe that our government created 9/11..

You can't make an alley who thinks you are the enemy...

Read Sarkosy's speech - it will make you smile and see some hope as far as France

After the speech some left wing sites were calling him a Bush lap dog

stephanie

12-13-2007, 07:50 AM

Read Sarkozy speech - it will make you smile and see some hope as far as France

After the speech some left wing sites were calling him a Bush lap dog

As I said...they don't want to be associated with us..THE UNIDED STATES..and it's people...

They don't want to be called...poodles..I guess unless we can spill our mans blood for them...we are nothing...

red states rule

12-13-2007, 07:55 AM

As I said...they don't want to be associated with us..THE UNIDED STATES..and it's people...

They don't want to be called...poodles..I guess unless we can spill our mans blood for them...we are nothing...

I think Pres Sarkozy is different. He praised and thanked America, and said how he wants to make France like America - where people work for a living and do not look to government for their needs

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 07:58 AM

Yes, one of the many, among one third of americans and more than 50% of the europeans.

Are you using 9/11 as an "ad personam" attack, to pretend you don't have to address the Iran issues?

As if you are yet to address any issue at all. So fat you have joined this site, and posted a whole bunch of cut & paste conspiracy articles. When you do jump in a thread like this you post more cut & paste, but the second you must respond in your own words it all goes to shit because you are a dumbass. You don't comprehend the language, and even if you did you have shown very little ability to make any common sense.

IDIOT.........

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 08:00 AM

oddly enough, I make that mistake quite often. damn.

Really? perhaps everyone should quickly quote those mistakes so they can call you illiterate just to take the subject of topic. :rolleyes:

stephanie

12-13-2007, 08:06 AM

I think Pres Sarkozy is different. He praised and thanked America, and said how he wants to make France like America - where people work for a living and do not look to government for their needs

Yeah whatever...when I saw that post that 50% of Europeans believed that our own government staged 9/11...That broke my heart..and also hardend my belief...that no other country really cares about us...the people of the United States...

We will stand up for us and others...no matter what...:salute:

red states rule

12-13-2007, 08:09 AM

Yeah whatever...when I saw that post that 50% of Europeans believed that our own government staged 9/11...That broke my heart..and also hardend my belief...that no other country really cares about us...the people of the United States...

We will stand up for us and others...no matter what...:salute:

That number came from the same source that said 1/3 of Americans also thought 9-11 was an inside job

Please consider the source

Sertes

12-13-2007, 08:12 AM

Prove this statement to me, that 1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. You have ONE chance, then I beat your ridiculous assertion into submission, then back to the topic at hand.

OK!

Here's the Zogby poll of 9/6/2007:

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.

source: http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

Maybe it's only Zogby, maybe they got a "statistically wrong campion", let's see other polls:

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
(Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.")
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

CNN Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11
(45% blame the Bush administration for the attacks either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
(65% say he's hiding something)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Ok, now you have ONE LAST CHANCE (the sixth) to say what's your personal opinion on where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11/2001.
It's the best non-technical question I can make and you can answer.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=160793&postcount=46

...why do I expect another round of "Denial & Insults" instead??

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 08:18 AM

OK!

Here's the Zogby poll of 9/6/2007:

source: http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

Nothing in there about Americans believing 9/11 was an inside job!

Maybe it's only Zogby, maybe they got a "statistically wrong campion", let's see other polls:

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
(Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.")
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

"The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation."

No mention of sampling size. Could have asked 25 nitwits like yourself for all we know!

CNN Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11
(45% blame the Bush administration for the attacks either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

Dumbass, once again no mention of an inside job. They simply were blaming Bush AND Clinton for their efforts to prevent the attack!

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
(65% say he's hiding something)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Once again, no talk of an inside job! Are you really this stupid?

Ok, now you have ONE LAST CHANCE (the sixth) to say what's your personal opinion on where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11/2001.
It's the best non-technical question I can make and you can answer.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=160793&postcount=46

...why do I expect another round of "Denial & Insults" instead??

I've answered you at least 7 times now. You're too stupid to acknowledge as much so why would anyone waste their time with a dumbass from italy? You have to be one of the dumbest members on this board! :laugh2:

stephanie

12-13-2007, 08:19 AM

OK!

Here's the Zogby poll of 9/6/2007:

source: http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354

Maybe it's only Zogby, maybe they got a "statistically wrong campion", let's see other polls:

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
(Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.")
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

CNN Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11
(45% blame the Bush administration for the attacks either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
(65% say he's hiding something)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Ok, now you have ONE LAST CHANCE (the sixth) to say what's your personal opinion on where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11/2001.
It's the best non-technical question I can make and you can answer.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=160793&postcount=46

...why do I expect another round of "Denial & Insults" instead??

Why the hell.do you even care.....It didn't happen to you??

Maybe that's why...

Let's hope it dosent happen to you..:cheers2:

red states rule

12-13-2007, 08:21 AM

Why the fuck do you even care.....It didn't happen to you??

Maybe that's why...

Let's hope it dosent happen to you..:cheers2:

If it does happen to him - I will give one guess who he will call screaming for help

Hint - it will be area code 202

82Marine89

12-13-2007, 08:24 AM

oddly enough, I make that mistake quite often. damn.

Yeah, I know. I make that same mistake when quoting you. Just damn. :slap:

Sertes

12-13-2007, 08:41 AM

In the words of Bill Clinton: "SHAME - ON - YOU".

But the reason I bring that up is that on one hand you mistrust the US government to the point were you imagine them murdering their own citizens, and on the other you trust the US Government to be 100% accurate with Iranian intelligence that they disseminate to the public.

Damn it's so fun to point out hypocrisy.:laugh2:

You don't even know the real issues, look how you judge before understanding!

The claim is some elements in the top of the U.S. military, political and media planned, executed and covered it up.

And the biggest leak came from a member of your own government, Norman Mineta, minister of transportation.

And even NIST confirmed they cannot explain the whole collapse of the twin towers. And there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7... maybe you don't even know a THIRD skyscraper collapsed that day!

Call hypocrisy on me when you know the real claims, and the real facts.

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 08:46 AM

Call hypocrisy on me when you know the real claims, and the real facts.

And your "facts" that 1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job went kaplooey! You're a nimrod!

stephanie

12-13-2007, 08:50 AM

You don't even know the real issues, look how you judge before understanding!

The claim is some elements in the top of the U.S. military, political and media planned, executed and covered it up.

And the biggest leak came from a member of your own government, Norman Mineta, minister of transportation.

And even NIST confirmed they cannot explain the whole collapse of the twin towers. And there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7... maybe you don't even know a THIRD skyscraper collapsed that day!

Call hypocrisy on me when you know the real claims, and the real facts.

Yeah...isn't it wonderful to live in your own little bubble in another country and reach you own conspiracy theories about us...and now your telling us we are too stupid to now what building collapsed...

As I said...Lets hope it doesn't happen to you all...then we here in the United states can say........You people are total IDIOTS...you all don't know whats going on in your own back yard...::cheers2:

red states rule

12-13-2007, 08:52 AM

Yeah...isn't it wonderful to live in your own little bubble in another country and reach you own conspiracy theories about us...

As I said...Lets hope it doesn't happen to you all...then we here in the United states can say..............and most of here in the United States thinks your goverment set this up....Hope you all have a free and happy life...:cheers2:

He probably has Fahrenheit 911 on right now

glockmail

12-13-2007, 08:55 AM

You don't even know the real issues, look how you judge before understanding!

The claim is some elements in the top of the U.S. military, political and media planned, executed and covered it up.

And the biggest leak came from a member of your own government, Norman Mineta, minister of transportation.

And even NIST confirmed they cannot explain the whole collapse of the twin towers. And there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7... maybe you don't even know a THIRD skyscraper collapsed that day!

Call hypocrisy on me when you know the real claims, and the real facts.

:lol:

I'm a civil engineer licensed in three states, one of which is NY. I read the ASCE report on the twin towers, studied the plans, and also read extensively about WTC7. The twin towers collapsed exactly as they were designed to with such an scenario.

You're a fruitcake!

Sertes

12-13-2007, 09:32 AM

Why the hell.do you even care.....It didn't happen to you??

Maybe that's why...

Let's hope it dosent happen to you..:cheers2:

Why such a lousy opinion of me? What should allow me to speak about it, should I lose someone in the attack? Maybe my sigificant other was on one of the planes? Did I lose a brother that was part of the Italian contingent in the Iraq invasion?

My reasons are mine alone. Suffice to say your fathers helped us defy fascism in Italy, our gov at the time was wrong on every issue, sided with nazism, the people was against it even without knowing the worst: our gov sent jews, gays, blacks to concentration camps. Maybe I'm just doing my part in helping americans discovering what your biased news hid so well among all the straw-man arguments, things they didn't care to hide from us, they're so busy hiding our politicians wrongs to hide even yours.

Assume for a minute, just for a minute, that the 19 caveman didn't do it, wouldn't you direct your anger to those who did it? I do. I think those who carried out the attacks should be hanged at ground zero.

Sorry for the off-topic, if people call me out, I should have a right to answer.

Sertes

12-13-2007, 09:40 AM

I've answered you at least 7 times now. You're too stupid to acknowledge as much so why would anyone waste their time with a dumbass from italy? You have to be one of the dumbest members on this board! :laugh2:

I see I was right, another round of "Denial & Insults", and you busted the opportunity to answer on one little question, too.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are so scared that you have to embarass yourself this way.

POST YOUR ANSWER OR A LINK TO IT

glockmail

12-13-2007, 09:46 AM

.....I've answered you at least 7 times now. You're too stupid to acknowledge as much so why would anyone waste their time with a dumbass from [Bologna] italy? You have to be one of the dumbest members on this board! :laugh2: My Mom would say that 'he's full of bologna'. :lol:

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 09:51 AM

I see I was right, another round of "Denial & Insults", and you busted the opportunity to answer on one little question, too.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are so scared that you have to embarass yourself this way.

POST YOUR ANSWER OR A LINK TO IT

Insults aside, you still gave NOTHING to backup your claim that 1/3 of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry that this makes you an idiot.

And I'm embarrassing myself? Because you think so? LOL Shall we take a poll and see who everyone else thinks is embarrassing themselves?

I've told you countless times already that I answered your question several times and that you are just too stupid to acknowledge it. It's not my fault that you are too stupid to re-read the debate we had as well as a few other threads.

Your 9/11 theories just don't wash here. I suggest you stay at the sites where people with lower IQ's like to wear tinfoil and play little games, you'll continue to get laughed at here with your retarded nonsense, you little meatball.

Sertes

12-13-2007, 09:54 AM

:lol:

I'm a civil engineer licensed in three states, one of which is NY. I read the ASCE report on the twin towers, studied the plans, and also read extensively about WTC7. The twin towers collapsed exactly as they were designed to with such an scenario.

You're a fruitcake!

So, why 230 professional architects and engineers, all listed with name and qualifications on ae911truth.org tell us that the collapses of the twin towers have more than 10 elements in common with controlled demolitions while showing zero elements of a gravitational collapse?

Maybe with your experience you may answer how a gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistence, while pulverizing all concrete and all contenents and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement that lasts as long as 40 days! A gravitational collapse has only kinetic energy to account for, and if you spend it to achieve free fall speed, how in hell can it break the path of most resistance and proceed through it??

And you know there's no official explanation of WTC7 collapse, right?

FACTS, man

Wanna talk about that in the conspiracy theories section?

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 09:57 AM

glockmail

12-13-2007, 11:36 AM

So, why 230 professional architects and engineers, all listed with name and qualifications on ae911truth.org tell us that the collapses of the twin towers have more than 10 elements in common with controlled demolitions while showing zero elements of a gravitational collapse?

Maybe with your experience you may answer how a gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistence, while pulverizing all concrete and all contenents and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement that lasts as long as 40 days! A gravitational collapse has only kinetic energy to account for, and if you spend it to achieve free fall speed, how in hell can it break the path of most resistance and proceed through it??

And you know there's no official explanation of WTC7 collapse, right?

FACTS, man

Wanna talk about that in the conspiracy theories section? Provide a link here and go for it. I will be on vacation soon though, but I'll eventually get back to it and beat it to a pulp!

Sertes

12-13-2007, 11:42 AM

And one of them even claiming that the Oklahoma bombing was the result of a mini nuclear bomb! :laugh2:

Dude, the site you refer to so often is the laughing stock of the internet. They've been in quite a few debates before and were laughed away. They closed their own forums on that site because they were proven wrong so much!:laugh2:

Why you write a number of posts just spew your hate and never answer on the real issues?

Wow, you found out that one of the 230 architects and engineers has a strange claim!! Wow!! Now what? We're still waiting for the OFFICIAL version of WTC7 collapse.

And FYI I'm a supporter of that site, and know that their forum is not closed down, is open only to real architects and real engineers. That is the level of their talks, they allow only people with credentials to talk, a swiss journalist tried to enter under fake name "Massimo dell'Affidabilità", Max Reliability, and they found him out and removed him from the forum. So it looks you're wrong again. But after all I'm not here to stalk you on your wrongs. I like the fact you were right in two occasions and proved me wrong. Too bad you won't acknowledge to not having an answer on many crucial issues, the same old.
That's why you keep avoiding the most easy and non technical issue of them all: where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 ? Either 9/11 commission report is fake or Mineta lied under oath. And in any case you have a problem even admitting this incongruence!

Sertes

12-13-2007, 11:44 AM

Provide a link here and go for it. I will be on vacation soon though, but I'll eventually get back to it and beat it to a pulp!

www.ae911truth.org

Look on the right column for the 10+ elements in common between WTC collapses and controlled demolitions, and for all the elements of gravitational collapses that are missing.

Being a civil engineer you can also register and enter their forum

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 11:46 AM

Why you write a number of posts just spew your hate and never answer on the real issues?

Wow, you found out that one of the 230 architects and engineers has a strange claim!! Wow!! Now what? We're still waiting for the OFFICIAL version of WTC7 collapse.

And FYI I'm a supporter of that site, and know that their forum is not closed down, is open only to real architects and real engineers. That is the level of their talks, they allow only people with credentials to talk, a swiss journalist tried to enter under fake name "Massimo dell'Affidabilità", Max Reliability, and they found him out and removed him from the forum. So it looks you're wrong again. But after all I'm not here to stalk you on your wrongs. I like the fact you were right in two occasions and proved me wrong. Too bad you won't acknowledge to not having an answer on many crucial issues, the same old.
That's why you keep avoiding the most easy and non technical issue of them all: where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 ? Either 9/11 commission report is fake or Mineta lied under oath. And in any case you have a problem even admitting this incongruence!

Sorry again, dumbass! They used to have a PUBLIC forum and they closed it down after many REAL engineers from the site I linked in an earlier thread went there and made them look like fools. They deleted all their posts and closed the forum. And speaking of credentials, it was the OWNER of the site who has been made out to look like a damn fool time and time again, both on various forums as well as via email. If they are SO sure of their beliefs, why delete threads and posts from those debating them? Because they were made to look like asses just like you! :laugh2:

glockmail

12-13-2007, 11:47 AM

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 11:48 AM

www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org)

Look on the right column for the 10+ elements in common between WTC collapses and controlled demolitions, and for all the elements of gravitational collapses that are missing.

Being a civil engineer you can also register and enter their forum

Glock, save your time. Myself and many others investigated this site and it's just a place full of little Sertes'! Imagine this annoying little meatballs words being spouted by a handful of whackjobs. They've been thoroughly discredited in any respectful circles.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 11:52 AM

www.ae911truth.org

Look on the right column for the 10+ elements in common between WTC collapses and controlled demolitions, and for all the elements of gravitational collapses that are missing.

Being a civil engineer you can also register and enter their forum

Being a fucking retard you can also register.

Now, can you provide a link to any reliable source other than some sort of conspiracy website that posts opinions, and theories?

This shit should be cut out, and put in it's proper place, the conspiracy section!

lol, where was Dick Cheney? He was on the Empire State building with a bunch of remote controls that navigated huge aircrafts into the twin towers.

You dumb fucking cannoli, I'm officially sending some NY mobsters over to do away with your pitiful little life......

Sertes

12-13-2007, 12:12 PM

I asked for the link to your conspiracy theory in this forum. I'm not interested in joining one full of kooks. I've done that in the past and after a single post all I got was a flurry of insults, followed by closed-mindedness and bullshit. Those people really are kooks!

Sorry, I'm not interested in pushing my own personal conspiracy theory, I'm more interested if showing where the official version is fake or even missing! That should be more interesting, right?

Again: the official version tell us that the collapses achieved the physical impossible for a gravitational collapse:

1) Free fall speed
2) Collapse through the path of most resistance
3) complete pulverization of contents and concrete floors

There's simply not enough energy in a gravitational collapse to do all three.

Achieving all that and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement for as much as 40 days is just more absurd!

Welcome, engineer, explain it to me, where did all that energy come? Was that all potential energy turned into kinetic energy??

Sertes

12-13-2007, 12:14 PM

This shit should be cut out, and put in it's proper place, the conspiracy section!

You're right. I'll take the parts that JimNyc didn't answer in the debate and start a clean thread in the right section.

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 12:14 PM

Sertes, please, seek assistance. You are obsessed, and a loony tune. If you choose not to seek assistance, then please go fuck yourself.

jimnyc

12-13-2007, 12:16 PM

You're right. I'll take the parts that JimNyc didn't answer in the debate and start a clean thread in the right section.

Your questions were answered and the entire board saw it. Your continuing to demand answers you WANT to hear won't make a difference. Are you still upset that you're the only dipshit who voted for yourself? :laugh2:

glockmail

12-13-2007, 02:00 PM

Sorry, I'm not interested in pushing my own personal conspiracy theory, I'm more interested if showing where the official version is fake or even missing! That should be more interesting, right?

Again: the official version tell us that the collapses achieved the physical impossible for a gravitational collapse:

1) Free fall speed
2) Collapse through the path of most resistance
3) complete pulverization of contents and concrete floors

There's simply not enough energy in a gravitational collapse to do all three.

Achieving all that and leaving pools of molten steel in the basement for as much as 40 days is just more absurd!

Welcome, engineer, explain it to me, where did all that energy come? Was that all potential energy turned into kinetic energy?? Show me some proof of this "molten steel".

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 02:04 PM

manu1959

12-13-2007, 02:04 PM

glockmail

12-13-2007, 02:13 PM

Haha. Bush has been railing Iran because of its "nukular" program and it hasn't even had one since 2003. Haha. This really makes him look like a dipsh*t huh? Well, this and a few other things. :poke::dance:
Are you willing to bet the lives of several million innocent people on those intelligent estimates? Aren't these the same type of estimates that you insist were wrong about Saddam's WMD's? :poke: :pee:

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 02:33 PM

Are you willing to bet the lives of several million innocent people on those intelligent estimates? Aren't these the same type of estimates that you insist were wrong about Saddam's WMD's? :poke: :pee:

No. Evidently they've refined their threat rating system since the Iraq debacle. Now, instead of just a system of x's and o's they've incorporated a chart with gold stars.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Haha. Bush has been railing Iran because of its "nukular" program and it hasn't even had one since 2003. Haha. This really makes him look like a dipsh*t huh? Well, this and a few other things. :poke::dance:

No, you are the one who looks like the dipshit! Then again that is not to out of the ordinary.

Tell us, when was it that Iran came clean, and admitted they are now enriching uranium?

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 03:11 PM

No, you are the one who looks like the dipshit! Then again that is not to out of the ordinary.

Tell us, when was it that Iran came clean, and admitted they are now enriching uranium?

Oh reeleee?:lol: Tell me when was it that sovereign nations became beholden to "come clean" about their weapons programs? Are we transparent with our black weapons projects? Negative sonny.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 03:15 PM

Oh reeleee?:lol: Tell me when was it that sovereign nations became beholden to "come clean" about their weapons programs? Are we transparent with our black weapons projects? Negative sonny.

What an imbecile!

Iran announced themselves that they have started the uranium enriching process.

I'm amazed how many of you democratic idiots are thrilled with the NIE report simply because it suggests the administration has been taking the wrong approach. So lets give Iran a free pass because it makes Bush look bad, what a pile of dookie that attitude is.

manu1959

12-13-2007, 03:18 PM

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 03:18 PM

What an imbecile!

Iran announced themselves that they have started the uranium enriching process.

I'm amazed how many of you democratic idiots are thrilled with the NIE report simply because it suggests the administration has been taking the wrong approach. So lets give Iran a free pass because it makes Bush look bad, what a pile of dookie that attitude is.

I don't need an NIE report to know that the Bush Administration has been taking the wrong approach. Yeah right, I'm the imbecile. Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? You're a vulgar, offensive charicature of a person who buys and propagates a perverted version of reality. If it weren't so sad it'd be a helluva joke.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 03:20 PM

i believe the UN requires it.......

Who the hell listens to the UN? We sure as hell don't. Saddam didn't. Iran doesn't. Why would you think anyone would?

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 03:23 PM

I don't need an NIE report to know that the Bush Administration has been taking the wrong approach. Yeah right, I'm the imbecile. Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? You're a vulgar, offensive charicature of a person who buys and propagates a perverted version of reality. If it weren't so sad it'd be a helluva joke.

Yep, and it's the same attitude I have for all you idiots who have nothing to say except Bush sucks.

So I can see with Iran enriching uranium now, and the Bush administration trying to gain tougher sanctions is the wrong approach.

You come from the same group idiots who said the administration took the wrong approach on Iraq for not working within the UN because sanctions are working.

Ok, if working within the process of sanctions is wrong, but it was the right approach on Iraq please tell me you shrunken testicle, what is the right approach?

manu1959

12-13-2007, 03:24 PM

Who the hell listens to the UN? We sure as hell don't. Saddam didn't. Iran doesn't. Why would you think anyone else would?

ok get rid of the UN.....how about the nuclear non proliferation treaty everyone at the UN "signed" onto?....you know like the geneva convention....

or is your argument that sovereign nations should be able to act in their best interests without interference from other nations?

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Who the hell listens to the UN? We sure as hell don't. Saddam didn't. Iran doesn't. Why would you think anyone would?

:rolleyes:

You are best of going back to the cage section, and carrying on about how very bad republicans are. I mean it seems to be the best you have to offer.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 03:38 PM

Yep, and it's the same attitude I have for all you idiots who have nothing to say except Bush sucks.

So I can see with Iran enriching uranium now, and the Bush administration trying to gain tougher sanctions is the wrong approach.

You come from the same group idiots who said the administration took the wrong approach on Iraq for not working within the UN because sanctions are working.

Ok, if working within the process of sanctions is wrong, but it was the right approach on Iraq please tell me you shrunken testicle, what is the right approach?

"Shrunken testicle?" Wow. Apparently you have a rudimentary understanding of biology--or atleast the sexual parts. Congratulations. I know it must be difficult to pick stuff like that up in between finger paintings.
If I'm understanding you correctly, and I like to think that I am, you're saying that Bush is now doing the correct thing in using the UN to gain sanctions against Iran for enriching uranium. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, you're one of the ones who lauded him for going unilaterally against Iraq after UN sanctions were seen as "ineffective." So pretty much, in the mind of "Sir Evil," whatever strategy that best matches the president's agenda is the one to go with.
It's obvious now that the UN will be more than reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran with this new NIE report. They're going to leave Bush out in the dark again. He needs to open his eyes and stop with the war rhetoric and back-off with the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Iran isn't going to get a bomb any time soon. He needs to be talking to Tehran and working with them in the WoT. They're the biggest Republic in the Middle East. They have the biggest military and the most resources and they're sympathetic to the Maleki government. There's no reason to not work with them rather than against them.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 03:41 PM

ok get rid of the UN.....how about the nuclear non proliferation treaty everyone at the UN "signed" onto?....you know like the geneva convention....

or is your argument that sovereign nations should be able to act in their best interests without interference from other nations?

No, I'm saying no one listens to the UN. The UN is ineffective. It's all about posturing and politics. Every nation looks to protect its own interests unilaterally, but the political imagery painted in the UN is quite a different story.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 03:50 PM

"Shrunken testicle?" Wow. Apparently you have a rudimentary understanding of biology--or atleast the sexual parts. Congratulations. I know it must be difficult to pick stuff like that up in between finger paintings.
:rolleyes:
I'm so very glad that you like my use of words.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and I like to think that I am, you're saying that Bush is now doing the correct thing in using the UN to gain sanctions against Iran for enriching uranium. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, you're one of the ones who lauded him for going unilaterally against Iraq after UN sanctions were seen as "ineffective." So pretty much, in the mind of "Sir Evil," whatever strategy that best matches the president's agenda is the one to go with.
It's obvious now that the UN will be more than reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran with this new NIE report. They're going to leave Bush out in the dark again. He needs to open his eyes and stop with the war rhetoric and back-off with the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Iran isn't going to get a bomb any time soon. He needs to be talking to Tehran and working with them in the WoT. They're the biggest Republic in the Middle East. They have the biggest military and the most resources and they're sympathetic to the Maleki government. There's no reason to not work with them rather than against them.

Negative again sphincter stretcher! I was supportive of the decision to go to war with Iraq but never even came close to suggestion it was the best option to work around the UN. I have said about 3 million times that the UN would never enforce the resolution agreed up so the move was essentially the right decision in my opinion. So anyway, I am glad that your reply echoed my sentiments about you but it has become apparent who has cried foul when the US acted unilaterally.

So Iran isn't going to get a bomb soon, but who cares if they get one at all so long as it makes good use to blast the administration.

Yeah, we need to sit down with a country for a chat that is led by a man who rallies his people in chants to "death to america". Forget about the fact that they have been doing so for the past quarter century. :rolleyes:

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:00 PM

:rolleyes:
I'm so very glad that you like my use of words.

Negative again sphincter stretcher! I was supportive of the decision to go to war with Iraq but never even came close to suggestion it was the best option to work around the UN. I have said about 3 million times that the UN would never enforce the resolution agreed up so the move was essentially the right decision in my opinion. So anyway, I am glad that your reply echoed my sentiments about you but it has become apparent who has cried foul when the US acted unilaterally.

So Iran isn't going to get a bomb soon, but who cares if they get one at all so long as it makes good use to blast the administration.

Yeah, we need to sit down with a country for a chat that is led by a man who rallies his people in chants to "death to america". Forget about the fact that they have been doing so for the past quarter century. :rolleyes:

They didn't start that sh*t until Bush called them the "Axis of Evil." And they held a national day of prayer for us on 9/11. It's a pretty f*cking simple equation Sir Evil. When you spout fighting words about somebody they get pissed. Iran was pushing for the fall of Saddam and they were more than willing to work with us after his defeat, but those days are over. Your President Bush saw to that.

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:06 PM

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:11 PM

who is your president?

I don't nor will I ever have a president. I don't identify with elected leaders in that jingoistic sort of fashion. I'm not on any politician's team.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 04:14 PM

They didn't start that sh*t until Bush called them the "Axis of Evil." And they held a national day of prayer for us on 9/11. It's a pretty f*cking simple equation Sir Evil. When you spout fighting words about somebody they get pissed. Iran was pushing for the fall of Saddam and they were more than willing to work with us after his defeat, but those days are over. Your President Bush saw to that.

:laugh2:

Boy you are a bigger idiot than I originally anticipated!

Ok, a quarter century is about the same as 25 years, the whole "axis of evil" comment came after 911. 25 years is probably being generous considering it all happened during the Carter administration I believe. 50 some americans were taken hostage in Tehran at the american embassy. Ring a bell or were you not even born yet? There has been no ties with Iran since but we need to sit down with those people, and what?

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 04:15 PM

who is your president?

I think it may be Yukon Cornelius!

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:19 PM

I don't nor will I ever have a president. I don't identify with elected leaders in that jingoistic sort of fashion. I'm not on any politician's team.

cnn is the perfect place for you.....

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:31 PM

:laugh2:

Boy you are a bigger idiot than I originally anticipated!

Ok, a quarter century is about the same as 25 years, the whole "axis of evil" comment came after 911. 25 years is probably being generous considering it all happened during the Carter administration I believe. 50 some americans were taken hostage in Tehran at the american embassy. Ring a bell or were you not even born yet? There has been no ties with Iran since but we need to sit down with those people, and what?

And work with them to end terrorism.

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:33 PM

And work with them to end terrorism.

uh....they are terrorists or have you forgotten the iran embassy gig....or their funding and arming of the "freedom fighters" ....

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 04:35 PM

And work with them to end terrorism.

:laugh2:

I see, work with the people that are now financing, arming, and sending terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

Get a fucking' clue...... :rolleyes:

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:42 PM

uh....they are terrorists or have you forgotten the iran embassy gig....or their funding and arming of the "freedom fighters" ....

Right. An entire nation of terrorists. Now I understand why there are actually people out there who buy the sh*t this administration is shoveling out. Iran is a Shi'a nation. They are friendly with the government we set up. There's no reason to not work with them. If you were smart enough to make it through lawschool, you should be smart enough to see the folly in constantly provoking and creating enmity with a nation as large as Iran.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:44 PM

:laugh2:

I see, work with the people that are now financing, arming, and sending terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

Get a fucking' clue...... :rolleyes:

They were willing to work with us before the bonehead labeled them as the Axis of Evil. There's no reason to suspect that they would not once again join an effort to set up Shi'as next door in Baghdad. There's a cause/effect relationship here that I don't think you are getting. When you burn bridges, rebuilding them is difficult. What's so difficult about this concept is what I fail to grasp.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 04:44 PM

Right. An entire nation of terrorists. Now I understand why there are actually people out there who buy the sh*t this administration is shoveling out. Iran is a Shi'a nation. They are friendly with the government we set up. There's no reason to not work with them. If you were smart enough to make it through lawschool, you should be smart enough to see the folly in constantly provoking and creating enmity with a nation as large as Iran.

Yep, the Iranian president has been the epitomy of friendly..

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 04:47 PM

They were willing to work with us before the bonehead labeled them as the Axis of Evil. There's no reason to suspect that they would not once again join an effort to set up Shi'as next door in Baghdad.

You are one dense bastard. How hard is it to understand that there has been no diplomatic ties with Iran since the seventies? How do you trust any nation that has leaders that rally their people to chant death to america?

Is any of that getting through the bone cluster on your shoulders?

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Right. An entire nation of terrorists. Now I understand why there are actually people out there who buy the sh*t this administration is shoveling out. Iran is a Shi'a nation. They are friendly with the government we set up. There's no reason to not work with them. If you were smart enough to make it through lawschool, you should be smart enough to see the folly in constantly provoking and creating enmity with a nation as large as Iran.

right an entire nation of people that loved america after carter and before bush......you are smart enough to work at cnn....well you know what i mean....

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:53 PM

You are one dense bastard. How hard is it to understand that there has been no diplomatic ties with Iran since the seventies? How do you trust any nation that has leaders that rally their people to chant death to america?

Is any of that getting through the bone cluster on your shoulders?

he works at tomahak chop cnn......do the math

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:53 PM

Yep, the Iranian president has been the epitomy of friendly..

Yeah! They elected him after the Axis rhetoric genius. He ran his campaign on an anti-American platform based on the US' rhetoric. They chant "death to America" because they know our president is out there talking sh*t about them. It's yet another example of Bush's failure at diplomacy.
I don't care about what hasn't happened since the 70s. What HAS happened is that Iranian "liberals" contacted US after the Iraq invasion and offered their assistance in the effort. It was rejected and instead of working with them, our government thought it was prudent to call them insulting names. The ball was in our court and we dropped it. Now we have another enemy. What don't you get about all this?

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:54 PM

he works at tomahak chop cnn......do the math

"Ugh, do the math. Ooga booga." That's a good chimp impression manu. Do anybody else?

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:57 PM

Yeah! They elected him after the Axis rhetoric genius. He ran his campaign on an anti-American platform based on the US' rhetoric. They chant "death to America" because they know our president is out there talking sh*t about them. It's yet another example of Bush's failure at diplomacy.
I don't care about what hasn't happened since the 70s. What HAS happened is that Iranian "liberals" contacted US after the Iraq invasion and offered their assistance in the effort. It was rejected and instead of working with them, our government thought it was prudent to call them insulting names. The ball was in our court and we dropped it. Now we have another enemy. What don't you get about all this?

do you know the condition they placed on their assistance......

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:58 PM

do you know the condition they placed on their assistance......

Yes I do. Looking past their transgressions was worth not having an enemy next door to the war.

manu1959

12-13-2007, 04:58 PM

"Ugh, do the math. Ooga booga." That's a good chimp impression manu. Do anybody else?

hey look racial slurs....but what would you expect from someone that works at a racist company....

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 04:59 PM

hey look racial slurs....but what would you expect from someone that works at a racist company....

I didn't know one could be "racist" toward chimps. That's a new one on me! Huh!

manu1959

12-13-2007, 05:00 PM

I didn't know one could be "racist" toward chimps. That's a new one on me! Huh!

i am black and you called me a monkey....

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:10 PM

i am black and you called me a monkey....

Ape. But that's neither here nor there. So apparently you associate being black with being an "ape." That's not my fault. I on the other hand, associate being stupid with being an ape. So taking into account the fact that I can't see your race over the Internet, that I had no prior knowledge of your race before this conversation and that I never "called" you an ape but rather said that you do a good impression of one, I'd say your little accusation holds zero water. I'm just going on facts here mind you.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 05:10 PM

Yeah! They elected him after the Axis rhetoric genius.
Wow, you got something right but too bad they have been rallying the death chant since the Carter administration. genius!

He ran his campaign on an anti-American platform based on the US' rhetoric. They chant "death to America" because they know our president is out there talking sh*t about them. It's yet another example of Bush's failure at diplomacy.
I don't care about what hasn't happened since the 70s. What HAS happened is that Iranian "liberals" contacted US after the Iraq invasion and offered their assistance in the effort. It was rejected and instead of working with them, our government thought it was prudent to call them insulting names. The ball was in our court and we dropped it. Now we have another enemy. What don't you get about all this?

Wow, I don't think it gets any dumber than this! IRAN HAS BEEN A ENEMY, IT'S NOTHING NEW!

Of course they wanted in on Iraq, it is their ambition to control the entire middle east dumbass.

Heres an idea for ya. Why don't you, Yukon, and Herbie Rawr right over to the Iranian land of misfits, show some good American will by extracting some teeth, and then we can all do a group hug afterward....

manu1959

12-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Ape. But that's neither here nor there. So apparently you associate being black with being an "ape." That's not my fault. I on the other hand, associate being stupid with being an ape. So taking into account the fact that I can't see your race over the Internet, that I had no prior knowledge of your race before this conversation and that I never "called" you an ape but rather said that you do a good impression of one, I'd say your little accusation holds zero water. I'm just going on facts here mind you.

your bike is going backwards....cracker...

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:15 PM

Wow, you got something right but too bad they have been rallying the death chant since the Carter administration. genius!

Wow, I don't think it gets any dumber than this! IRAN HAS BEEN A ENEMY, IT'S NOTHING NEW!

Of course they wanted in on Iraq, it is their ambition to control the entire middle east dumbass.

Heres an idea for ya. Why don't you, Yukon, and Herbie Rawr right over to the Iranian land of misfits, show some good American will by extracting some teeth, and then we can all do a group hug afterward....

Hey you can be a grinch about my holiday cheer all you want. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Diplomacy and alliances are the only way to win at the game of war. If we don't stop making enemies in the Middle East instead of building alliances, it won't bode well for what remains of our Iraqi Adventure.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:15 PM

your bike is going backwards....cracker...

Who's the racist now? I'm not going to sink to your filthy level Malcolm.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 05:17 PM

Hey you can be a grinch about my holiday cheer all you want. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Diplomacy and alliances are the only way to win at the game of war. If we don't stop making enemies in the Middle East instead of building alliances, it won't bode well for what remains of our Iraqi Adventure.

:laugh2:

Very good Haggy, at least I can enjoy your sense of humor. In all honesty though handling Iran with sanctions has been pretty much as diplomatic as it can get considering the tension, don't ya think?

actsnoblemartin

12-13-2007, 05:22 PM

I think iran just needs a big hug :laugh2:

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:23 PM

:laugh2:

Very good Haggy, at least I can enjoy your sense of humor. In all honesty though handling Iran with sanctions has been pretty much as diplomatic as it can get considering the tension, don't ya think?

Currently yes, but the tension meter "ball" rests firmly in our court. We can back-off and send out the olive branch if we really want to. I think it would only do us good. Of course I wouldn't trust these people as far as I could throw them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with them atleast gingerly. It's not as if the balance of power wouldn't fall to our side if we were to deal with Iran. They may be the greatest power in the Middle East, but we're the greatest power (atleast militarily) in the world.

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 05:25 PM

Currently yes, but the tension meter "ball" rests firmly in our court. We can back-off and send out the olive branch if we really want to. I think it would only do us good. Of course I wouldn't trust these people as far as I could throw them, but that doesn't mean we should deal with them atleast gingerly. It's not as if the balance of power wouldn't fall to our side if we were to deal with Iran. They may be the greatest power in the Middle East, but we're the greatest power (atleast militarily) in the world.

See, you had to go, and ruin it now so I hope clarice bites you in the ass on that trip! :D

Much like Saddam, I think things would just be said and never happen. Indeed they can't be trusted as they have more in mind when it comes to control over the middle east.

actsnoblemartin

12-13-2007, 05:29 PM

Sir Evil

12-13-2007, 05:33 PM

I may be an idiot, but i have 3 questions.

#1 what if the report is wrong?, we got iraq wrong?

#2 if they are enriching uranium cant they make that into a bomb?

#3 Israel says they will have a bomb, do you trust their intelligence?

Doesn't matter if the report is dead on 100%, it still does nothing to ensure that they will not enrich for the wrong purposes.

manu1959

12-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Who's the racist now? I'm not going to sink to your filthy level Malcolm.

too late........

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:44 PM

too late........

If my self worth rested on what you think I would've killed myself a long time ago. You can continue on with the little conflict you've invented here for as long as you wish, however my advice to you would be to lose the chip on your shoulder. It's unbecoming a grown man.

Hagbard Celine

12-13-2007, 05:45 PM

See, you had to go, and ruin it now so I hope clarice bites you in the ass on that trip! :D

Much like Saddam, I think things would just be said and never happen. Indeed they can't be trusted as they have more in mind when it comes to control over the middle east.

Wow. I'll admit I had to look up "Clarice" because I didn't know who she was. Nice reference.

red states rule

12-13-2007, 10:55 PM

Haha. Bush has been railing Iran because of its "nukular" program and it hasn't even had one since 2003. Haha. This really makes him look like a dipsh*t huh? Well, this and a few other things. :poke::dance:

So you actually believe little Adoph no longer is trying to acquire nukes? Moonbats like yiou have attacked the intel agencies over WMD's - yet you leap to embrace the intel they have on Iran

Do you understand the many holes in the report? Or are you just interested in attacking Pres Bush and putting common sense and national security on the back burner like you have over Iraq?

retiredman

12-13-2007, 11:15 PM

So you actually believe little Adoph no longer is trying to acquire nukes? Moonbats like yiou have attacked the intel agencies over WMD's - yet you leap to embrace the intel they have on Iran

Do you understand the many holes in the report? Or are you just interested in attacking Pres Bush and putting common sense and national security on the back burner like you have over Iraq?

I am curious, RSR...have you READ the latest NIE? yes or no?

red states rule

12-13-2007, 11:19 PM

I am curious, RSR...have you READ the latest NIE? yes or no?

Amazing homw the appeasers support the intel agancies now - after spending the last 4 years attacking them over their WMD reports :lol:

retiredman

12-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Aazing homw the appeasers support the intel agancies now - after spending the last 4 years attacking them over their WMD reports :lol:

can't quite bring yourself to answer a simple question, can you?

You asked if he knew how many holes were in the report. It is a simple question...how do YOU know how many holes are in the report if you haven't read it? Shouldn't your question have been phrased. "Do you know how many holes the conservative websites I visit claim are in the NIE?"

That would have made more sense, wouldn't it?

red states rule

12-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Not that facts mean anything to you, but there are many flaws in the report

Misreading the Iran Report
By Henry Kissinger

The extraordinary spectacle of the president's national security adviser obliged to defend the president's Iran policy against a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) raises two core issues: How are we now to judge the nuclear threat posed by Iran? How are we to judge the intelligence community's relationship with the White House and the rest of the government?

The "Key Judgments" released by the intelligence community last week begin with a dramatic assertion: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." This sentence was widely interpreted as a challenge to the Bush administration policy of mobilizing international pressure against alleged Iranian nuclear programs. It was, in fact, qualified by a footnote whose complex phraseology obfuscated that the suspension really applied to only one aspect of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and not even the most significant one): the construction of warheads. That qualification was not restated in the rest of the document, which continued to refer to the "halt of the weapons program" repeatedly and without qualification.

The reality is that the concern about Iranian nuclear weapons has had three components: the production of fissile material, the development of missiles and the building of warheads. Heretofore, production of fissile material has been treated as by far the greatest danger, and the pace of Iranian production of fissile material has accelerated since 2006. So has the development of missiles of increasing range. What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads.

The NIE holds that Iran may be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 and, with increasing confidence, more warheads by the period 2010 to 2015. That is virtually the same timeline as was suggested in the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate. The new estimate does not assess how long it would take to build a warhead, though it treats the availability of fissile material as the principal limiting factor. If there is a significant gap between these two processes, it would be important to be told what it is. Nor are we told how close to developing a warhead Tehran was when it suspended its program or how confident the intelligence community is in its ability to learn when work on warheads has resumed. On the latter point, the new estimate expresses only "moderate" confidence that the suspension has not been lifted already.

It is therefore doubtful that the evidence supports the dramatic language of the summary and, even less so, the broad conclusions drawn in much of the public commentary. For the past three years, the international debate has concentrated on the Iranian effort to enrich uranium by centrifuges, some 3,000 of which are now in operation. The administration has asserted that this represents a decisive step toward Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and has urged a policy of maximum pressure. Every permanent member of the U.N. Security Council has supported the request that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program; the various countries differ on the urgency with which their recommendations should be pressed and in their willingness to impose penalties.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/misreading_the_iran_report.html

retiredman

12-13-2007, 11:26 PM

so....like I suspected, you haven't read the report, only editorials about the report.

red states rule

12-13-2007, 11:28 PM

so....like I suspected, you haven't read the report, only editorials about the report.

Editorial that point out the flaws in the report. I know you could care less about those flaws since it would go against your war on reality and Pres Bush

retiredman

12-13-2007, 11:31 PM

red states rule

12-13-2007, 11:35 PM

I am curious. Do you even KNOW the difference between an "opinion" and a "fact"???

when someone says: "It is therefore doubtful that the evidence supports the dramatic language..."

that is what is called an OPINION.

Oh sure, the appeasers want to make nice with Little Adolph, thinking he is now a citizen of the world

So what if he has 3000 centrifuges up and running, it is for "peaceful" uses.

Sertes

12-14-2007, 09:01 AM

Editorial that point out the flaws in the report. I know you could care less about those flaws since it would go against your war on reality and Pres Bush

I have read the original, so I can point out where this editorial is wrong or misleading. It's a common occurence today that people trust "fast-food news", after reading this you might consider changing your approach to the news.

Let's go:

<mumble mumble>... and the pace of Iranian production of fissile material has accelerated since 2006. So has the development of missiles of increasing range. What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads.

Yes, the pace of Iranian production of CIVIL USE fissile material has accelerated since 2006. It's an important distinction!!

So has the development of missiles of increasing range, ok...

What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads. Keep this point in mind, as with the milseading start about CIVIL vs MILITARY fissile material the phrase changes entirely!!

The NIE holds that Iran may be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 and, with increasing confidence, more warheads by the period 2010 to 2015. That is virtually the same timeline as was suggested in the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate.

Pure propaganda, that is: "telling selected truths, but not all of them, to achieve a specific thougt in the listener".
The differences between NIE 2005 and NIE 2007 are listed for easy reference in the last page of NIE original, here: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf?loc=interstitialskip
And we can read that indeed the timeline is the same, but twoa crucial element is missing: first NIE 2007 they set a lower limit of late 2009, there's no way Iran could produce enough HEU until late 2009. Second, the big IF: IF THEY RESTART THEIR PROGRAM! I wrote in the first message of the thread that NIE 2007 concludes the nuclear weapons program stopped in 2003, and EVEN IF they would restart it today they'll never get enough HEU until late 2009, more reasonably 2013!!

...

Sorry if I don't have the time to assess all the other "noise" in the editorial, like the "3000 centrifuges" that (again) are for CIVIL USE... you got the idea on how this editorial was written and the bias put in it, I hope

red states rule

12-14-2007, 09:02 AM

I have read the original, so I can point out where this editorial is wrong or misleading. It's a common occurence today that people trust "fast-food news", after reading this you might consider changing your approach to the news.

Let's go:

Yes, the pace of Iranian production of CIVIL USE fissile material has accelerated since 2006. It's an important distinction!!

So has the development of missiles of increasing range, ok...

What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads. Keep this point in mind, as with the milseading start about CIVIL vs MILITARY fissile material the phrase changes entirely!!

Pure propaganda, that is: "telling selected truths, but not all of them, to achieve a specific thougt in the listener".
The differences between NIE 2005 and NIE 2007 are listed for easy reference in the last page of NIE original, here: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf?loc=interstitialskip
And we can read that indeed the timeline is the same, but twoa crucial element is missing: first NIE 2007 they set a lower limit of late 2009, there's no way Iran could produce enough HEU until late 2009. Second, the big IF: IF THEY RESTART THEIR PROGRAM! I wrote in the first message of the thread that NIE 2007 concludes the nuclear weapons program stopped in 2003, and EVEN IF they would restart it today they'll never get enough HEU until late 2009, more reasonably 2013!!

...

Sorry if I don't have the time to assess all the other "noise" in the editorial, like the "3000 centrifuges" that (again) are for CIVIL USE... you got the idea on how this editorial was written and the bias put in it, I hope

Be honest please. You do not have time to deal with the truth - not that you were ever able to deal with the truth

Appeasers thought Hitler was nothing to worry about in the 1930's. People like you never learn from history

jimnyc

12-14-2007, 09:18 AM

Sertes

12-14-2007, 10:07 AM

Sertes, have you given up on giving me that proof that "1/3 of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job"? What's wrong, you can make claims but can't back them up with credible and reputable proof? Dumbass!:laugh2:

I already proved, Zogby poll show more than 30% want an immediate impeachment of Buch & Cheney for 9/11.

Even the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose, the weak version of the conspiracy theory), is still high treason. And that is proved by Mineta testimony alone.

Sertes

12-14-2007, 10:08 AM

Be honest please. You do not have time to deal with the truth - not that you were ever able to deal with the truth

Appeasers thought Hitler was nothing to worry about in the 1930's. People like you never learn from history

Can you address the facts, please? I explained in detail where and why the editorial is wrong. Take at least the time to read it with the things I explained to you in mind. Or better yet, read the fucking original. Scared to do it?

jimnyc

12-14-2007, 10:16 AM

I already proved, Zogby poll show more than 30% want an immediate impeachment of Buch & Cheney for 9/11.

Even the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose, the weak version of the conspiracy theory), is still high treason. And that is proved by Mineta testimony alone.

Citizens wanting someone impeached DOES NOT mean they think it was an inside job, you stupid ass! Seriously, are you really this dumb, or are you just yanking our chains?

Sertes

12-14-2007, 10:21 AM

Citizens wanting someone impeached DOES NOT mean they think it was an inside job, you stupid ass! Seriously, are you really this dumb, or are you just yanking our chains?

Oh, explain it to me, then.
Why one third of americans want them impeached for how they acted on 9/11?

One was sitting comfy in a classroom full of children, being a well known target, while people was jumping from the towers and the pentagon plane was enroute.

The other we still don't know, some say he was unaware of everything but a US minister under-oath deposition corner him to his failed duties (at least!!)

And you pretend IT WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB? Well, ok, you're in the other two thirds, which I though it was composed of people not informed, instead even those informed can put head in the sand and keep pretending! It's very sad Jim, it's very sad.

Sir Evil

12-14-2007, 10:22 AM

I have read the original, so I can point out where this editorial is wrong or misleading. It's a common occurence today that people trust "fast-food news", after reading this you might consider changing your approach to the news.

You have minimum comprehension of the english language but now we are expected to listen to your translation, and accept it as fact, and that coming from a turd who thinks 911 was an inside job?

Now after reading what you have to say we should change our approach to the news? lol, and that would be what, to buy into anything written of a so called source of news? This coming from someone who depends on conspiracy websites for facts? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

jimnyc

12-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Oh, explain it to me, then.
Why one third of americans want them impeached for how they acted on 9/11?

One was sitting comfy in a classroom full of children, being a well known target, while people was jumping from the towers and the pentagon plane was enroute.

The other we still don't know, some say he was unaware of everything but a US minister under-oath deposition corner him to his failed duties (at least!!)

And you pretend IT WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB? Well, ok, you're in the other two thirds, which I though it was composed of people not informed, instead even those informed can put head in the sand and keep pretending! It's very sad Jim, it's very sad.

Hell, it doesn't even mention "inside job" in what you posted! People think there was incompetence, yes, but that doesn't mean they think they were in on it!

You have given us NOTHING AT ALL to backup your claims - AGAIN. You run around here spouting things like facts but when called to the floor to backup your facts, you ALWAYS fall on your little spaghetti filled head! :laugh2: