Iran has no WMD's

[Huggie Smiles]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

^yep. agreed.

.

are you agreeing to impeach Bushie?

[Jenks]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

i'd agree to that, except wouldn't that leave cheney in charge? not good imo.

[toasty]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

i'd agree to that, except wouldn't that leave cheney in charge? not good imo.

you'd have to knock out Cheney at the same time, and personally, I think they've both earned it. That would leave Pelosi as President. Not my first choice, but so much better than what we've got now...

[Jenks]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

I reeeeeeally don't like Pelosi.

[thesightless]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

Yeah, but that puts Iran in pretty much the same category as dozens of other countries. Doesn't explain the ramped up rhetoric against Iran specifically, and the accusations only makes us lose even more credibility when shown to be at odds with our own intelligence. We need to keep tabs on these countries that want to develop nuclear weapons, not publicly call them out based upon smoke and mirrors.

fair enough, but you damn well know that when a country is hardlining its programme one week, then saying thier mortal enemies will be wiped off the map, rhetoric will be generated. the middle east will never be sane or peaceful. end of story. since the beginning of time it has been a war zone, and since the advent of islam it has been in constant warfare. the real question is..... why do we as outsiders even care anymore?

[Jenks]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

the real question is..... why do we as outsiders even care anymore?

because there's a fuckload of oil over there.

[Miroslav]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

i don't trust ahmadinejad at all.

bingo... That said, I do also agree with Toasty that we can't just go start bashing (much less invading) other countries with accusations that end up being complete bs...that's obviously not without its own unpleasant reprecussions for us in the longer term. There is a difficult balance to be managed here...on one hand, we shouldn't baselessly villify anyone and basically become the heavy-handed intolerance that we claim to abhor...on the other hand, a nuclear Iran or Syria won't be a pretty sight, and once the cat is out of the bag it's done...we can't go back.

[Shpira]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

"because there's a fuckload of oil over there. "

YES....one of the reasons why there has been a constant war in the middle east is because of oil...If the region is destabilized then oil is much cheaper and can be exchanged for protection...e.g. If there was peace in the Middle East why would the Saudi's Need so much protection from the US in exchange for oil.
So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion.


Furhermore....the way technology is advancing all countries wanting WMD's will have them sooner or later as they will becme more readily available so there is no real stoping this - short of destroying every other nation apart from the US and its friends...(god, that would make things boring)

[thesightless]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion.

THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING BEFORE 1947 ? ISLAM'S EXPANSION? THE ROMANS VS THE JEWS? ISLAM VS HINDU? ISLAM VS CHRISITIANITY? ISLAM VS ASIAN SECULAR RELIGIONS? JEWS VS ISLAM? JEWS VS CHRISTIANITY??

THE MIDDLE EAST WILL NEVER BE PEACEFUL, EVEN IF THE U.S.A. NEVER EXISTED.

[Jenks]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

I agree with your statement, but all caps makes you look like a douche Sean. Im just sayin...

[Shpira]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING BEFORE 1947 ? ISLAM'S EXPANSION? THE ROMANS VS THE JEWS? ISLAM VS HINDU? ISLAM VS CHRISITIANITY? ISLAM VS ASIAN SECULAR RELIGIONS? JEWS VS ISLAM? JEWS VS CHRISTIANITY??
THE MIDDLE EAST WILL NEVER BE PEACEFUL, EVEN IF THE U.S.A. NEVER EXISTED.

MATE....calm down!!! for fuck sake...

I don't account for anything but in all likelihood (if we are talking hypothetically here) Israel would have been wiped out a long time ago if not for USA right??? There you have it no war between Jews and Muslims in the middle east -- Again I am not saying that this is the right thing to have happened I am just stating what I believe would have happened--- as for Islam vs Hindu, that’s Britain’s fault to large extent --- in the process of decolonisation of India.

The other questions are broader than Middle East...and are questions of religious conviction --- I have none so I feel inadequate to answer...as far as I am concerned all religions could be banned for all I care or allowed to peacefully co-exist ....
p.s. Buddhism is the best religion IMO.

p.p.s We were talking present time not history...but I see where you are comming from

[Miroslav]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

"because there's a fuckload of oil over there. "

YES....one of the reasons why there has been a constant war in the middle east is because of oil...If the region is destabilized then oil is much cheaper and can be exchanged for protection...e.g. If there was peace in the Middle East why would the Saudi's Need so much protection from the US in exchange for oil.
So it is in the interest of the US economy to have a war in the Middle east....which is fair enough...I'm not judging just stating my opinion.

Actually, if you take a closer look at economics I think you may see that you've got this a bit backwards. The US would very much prefer stability - but as long as it is their kind of stability, of course (meaning, not with the extremists and terrorists in power).

When there is an increased threat of violence and destabilization in the Middle East, the price of oil GOES UP, not down. I can find you all kinds of news articles that talk about the temporary impact on future markets of terrorist nutjobs blowing up a portion of a pipeline over there. Commodity markets do not like uncertainty about supply and react to it in the aforementioned way.

Aside from the market economics, increased violence in the Middle East would most likely be along the lines of US/Jews vs. Arabs, as it has most always been before...this wouldn't make Arabs more inclined to give us a better deal on oil. It is true that the US is propping up the Saudi Arabian government, but I think it is doing this precisely in the hopes of preserving as much stability as possible by not letting more extremist Saudi groups kick the royal family out and take over the reigns.

Finaly, there already is a group of oil producing nations that get together and regulate oil output and thus significantly influence price: OPEC. They don't call us and ask our opinion before they set policy.

[AntonyM]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

It seems the main thing is with this intelligence report
makes Bush look more like a fraud and this country
more inept for going along with it, regardless of how you
personally feel about the war. Still seems politicans
are afraid to nail him to cross collectively especially as
a lame duck president. This apprehension allow Bush
to continue his foot in mouth policy. You have to remember
this guy was boys with Billy Graham, who was a total whackjob,
consulting him at times, now that is scary shit. Bush may go
down in history as babbling naybob of a president, but until
Jan. 20th 2009 he'll give the press something to report, because
the 2008 elections seem like a sleeper right now.

[Shpira]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

Actually, if you take a closer look at economics I think you may see that you've got this a bit backwards. The US would very much prefer stability - but as long as it is their kind of stability, of course (meaning, not with the extremists and terrorists in power).
When there is an increased threat of violence and destabilization in the Middle East, the price of oil GOES UP, not down. I can find you all kinds of news articles that talk about the temporary impact on future markets of terrorist nutjobs blowing up a portion of a pipeline over there. Commodity markets do not like uncertainty about supply and react to it in the aforementioned way.
Aside from the market economics, increased violence in the Middle East would most likely be along the lines of US/Jews vs. Arabs, as it has most always been before...this wouldn't make Arabs more inclined to give us a better deal on oil. It is true that the US is propping up the Saudi Arabian government, but I think it is doing this precisely in the hopes of preserving as much stability as possible by not letting more extremist Saudi groups kick the royal family out and take over the reigns.
Finaly, there already is a group of oil producing nations that get together and regulate oil output and thus significantly influence price: OPEC. They don't call us and ask our opinion before they set policy.

Yes...I know all of that ...and I understand market economics...but I am pretty sure that the US has some special deal with the Saudi's. It must do for all the services rendered + its going to have a special deal with the Iraq government + if its army picks up the oil directly from the place its taken out of the ground its surely cheaper as the US guarantees safety...+ as you say "their kind of stability" will hardly ever happen...

...I understand market economics and generally what you are saying is true ...nevertheless on the other hand I am not sure what pays more for the USA...
because surely if it wasn't profitable why do it...?

If you know that you are going to loose money in the long run on oil prices why sell weapons to both sides so that they can fight each other???
Why invade Iraq and stay there for 5 years sitting on your hands while people kill each other by the hundreds each day...
Maybe you can explain why the US government would go against its own interests...cuz I don't get it?

I for one think that its more than an Idiot president....don’t get me wrong I’m not saying conspiracy and what not but there are perhapse interests we don't know about...

[jesteraver]

Re: Iran has no WMD's

lol

I can't wait for Bush to be like. I meant to go after Iran but I said Iraq by accident.

honestly i don't trust reading stuff on paper. there has to be actual visual fact for this type of things.

I lack trust in everything. I want actual proof. If it is a real document. I want everyone name on it signed with their own blood, and that is when I will know that they really mean it.