| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2006 09:45:32 PM |
| Object: |
West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
This is the price that Israel pays for not responding to the SCUD missle
attacks in 1991. With the West resigning itself to the Iranians going
nuclear, there is no fear of an Israeli attack. What the Israelis sold as
"great restaint" was interpreted as cowardice.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=68662006
West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran
WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing
its drive to become a nuclear power.
Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face
the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions
that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country
would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by
referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
"If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they
will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons
because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through
the use of force".
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
begin 666 print.cfm?id=68662006&referer=&block=0&capping=0&session_capping=0&cb=3afa922fc8
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! ``````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
14 Jan 2006 09:51:41 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is the price that Israel pays for not responding to the SCUD missle
attacks in 1991. With the West resigning itself to the Iranians going
nuclear, there is no fear of an Israeli attack. What the Israelis sold as
"great restaint" was interpreted as cowardice.
This is what happens when Iran saw the U.S. attack a
country that did not have nukes (Iraq) while we left those that
did have nukes (Noth Korea) alone.
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke. Big suprise then
that Iran is violating a treaty after they saw the way the U.S.
ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an illegal
war.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mosquebuster" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 11:01:54 AM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke.
The only way for a turd-world shithole to guarantee its utter annihilation
is to actually use it ---
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
20 Jan 2006 08:47:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:01:54 GMT, "Mosquebuster"
<magic_c@rpetbomber.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke.
The only way for a turd-world shithole to guarantee its utter annihilation
is to actually use it ---
The former USA, yes.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "beav" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
16 Jan 2006 01:23:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:01:54 GMT, "Mosquebuster"
<magic_c@rpetbomber.com> wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke.
The only way for a turd-world shithole to guarantee its utter annihilation
is to actually use it ---
its getting to the point where Israeli military action is not an "if"
but a "when". i get a whiff of the Suez canal attack of, what, 1956
when Israel had the tacit approval of the UK and France. In this
case, it'll be the tacit approval of the US, UK, France, Germany,
Russia and maybe the chinese....
anyone to start a pool?
my first entry will be Israel attacks sometime during ramadan 2006....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel B" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
19 Jan 2006 06:00:24 PM |
|
|
beav wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:01:54 GMT, "Mosquebuster"
<magic_c@rpetbomber.com> wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke.
The only way for a turd-world shithole to guarantee its utter annihilation
is to actually use it ---
its getting to the point where Israeli military action is not an "if"
but a "when". i get a whiff of the Suez canal attack of, what, 1956
when Israel had the tacit approval of the UK and France. In this
case, it'll be the tacit approval of the US, UK, France, Germany,
Russia and maybe the chinese....
anyone to start a pool?
my first entry will be Israel attacks sometime during ramadan 2006....
Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Nothing new here
except the distance the IDF will have to go. Including overflight of
Jordan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
19 Jan 2006 07:27:10 PM |
|
|
Daniel B wrote:
beav wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:01:54 GMT, "Mosquebuster"
<magic_c@rpetbomber.com> wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
We sent this powerful message to all the manics in the world,
the only way to protect yourself is with a nuke.
The only way for a turd-world shithole to guarantee its utter
annihilation
is to actually use it ---
its getting to the point where Israeli military action is not an "if"
but a "when". i get a whiff of the Suez canal attack of, what, 1956
when Israel had the tacit approval of the UK and France. In this
case, it'll be the tacit approval of the US, UK, France, Germany,
Russia and maybe the chinese....
anyone to start a pool?
my first entry will be Israel attacks sometime during ramadan 2006....
Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Nothing new here
except the distance the IDF will have to go. Including overflight of
Jordan.
That would be a superficial similarity. The Iranians have missile
technology far more advanced than Saddam ever did, for both defense and
counterstrike. Additionally, their facilities are diverified and
redundant. Many are deep underground, or in densely populated areas.
It is quite possible that Iran has a few nukes already, but even if they
don't IsReeL has no means to stop Iranian Shahab missiles from raining
down chemical or biological agents on them. Since IsReeL is a very
small country, a few dozen tons of Lewisite or Botulin Toxin will render
the Middle East Judenfrei very quickly.
Or prehaps Trinitite, from Jaffa to Negev. All toasty warm with
radioactivity...
Can you say "Wiped from the Map"? I knew you could...
;D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freewill" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
14 Jan 2006 11:58:00 PM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 01:01:08 AM |
|
|
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in,
What were those again?
and there are no good reasons for Iran having nukes.
None? How about for self-defense or for bombing Israel.
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given an ultimatum by whatever enemy
has the power and will to do so, then attacked if it is not met.
I doubt it. The U.S. military can barely sustain itself now. If we
did attack, the price of a gallon of gas woulf top $5 and there
would be a general revolt.
The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become far too feminized and
communized to deal with Muslims.
Wishful American theory.
Muslims have to be pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat
then forced down naked into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat,
steal their way to your murder.
Racist *****, aren't you?
Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to think
otherwise.
And homophobic too!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 02:02:09 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Q8mdnfmzhueoblTenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Muslims have to be pushed up against a wall with a knife to their
throat then forced down naked into the dirt, otherwise they will lie,
cheat, steal their way to your murder.
Racist *****, aren't you?
Open your eyes before it is too late.
http://www.islam.tc/main.php
--
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader seeking
to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a President for the
first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of our basest and most
irrational fears.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freewill" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 04:06:12 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Q8mdnfmzhueoblTenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in,
What were those again?
France - owed money, oil4food kickbacks & too many Muslims around their
cities, Germany - owed money, oil4food kickbacks, Russia - owed money,
oil4food kickbacks & pending contracts, China - owed money & pending
contracts, Canada - no army, etc...
and there are no good reasons for Iran having nukes.
None? How about for self-defense or for bombing Israel.
Defense against who? Iran is surrounded by allies (Sadaam is down and out)
and no else has nukes in the region, except....
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given an ultimatum by whatever
enemy has the power and will to do so, then attacked if it is not met.
I doubt it. The U.S. military can barely sustain itself now. If we
did attack, the price of a gallon of gas woulf top $5 and there
would be a general revolt.
Gas in Canada is already at $5.00/gallon and there is no revolt.
But you'd like revolt probably as much as you'd like a nuke on Isreal, now
wouldn't you?
Then you could say "I told you so", like a little *****.
The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become far too feminized and
communized to deal with Muslims.
Wishful American theory.
No, I am Canadian, and it's no theory. It's a fact. When was the last time
that the UN was actually effectual? 1953?
Muslims have to be pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat
then forced down naked into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat,
steal their way to your murder.
Racist *****, aren't you?
Oh, I see. Now Islam is a race. And I suppose Fascism is a sport.
Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to think
otherwise.
And homophobic too!
Bend over for Allah, Geoff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 09:00:45 AM |
|
|
In <H9pyf.20$xk1.2310@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, I am Canadian,
Oh. The far northern territories.
The Empire appreciates that you've chosen to kiss up early and avoid the
rush but you've been told more than once your place is to strip mine your
country and deliver the shale oil. So don't be interrupting the adult
countries when they're having a serious discussion. You have homework to
do.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 02:10:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:01:08 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in,
What were those again?
Intelligence from around the world stating they had WMD?
Violations of the cease-fire from Gulf War I.
Ignoring of every UN resolution to bring them to account
for their behavior.
<snip naive idiocy>
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 01:47:58 PM |
|
|
"NAH" <NAH@> wrote in message
news:tm0ks1hvid9c2s074b88bdcq5f061prm1l@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:01:08 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in,
What were those again?
Intelligence from around the world stating they had WMD?
except it wasn't from "around the world" was it? and it's been proven time
and time again that there wasn't any evidence showing there were WMDs, or
did you switch over during those reports?
.
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 02:41:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:47:58 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote:
"NAH" <NAH@> wrote in message
news:tm0ks1hvid9c2s074b88bdcq5f061prm1l@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:01:08 -0500, "Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in,
What were those again?
Intelligence from around the world stating they had WMD?
except it wasn't from "around the world" was it?
pretty much.
and it's been proven time
and time again that there wasn't any evidence showing there were WMDs, or
did you switch over during those reports?
I guess the foreign intelligence service lied. British, French, German .. etc.
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
16 Jan 2006 11:43:01 AM |
|
|
"Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com...
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no
good reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was -
given an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has
become far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have
to be pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced
down naked into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way
to your murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves
prefer to think otherwise.
That was an erudite and informative synopsis of American foreign policy !
I think not !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 08:53:53 AM |
|
|
In <1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was
Another quagmire eh?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
20 Jan 2006 08:46:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:53:53 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was
Another quagmire eh?
And another failure as was Afghanistan. Currently, ShrubCo's struck out
at bat and won't leave the batters box.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
20 Jan 2006 11:10:22 PM |
|
|
In <1383t1dbetbj6b9armo7uefp8ion2qoibb@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:53:53 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was
Another quagmire eh?
And another failure as was Afghanistan. Currently, ShrubCo's struck out
at bat and won't leave the batters box.
I see oil is headed for $70 a barrel...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
21 Jan 2006 04:41:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:10:22 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1383t1dbetbj6b9armo7uefp8ion2qoibb@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:53:53 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was
Another quagmire eh?
And another failure as was Afghanistan. Currently, ShrubCo's struck out
at bat and won't leave the batters box.
I see oil is headed for $70 a barrel...
That's low compared to what it will be.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
21 Jan 2006 05:43:56 PM |
|
|
In <h4e5t19sggi77irnrnrbios6l68fogslub@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:10:22 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1383t1dbetbj6b9armo7uefp8ion2qoibb@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:53:53 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <1xlyf.25304$W03.972202@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Freewill"
<freewill@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was
Another quagmire eh?
And another failure as was Afghanistan. Currently, ShrubCo's struck
out at bat and won't leave the batters box.
I see oil is headed for $70 a barrel...
That's low compared to what it will be.
Time to invest in energy stocks...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
22 Jan 2006 04:26:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:43:56 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
In <h4e5t19sggi77irnrnrbios6l68fogslub@4ax.com>, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:10:22 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
And another failure as was Afghanistan. Currently, ShrubCo's struck
out at bat and won't leave the batters box.
I see oil is headed for $70 a barrel...
That's low compared to what it will be.
Time to invest in energy stocks...
Indeed.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 05:17:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
16 Jan 2006 11:49:22 AM |
|
|
"NAH" <NAH@> wrote in message
news:jp2ls1pelr5ogjamhejs4ncvbls8m0k25t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was -
given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has
become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down
naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
Firing on aircraft that were ILEGALLY over flying Iraq, UK/US had no
security council mandate to do so.
There were almost daily flights into Iraq during the sanctions period.
The UK/US also made a large number of sorties, bombing Iraq, before the
illegal invasion.
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=9527
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 11:57:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
I may have responded to you incorrectly, Christopher. Maybe my
coffee hasn't kicked in yet .. :)
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 12:00:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:57:02 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
I may have responded to you incorrectly, Christopher. Maybe my
coffee hasn't kicked in yet .. :)
I guess I was right the first time.
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 11:55:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
Maybe you missed it, but they didn't. The US used weasel language
which they alone interpreted as permission to go in. UN rules required
an explit authotisation, not "that a member nation use any means
necessary", leaving it up to that member nation to unilaterally decide
what those necessary means were.
It's why France and Russia refused to grant the US's use of similar
language the second time around.
But then the US never let anybody stand in its way as the
international bully.
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NAH NAH@" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 12:00:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:55:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was - given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
Maybe you missed it, but they didn't. The US used weasel language
which they alone interpreted as permission to go in. UN rules required
an explit authotisation, not "that a member nation use any means
necessary", leaving it up to that member nation to unilaterally decide
what those necessary means were.
When they attacked (daily) coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone
we could have SMOKED them as an act of self-defense. Our
patience was very commendable, but finally it gave out.
Read the above once again. If we are flying patrols in the
no-fly zone and are ATTACKED, we can blast the hell out of
them.
Get it yet?
<snip irrelevance>
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
16 Jan 2006 12:07:47 PM |
|
|
"NAH" <NAH@> wrote in message
news:683ls117tl7qaeuan3k22i0qkhe3ao3281@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:55:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0600, NAH <NAH@> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law
with an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but
none of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no
good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was -
given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has
become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to
be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down
naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer
to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
Maybe you missed it, but they didn't. The US used weasel language
which they alone interpreted as permission to go in. UN rules required
an explit authotisation, not "that a member nation use any means
necessary", leaving it up to that member nation to unilaterally decide
what those necessary means were.
When they attacked (daily) coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone
we could have SMOKED them as an act of self-defense. Our
patience was very commendable, but finally it gave out.
From http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
President Bush's "zero tolerance" for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has
apparently dropped to "two percent tolerance." According to administration
officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the
no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would
constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the
principle of "self-defense" but also for violation of the recently passed UN
resolution.
The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the
shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even
taking the matter to the UN Security Council.
There's a very good reason for the government's decision: Despite their mild
protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones
have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either
"self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for
invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Read the above once again. If we are flying patrols in the
no-fly zone and are ATTACKED, we can blast the hell out of
them.
Get it yet?
<snip irrelevance>
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran |
15 Jan 2006 01:57:30 PM |
|
|
Over the years, we have allowed other countries, like England, France,
Russia, India, Pakistan, China and Israel to build nuclear weapons.
If we want one of Israel's neighbors to forego nuclear weapons we will have
to force Israel to dispose of theirs.
The nuclear genie is out of the box!
Fortunately Iran will never have a nuclear inventory even remotely matching
the USA. In addition Iran has no long range missiles or bombers to deliver
them beyond the Middle East.
In actual practice, having a few nuclear bombs is more of a defensive
measure than an aggressive measure. No one can afford to bomb another
nuclear power or the friend of one for fear of a devastating reprisal.
"NAH" <NAH@> wrote in message
news:jp2ls1pelr5ogjamhejs4ncvbls8m0k25t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:58:00 -0500, "Freewill" <freewill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1137297101.133175.316160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...the way the U.S.ingnored the U.N. and violated international law with
an
illegal war.
Many nations had their reasons for not wanting to go into Iraq, but none
of
them were any better than the reasons for going in, and there are no good
reasons for Iran having nukes. Iran will be dealt with as Iraq was -
given
an ultimatum by whatever enemy has the power and will to do so, then
attacked if it is not met. The UN is over. It was a nice idea but has
become
far too feminized and communized to deal with Muslims. Muslims have to be
pushed up against a wall with a knife to their throat then forced down
naked
into the dirt, otherwise they will lie, cheat, steal their way to your
murder. Only pussies, faggots, wankers, and Muslims themselves prefer to
think otherwise.
They all were, because there was no reason to go in. The invasion was
legal under the applical canons of international law: the Geneva and
UN conventions, and the US's own Nuremburg precedent.
Maybe you missed it, but the UN sanctioned Gulf War I, which
ended in Saddam's cease-fire. After we believed him and pulled
back our troops, he continued to fight, violating UN resolutions
almost daily. Firing on coalition aircraft, etc., etc..
That is called CASUS BELLI for the current invasion.
If you don't think so, then you are deluded and not worth
the time to debate.
--
"Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
- President George W. Bush, 2004
http://zogby.blogspot.com/rummy.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
