U.S. report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Ok, but doesn't matter really.

How about addressing the rest of my post. That's utterly more important.
It's the justification you give for Iran wanting nukes in the first place and suddenly it "doesn't matter really?"

btw, we ARE talking with Iran, in case you haven't noticed. In case you also haven't noticed Iran is not exactly the most agreeable country to deal with diplomatically. Iran might also very well not use nukes pre-emptively. I doubt they would would too. But let's not kid ourselves. It's not as if they're Switzerland. Iran is run by a small group of fervently religious nutjobs that call the shots, not their young, intelligent people. That makes them unknowable as to what their intentions really are and makes us suspicious as well. Considering some of the actions we've seen in the last couple of decades from similar religious Islamic nutters, Iran having nukes doesn't exactly give anyone a warm fuzzy.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Do you remember the 1980's ?

LMFAO.

OR the 1960's and 70's?

You played yourself again.

Yeah, LMFAO too. :roll:

How about citing some actual specifics instead of making broad generalizations and then acting as if you just made some valid, intelligent observation?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I say we have a draft for the chickendoves like you who assume Iran has no intent to pursue nukes. Then if they do develop nukes we can send all you guys over there to correct the problem as contrition for your bad assumption. Are you so sure Iran has nothing but peaceful intentions that you'd be willing to do that?

Just a few weeks ago, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF was scaremongering empty nighmares WW III, long after he knew the then unreleased NIE directly contradicted his LIES.

Are you so sure Iran has active nuclear weapons that you'd be willing to start that world war over his LIES? :shocked:

I say we have a draft for the brainless TastesLikeChickensh8 hawks like you who blindly swallowed the Bushwhackos' LIES about Iraq's WMD's and who keep their noses so deeply embedded up their asses that you still can't see the truth about those turds.

Since they're so eager for more stupid, meaningless war, they should be the first ones sent to the front lines. We should be sure to underfund allocations for their equipment and veterans' benefits for the survivors... if there are any.

We could call it The Darwin Brigade. :laugh:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I say we have a draft for the chickendoves like you who assume Iran has no intent to pursue nukes. Then if they do develop nukes we can send all you guys over there to correct the problem as contrition for your bad assumption. Are you so sure Iran has nothing but peaceful intentions that you'd be willing to do that?

Just a few weeks ago, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF was scaremongering empty nighmares WW III, long after he knew the then unreleased NIE directly contradicted his LIES.
Really? Prove it.

Oh, wait. I bet your one of those who didn't actually bother reading what Bush was and was not told and just spout the ***** party line. You also ignore why one of the authors of the NIE itself was "scaremongering" as well. Shouldn't he have known too? After all, he's on YOUR side and is a known anti-Bush, hyper-partisan in the State Department. So if Bush was lying then explain why one of yours was lying too. He helped write the NIE. Surely he knew the truth of the matter?

Are you so sure Iran has active nuclear weapons that you'd be willing to start that world war over his LIES? :shocked:

I say we have a draft for the brainless TastesLikeChickensh8 hawks like you who blindly swallowed the Bushwhackos' LIES about Iraq's WMD's and who keep their noses so deeply embedded up their asses that you still can't see the truth about those turds.

Since they're so eager for more stupid, meaningless war, they should be the first ones sent to the front lines. We should be sure to underfund allocations for their equipment and veterans' benefits for the survivors... if there are any.

We could call it The Darwin Brigade. :laugh:
btw, I'm not advocating starting any war, but your rhetorical trash-spewing and squalid attempts at sliming everyone who doesn't toe your ideological and political pov in here seemingly is typical of why you can't comprehend that simple fact. Then again, even simple facts seem to pass you right by.

Then the remainder of your post is nothing more than your usual unhinged ranting and bullshit.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's the justification you give for Iran wanting nukes in the first place and suddenly it "doesn't matter really?"
Ok, I said I could be wrong, although I don't believe so overall. There isn't only one reason they wish to have nukes.

btw, we ARE talking with Iran, in case you haven't noticed. In case you also haven't noticed Iran is not exactly the most agreeable country to deal with diplomatically.
Well, if that aint the pot calling the kettle black. :roll:

Yes, we are talking to Iran, but not in the manner we should be. We are being aggressive. If we can obtain the right kind of relationship with Iran, the notion of whether or not they have nukes would be irrelevent.

Iran might also very well not use nukes pre-emptively. I doubt they would would too.
Then why shouldn't they be allowed to have them? They have a right to defend themselves.

But let's not kid ourselves. It's not as if they're Switzerland. Iran is run by a small group of fervently religious nutjobs that call the shots, not their young, intelligent people. That makes them unknowable as to what their intentions really are and makes us suspicious as well. Considering some of the actions we've seen in the last couple of decades from similar religious Islamic nutters, Iran having nukes doesn't exactly give anyone a warm fuzzy.

Oh, I see you answered the question, because you don't feel comfortable with Iran having nukes. Perhaps WW3, and millions dead would make you sleep better at night?

And by what means are you willing to use to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes? What if sanctions don't work? Nor airstrikes? Are you willing to support an invasion? Are you willing to become evil to save the world from evil?
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Do you remember the 1980's ?

LMFAO.

OR the 1960's and 70's?

You played yourself again.

Yeah, LMFAO too. :roll:

How about citing some actual specifics instead of making broad generalizations and then acting as if you just made some valid, intelligent observation?


The removal of mossadegh the support of the largely hated shah, the PROXY WAR THROUGH IRAQ, the SHOOTING DOWN OF AN CIVILIAN IRANIAN PASSENGER JET?


Yeah, go fukk yourself now
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Do you remember the 1980's ?

LMFAO.

OR the 1960's and 70's?

You played yourself again.

Yeah, LMFAO too. :roll:

How about citing some actual specifics instead of making broad generalizations and then acting as if you just made some valid, intelligent observation?


The removal of mossadegh the support of the largely hated shah, the PROXY WAR THROUGH IRAQ, the SHOOTING DOWN OF AN CIVILIAN IRANIAN PASSENGER JET?


Yeah, go fukk yourself now

Yeah, figured you were just being your usual ignorant self.

fyi, Mossadeq was removed in the 50s. btw, there was both anti-monarchy and pro-monarchy support amongst the masses. The shah was not as widely despised as some would try to make everyone believe, and Mossadeq was falling out of public favor due to lack of delivery on his promises (kind of like Ahmadinejad today). That's not to mention the power-play Mossadeq was pulling by overstepping his authority and dissolving Iranian Parliament.

Proxy war through Iraq? I guess you ignore that we also furtively provided support to Iran as well, eh? Or are you actually trying to imply that the US was behind Saddam's invasion of Iran? I wouldn't doubt it. Sounds like the kind of ignorant accusation you'd make.

The downing of the Iranian airliner was a tragic mistake but considering everything that was happening at the time in the Persian Gulf with Iran it wasn't very surpising. Google the case of the USS Samuel B. Roberts because you are probably clueless about all the surrounding circumstances and tensions of that time.

btw, where's your example from the 60s?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Fern
No, not the "exact opposite". Went from high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know". The report does NOT give strong assurance that Iran is NOT intending to pursue nuke weapons. The exact opposite w/b a report giving strong assurance that Iran was NOT pursuing nuke weapons (prolly would have to also note that the elements needed to develop nuke weapons were also not in place. Contrary to this report).

That's true. I pointed out several times the "moderate degree of confidence" but, of course, the lefties have yet to respond to that. It doesn't fit their agenda.

So I guess it's OK for the chickenhawks to be banging the war drums because Iran might "intend" to purse nukes. You realy expect intelligence to be able prove a negative here?

I hate to say it, but it's time to reintstate the draft, it really is. That's the only thing that can reign in the chickenhawks bastards and force them to live in the same reality as everyone else.
I say we have a draft for the chickendoves like you who assume Iran has no intent to pursue nukes. Then if they do develop nukes we can send all you guys over there to correct the problem as contrition for your bad assumption. Are you so sure Iran has nothing but peaceful intentions that you'd be willing to do that?

I'm not losing any sleep over Iran, but apparently you are, no wonder your nick is TastesLikeChicken. :laugh:

If you have any proof that Iran is pursuing nukes and plans to use them then please link me to it, otherwise stop with your fearmongering.

A coward dies a thousand deaths.....

It seems you would prefer to send others (or other's kids) to fight a war over it. I guess a Chickenhawk must die a thousand deaths..... or send thousands to die in their place.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then the remainder of your post is nothing more than your usual unhinged ranting and bullshit.

We have conclusive proof, in print, on the record, available to even the most intellectually challenged individuals like you, that the Bushwhacko administration have committed
  • MURDER by starting their war of LIES in Iraq that, as of 12/5/07 11:55 am EDT, has caused the deaths of 3,886 American troops.

  • TREASON by shredding the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
  • PURJURY by lying under oath.
  • LYING TO CONGRESS, which is a felony even when not under oath.
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE with their lies and now, with the further evidence that the CIA destroyed tapes showing their torture.
I don't care whether you like my "usual unhinged ranting." It's anything BUT bullshit.

We still won't know ALL of the crimes the Bushwhackos have committed for a long time (if ever), but with all the facts currently at hand, if you still support their crimes, either you're really stupid beyond comprehension, or you're one of the Bushwhacko TRAITORS. Which is it? :roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then the remainder of your post is nothing more than your usual unhinged ranting and bullshit.

We have conclusive proof, in print, on the record, available to even the most intellectually challenged individuals like you, that the Bushwhacko administration have committed
  • MURDER by starting their war of LIES in Iraq that, as of 12/5/07 11:55 am EDT, has caused the deaths of 3,886 American troops.

  • TREASON by shredding the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
  • PURJURY by lying under oath.
  • LYING TO CONGRESS, which is a felony even when not under oath.
  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE with their lies and now, with the further evidence that the CIA destroyed tapes showing their torture.
I don't care whether you like my "usual unhinged ranting." It's anything BUT bullshit.

We still won't know ALL of the crimes the Bushwhackos have committed for a long time (if ever), but with all the facts currently at hand, if you still support their crimes, either you're really stupid beyond comprehension, or you're one of the Bushwhacko TRAITORS. Which is it? :roll:

Presenting your unhinged rants in a wild-eyed, bold/caps fashion doesn't change anything Harvey, or make them facts. It only serves to make you look like a complete lunatic instead of someone who's only a little crazy. Your incessant regurgitation of the same things over and over in here only add to your lunacy.

btw, if there was conclusive proof of Bush's lies anywhere else besides your own fervent imagination then Bush would have been impeached by now. So despite your insistance, you still fos.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChickenSh8
Presenting your unhinged rants in a wild-eyed, bold/caps fashion doesn't change anything Harvey, or make them facts. It only serves to make you look like a complete lunatic instead of someone who's only a little crazy. Your incessant regurgitation of the same things over and over in here only add to your lunacy.

btw, if there was conclusive proof of Bush's lies anywhere else besides your own fervent imagination then Bush would have been impeached by now. So despite your insistance, you still fos.
[/quote]

Here it comes, folks... The windup... the pitch... the same old attempted setup... :roll:

I and others have posted so much hard evidence of the Bushwhackos' crimes, so often that neocon pimps like you started a campaign to discredit my long, detailed, DOCUMENTED posts by labeling them as "macros."

Then, when I refer to them without the links, you trot out that same tired old bullshit that there is no proof of their crimes.

After six years of their LIES, TREASON, MURDER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PURJURY, GROSS CORRUPTION and who knows how many more high crimes, if you're still too mouse challenged to find the evidence, I have to wonder why you didn't listen when your mother warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind. :Q

Go ahead... Post credible links that prove us wrong.

If you can't do that, :lips: my (_!_)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But let's not kid ourselves. It's not as if they're Switzerland. Iran is run by a small group of fervently religious nutjobs that call the shots, not their young, intelligent people. That makes them unknowable as to what their intentions really are and makes us suspicious as well. Considering some of the actions we've seen in the last couple of decades from similar religious Islamic nutters, Iran having nukes doesn't exactly give anyone a warm fuzzy.

Oh, I see you answered the question, because you don't feel comfortable with Iran having nukes. Perhaps WW3, and millions dead would make you sleep better at night?

And by what means are you willing to use to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes? What if sanctions don't work? Nor airstrikes? Are you willing to support an invasion? Are you willing to become evil to save the world from evil?

Got an answer yet, Chicken?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: bamacre
And by what means are you willing to use to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes? What if sanctions don't work? Nor airstrikes? Are you willing to support an invasion? Are you willing to become evil to save the world from evil?

Got an answer yet, Chicken?

Another question -- Is he willing to volunteer to put his own TastesLikeChickenSh8 ass on the line in that invasion?
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Yeah, figured you were just being your usual ignorant self.



fyi, Mossadeq was removed in the 50s. btw, there was both anti-monarchy and pro-monarchy support amongst the masses. The shah was not as widely despised as some would try to make everyone believe, and Mossadeq was falling out of public favor due to lack of delivery on his promises (kind of like Ahmadinejad today). That's not to mention the power-play Mossadeq was pulling by overstepping his authority and dissolving Iranian Parliament.

Proxy war through Iraq? I guess you ignore that we also furtively provided support to Iran as well, eh? Or are you actually trying to imply that the US was behind Saddam's invasion of Iran? I wouldn't doubt it. Sounds like the kind of ignorant accusation you'd make.

The downing of the Iranian airliner was a tragic mistake but considering everything that was happening at the time in the Persian Gulf with Iran it wasn't very surpising. Google the case of the USS Samuel B. Roberts because you are probably clueless about all the surrounding circumstances and tensions of that time.

btw, where's your example from the 60s?


Instead of me taking a dump on your wiki/google branded "knowledge", can you please tell me what your point is? Iran has reasons to hate the U.S. no? Was the U.S. not guiding iraqi missiles into Iranian cities? Was the U.S not providing aid and encouraging IRaq's killing of thousands of iranians? Was the U.S. position since the rise of the ayatollah's to undermine their government?

You said Iran had no reason to want to build nukes in the 1990's and had no reason to feel threatened by the U.S. . You were WRONG. Admit this before I correct your revisionist history. I don't know why I would bother since you essentially implied iran-contra was implemented to BENEFIT iran...





 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
There are alot of mideast nations and peoples that hate the U.S. for no good reason... Iran and persians are not among them.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChickenSh8
Presenting your unhinged rants in a wild-eyed, bold/caps fashion doesn't change anything Harvey, or make them facts. It only serves to make you look like a complete lunatic instead of someone who's only a little crazy. Your incessant regurgitation of the same things over and over in here only add to your lunacy.

btw, if there was conclusive proof of Bush's lies anywhere else besides your own fervent imagination then Bush would have been impeached by now. So despite your insistance, you still fos.

Here it comes, folks... The windup... the pitch... the same old attempted setup... :roll:
You must be talking about yourself, Harvey. You post the same lame rant over and over in here.

I and others have posted so much hard evidence of the Bushwhackos' crimes, so often that neocon pimps like you started a campaign to discredit my long, detailed, DOCUMENTED posts by labeling them as "macros."

Then, when I refer to them without the links, you trot out that same tired old bullshit that there is no proof of their crimes.

After six years of their LIES, TREASON, MURDER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PURJURY, GROSS CORRUPTION and who knows how many more high crimes, if you're still too mouse challenged to find the evidence, I have to wonder why you didn't listen when your mother warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind. :Q

Go ahead... Post credible links that prove us wrong.

If you can't do that, :lips: my (_!_)
The only thing you've ever posted is your own innuendo and spun accusations. Never have you ever provided any hard evidence that Bush lied. What you can't seem to get through your infinitely thick skul is that being wrong about something does not equal lying. But I'm wasting time telling you that. You've been told many times before and still refuse to recognize.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't think Mr. Tender Loving Care has an answer to my questions.

Maybe you hover over your keyboad hitting F5 incessantly because you have nothing etter to do? I have a life outside of ATP&N.

As far as preventing Iran from obtaining nukes, my suggestion is to keep pursuing the diplomatic route.

Are you suggesting we do nothing at all? Is your assumption that the mullahs have nothing but the best of intentions for the world by trying to get nukes? Are you saying we shouldn't try the prevention using diplomacy because it might lead to the necessity of a military action?

You ask plenty of questions and make all kinds of accusations, but I don't see you provide any answers or solutions. That's the sign of the typical naysayer in here. All babbling talk, no potential resolutions.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't think Mr. Tender Loving Care has an answer to my questions.

Maybe you hover over your keyboad hitting F5 incessantly because you have nothing etter to do? I have a life outside of ATP&N.

As far as preventing Iran from obtaining nukes, my suggestion is to keep pursuing the diplomatic route.

Are you suggesting we do nothing at all? Is your assumption that the mullahs have nothing but the best of intentions for the world by trying to get nukes? Are you saying we shouldn't try the prevention using diplomacy because it might lead to the necessity of a military action?

You ask plenty of questions and make all kinds of accusations, but I don't see you provide any answers or solutions. That's the sign of the typical naysayer in here. All babbling talk, no potential resolutions.

I have no solutions? That's because, like I said, I don't have a big problem with Iran having nukes. You have just given in to fear, and the desire to think this issue is about how to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, rather than why they shouldn't be allowed to have them in the first place.

And, like YOU pointed out, albeit in a round-about way, there is no way we can prevent them from obtaining them. Short of an invasion of course, and from your post, I assume you would NOT support that.

So, we should be talking to Iran, doing business with Iran. You think they're hung up on fanatical Islam, and that's just dumb, this is a government, they're interested in money, so we should be doing business with them, not attacking them. Saudi Arabia is a much bigger problem in regards to radical Islam, and we've been doing business with them for years.

It is our aggressive and tyranical approach to foreign policy that makes less secure, not the other way around. When countries have a vested financial interest in us, they are a lot less likely to want to attack us.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

btw, if there was conclusive proof of Bush's lies anywhere else besides your own fervent imagination then Bush would have been impeached by now. So despite your insistance, you still fos.
.
.
You must be talking about yourself, Harvey. You post the same lame rant over and over in here.
.
.
The only thing you've ever posted is your own innuendo and spun accusations. Never have you ever provided any hard evidence that Bush lied.
BUAHahahahaha!!! OK, Chickensh8. I'm not sure why you posted such a simple setup, but thanks for proving not only that you're you a liar, but that your piss poor at it. :laugh:

It took just a few minutes to find lots of threads, including some like this one going back to 2004. The "macros" weren't as long, then, but either was the string of known lies. :shocked:

And before you post to accuse me of posting "macros," remember, you not only asked for this, you BEGGED for it. (All times are Pacific time zone):

10/14/2007 01:34 PM

Originally posted by: Harvey

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.
  • "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
    Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  • "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  • "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  • "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
    George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
    George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  • "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
    George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  • "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
    George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
    George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  • "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
    George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  • "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
    George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  • "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  • "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
    George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  • "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
    George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  • "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
    George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  • "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  • "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  • "Well, of course he is.?
    White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  • Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
    Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  • "This is about imminent threat."
    White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  • "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
    George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  • "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
    George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  • "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
    Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  • "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  • "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
    George W. Bush 4/24/03
  • "Absolutely."
    White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  • "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
    George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  • Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
    White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  • "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
    George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  • "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
    White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  • We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  • "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
    George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  • "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  • "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
    Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  • We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
    Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"
You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Harv, what part of "If we knew then what we know now" do you not understand?

blackangst1 -- What part of "what the Bushwhackos knew BEFORE they launched their war of LIES" do you not understand? :roll:
  • There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
  • There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

All right, TLC. I've reposted evidence and links proving that George W. Bush and his criminal cabal are liars. They are NOT "innuendo." They are NOT empty "assertions." They are documented FACTS and QUOTES. Now, it's your turn to see if you can find anything proving any of the above is false. If you can't, all you will prove is what everyone already knows... You're a pathetic, lying jackass.

It would take another post like this to get into the proof I've posted that they're also MURDERERS and TRAITORS. If you're stupid enough to challenge me on it, you'll lose again. :Q
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't think Mr. Tender Loving Care has an answer to my questions.

Maybe you hover over your keyboad hitting F5 incessantly because you have nothing etter to do? I have a life outside of ATP&N.

As far as preventing Iran from obtaining nukes, my suggestion is to keep pursuing the diplomatic route.

Are you suggesting we do nothing at all? Is your assumption that the mullahs have nothing but the best of intentions for the world by trying to get nukes? Are you saying we shouldn't try the prevention using diplomacy because it might lead to the necessity of a military action?

You ask plenty of questions and make all kinds of accusations, but I don't see you provide any answers or solutions. That's the sign of the typical naysayer in here. All babbling talk, no potential resolutions.

I have no solutions? That's because, like I said, I don't have a big problem with Iran having nukes. You have just given in to fear, and the desire to think this issue is about how to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, rather than why they shouldn't be allowed to have them in the first place.

And, like YOU pointed out, albeit in a round-about way, there is no way we can prevent them from obtaining them. Short of an invasion of course, and from your post, I assume you would NOT support that.

So, we should be talking to Iran, doing business with Iran. You think they're hung up on fanatical Islam, and that's just dumb, this is a government, they're interested in money, so we should be doing business with them, not attacking them. Saudi Arabia is a much bigger problem in regards to radical Islam, and we've been doing business with them for years.

It is our aggressive and tyranical approach to foreign policy that makes less secure, not the other way around. When countries have a vested financial interest in us, they are a lot less likely to want to attack us.

It's not about fear, it's about trust. I don't trust the Islamic nutjobs in charge in Iran. Besides that, the 'You're a fraidy-cat' debate tactic is really elementary school at its core. I see it employed quite often in here too, primarily from those who shy away from aggression when it's required. It's a humorous irony.

As I said already, and which practically all the Iran apologists in here have ignored, WE ARE talking with Iran. I didn't even say that in a roundabout way, I stated it explicitly. I also stated that where Iran is concerned, diplomacy doesn't seem to have any effect without additional pressure.

As for doing business with Iran, that's a two-way street. Of course, the west has been burned "doing business" with Iran in the past. People love to cite western interventionism and neglect that it was that same intervention that puled countries like Iran into the modern age and gave them the groundwork for the wealth they have today.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Harvey. When will you ever learn that copious copying and pasting doesn't prove your point? It only makes you a copious copy and paster.

It obviously still doesn't sink in to your copiously thick head that being wrong != a lie either. In order to prove a lie you have to prove that they were being purposefully misleading and that they knew their statements were wrong at the time they were made. You haven't done that and you never have.

Of course I could copy and paste all those quotes from the Democrats, and from the Clinton admin, making those very same claims that the Bush admin was making. But we've all seen them so there's no need to repeat them, just like we've seen you copy and paste the same garbage incessantly in here and try to pass off that crap as your deluded proof of lies being told when it's nothing of the sort.

Get a clue.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Harvey. When will you ever learn that copious copying and pasting doesn't prove your point? It only makes you a copious copy and paster.

TastesLikeChickenSh8 -- When will you ever learn that copious denial, distraction and further lies don't change the truth. Sorry to cut and paste from my previous post, but...

Originally posted by: Harvey

Here it comes, folks... The windup... the pitch... the same old attempted setup...

I and others have posted so much hard evidence of the Bushwhackos' crimes, so often that neocon pimps like you started a campaign to discredit my long, detailed, DOCUMENTED posts by labeling them as "macros."

Then, when I refer to them without the links, you trot out that same tired old bullshit that there is no proof of their crimes.

You can lie. You can dissemble. You can attempt to divert attention from the subject. You can stick your thumb up your ass and twirl while screaming, "Clinton did it." But none of that changes the FACTS documented in my posts.

The ONLY way you can refute anything I posted is with hard evidence that each and every item I listed is false. If you can't, you just continue to prove you're a liar.

PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not about fear, it's about trust. I don't trust the Islamic nutjobs in charge in Iran. Besides that, the 'You're a fraidy-cat' debate tactic is really elementary school at its core. I see it employed quite often in here too, primarily from those who shy away from aggression when it's required. It's a humorous irony.

LOL, it IS about fear. You don't trust them because you fear them. BUT, you already said above, in this thread, that Iran would not use nukes pre-emptively. So what is it exactly?

Who is shying "away from aggression when it's required?"

You mean Iraq? :laugh:

We already know, and many us knew, the invasion of Iraq was not required.

We know that OBL and Alzwahiri are no longer in Afghanistan, they are in Pakistan. Now, tell me, who is shying away from going in there to get them, as he promised to do so?

As I said already, and which practically all the Iran apologists in here have ignored, WE ARE talking with Iran. I didn't even say that in a roundabout way, I stated it explicitly. I also stated that where Iran is concerned, diplomacy doesn't seem to have any effect without additional pressure.

Sure we are talking to Iran, but not in the manner in which we should be.

As for doing business with Iran, that's a two-way street. Of course, the west has been burned "doing business" with Iran in the past. People love to cite western interventionism and neglect that it was that same intervention that puled countries like Iran into the modern age and gave them the groundwork for the wealth they have today.

:laugh: You wanna go into a little more detail here?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Harvey. When will you ever learn that copious copying and pasting doesn't prove your point? It only makes you a copious copy and paster.

TastesLikeChickenSh8 -- When will you ever learn that copious denial, distraction and further lies don't change the truth. Sorry to cut and paste from my previous post, but...

Originally posted by: Harvey

Here it comes, folks... The windup... the pitch... the same old attempted setup...

I and others have posted so much hard evidence of the Bushwhackos' crimes, so often that neocon pimps like you started a campaign to discredit my long, detailed, DOCUMENTED posts by labeling them as "macros."

Then, when I refer to them without the links, you trot out that same tired old bullshit that there is no proof of their crimes.

You can lie. You can dissemble. You can attempt to divert attention from the subject. You can stick your thumb up your ass and twirl while screaming, "Clinton did it." But none of that changes the FACTS documented in my posts.

The ONLY way you can refute anything I posted is with hard evidence that each and every item I listed is false.

PUT UP, OR STFU, little boy.
LOL. I guess I should copy and paste the entire SSCI report and then DEMAND that you address every statement in there too.

Just goes to show the depths of your delusion, Hardly.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |