Layton/NDP wants Canada to pull out of Afghanistan

[Azure]

I thought you said the intelligence told Bush that there were WMD's, and that that is why the US invaded?

I did, yes. You really think the only thing the intelligence report stated was that Iraq had WMD?

Maybe when you agree with someone, "Indeed." isn't a great way of doing it. It sounds assinine and condescending. Also, as I've stated, you have a habit of using quotation marks in a manner that doesn't work. You emphasize the wrong word... it sort of makes it look like you don't know 'how' 'to' 'use' 'them'. Figure it out.

Ah, so you have a problem with misunderstand people as well. But instead of admitting your mistake, like I did, you rant on of how its my fault.

'Indeed' is a term used when agreeing with someone. Look it up in the frickin' dictionary.

I didn't say you did. You whined about how these threads devolve into personal attacks. I just pointed out that you're often involved in the very same threads, usually as the whiney voice complaining about the (bare minimum) of personal attacks that go on here. You complain more about that than you actually contribute to the discussion. Is calling you whiney a personal attack? I'm sure you'll let me know.

I've posted maybe 3-5 posts of how these thread go downhill because people invoke personal attacks. Is that whining?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok lets see...

Iran was a secular nation not run by religious zealots. It was over thrown by the Ayatohalla (I know that is not the spelling). We didn't do anything now look at what we have. A crazy madman running a country wanting to obtain nukes to wipe out Israel and god knows who else.

Of course I am going to get the "look whos running the USA, a crazy madman wanting to blow everyone up.) Well your partially right and if you look at ALL of my previous posts I have always considered GWB a complete ######. The one main difference is that the USA does not have a stated goal in wiping out individual nations. Simply eliminating the threat, meaning the crazy people that run the government. And before people start forgetting, Yes I did say that the USA has gone about this the wrong way, not to forget everyother country that has stuck there head in the sand.

North Korea????

Well, its a good thing that atleast we stuck up for half of the penincela. People in south korea have a pretty decent life, democratic governments and good human rights. If we had finished the job the North Koreans would be SOOOOO much better off. But thats what you get for not stopping these crazy *******s. But most of you want to just pretent that every thing will be hunky dory if we just bugger off and forget about them.

Another example..

Hong Kong...

Wow, what a differnece the type of government can make on the citizens of ones country. You have a democratic government right accross from the worlds worst human rights abusors. Hong Kong grows to be a healthy, wealthy, and happy place with freedom of speach, religion and the right to live. Go next door and what do we get. Thats right.

But, hey, who are we to tell people how they should run their country. If people want a small minority to run there lives, tell them how to think, kill anyone who speaks outs, jails people for having a certain religion, well then hey that MUST be what they want....right???

So lets just pack up and leave, lets forget about all the injustice in the world and only worry about our own country. If a government wants to impose a state religion and force anyone that doesn't abide put to death or prison, so be it. Right??? If a government wants to force all women to cover their face and remain indoors. Thats what the women want , right?? If they want remove universal suffurage, then so be it, who are we to tell others as to what rights they have. If they want to stone a women to death because she was accused of adultery, why not? If they want to allow a father to kill his daughter because she embarresed the family, ok then.

Why is it that its ok for all these governments and radicals to force thier opinions, beliefs and culture on people around them (practices that are much more barbaric then wanting to install fundemental rights and freedoms) but the Westis soooo evil for defending these rights and trying to spread them????

There's way too much crap here for me to tackle, and I'm leaving work in a few minutes.

Your first post was;

Your scared of me? Unbelievable..

Where did I say that I was scared of EVERY single muslim? Maybe re-read my post.... I said that a very small group of muslims are the people we need to fear. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
You decide to alter what I said in my post by making it appear that I am some kind of Right wing purist who has no room for any other culture or group.

Typical of liberal thinking. Everyone's opions are valid unless they go agains a liberal idea.

Not sure if you know this but history has a tendency in repeating itself.

How do you eplain Iran and Korea?

I can't connect why you threw Iran and Korea out there when considering your post. There was no context to your mentioning of these states. Thanks for spending time fleshing it out... but I really don't have the time. Lets just say I disagree for now, don't fret, I'll be sure to find you later.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I did, yes. You really think the only thing the intelligence report stated was that Iraq had WMD?

What else did the intelligence report state? Non-sensical sentence here. And what magical report are you speaking of? There were probably hundreds of reports from intelligence agencies on Iraq.

'Indeed' is a term used when agreeing with someone. Look it up in the frickin' dictionary.

Quit personally attacking me!!

I've posted maybe 3-5 posts of how these thread go downhill because people invoke personal attacks. Is that whining?

Yep.

[Azure]

What else did the intelligence report state? Non-sensical sentence here. And what magical report are you speaking of? There were probably hundreds of reports from intelligence agencies on Iraq.

Thanks for proving my point. The Bush administration recieved a hell of a lot more then 'Iraq has WMD.'

Yep.

Your opinion. I hardly think that 3 posts would be enough to declare someone as a whiner.

Back on topic...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Well if you haven't figured it out yet that I have been talking about radical and fundementalist Muslims and any other fanatic including North Korea, which I am sure I have said a few times, then obviously your just not reading what I am typing.

What?? Is your memory that bad that you can't remember what I post about 30 mins ago. Wow. I think I said 15 to 20 years is definately possible.

Well, first of all, if Isreal didnt bomb Iraqs nuclear power station and there wasn't the first Gulf war, Saddam would probably have nukes by now. He would most likely be demanding everything under the sun and if we failed to produce then off go the missles. Good thing we didn't just let them be eh. Ok... It has only taken about 20 years for Iran to be on the verge of creating their first nuclear weapon so I don't think it will be long until they actual make one. If it weren't for all the economic embargos in place over the years, Iran would certainly have it by now.

If it weren't for a coup in Pakistan, that country would be under islamic fanatic control, infact portions of it are.

So you don't think Iran and Afghanistan are controled by crazy *******s?

If it weren't for Western support for countries like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and many other middle eastern countries they would be just as whacked.

R

[octothorp]

I have to admit I don't understand this great fear of Iran as an aggressive user of WMDs. I think they're extremely conflicted about nuclear weapons, as most countries who have the capability to develop such a technology are. On the one hand, they've issued a fatwa stating that the development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons, even against the enemies of Islam, is itself against Islam. Issueing a fatwa is a pretty big deal, and not something that they would do simply out of posturing to placate the west.

Looking back at their history, of course they're very fearful of WMDs, as one of few countries who have been on the receiving end (I'm talking, of course, about the US-backed Iraqi army using mustard gas and sarin to inflict massive casualties on Iranian military and civilians). Iran had no chemical weapons of their own to retaliate with (as the war went on, they developed chemical weapons, though they never put them into use). Now, Iran looks at another US-backed power in the region: Israel has nuclear weapons, which they developed outside of the non-proliferation treaty. Of course Iran sees a threat similar to Iraq. Based on their history, they understand the importance of a deterrant strategy.

In addition to being very vocally opposed to chemical weapons, they're also very vocal about the non-proliferation agreement. The NPT was intended not only to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, but also to encourage the disarmament of existing nuclear powers. That hasn't happened, as the US and every other nuclear power continues to develop its nuclear weapons further, and Iraq's neighbours (Israel and Pakistan) develop nuclear weapons with no repercutions. Thus far, the Iranians have followed the NPT completely, but one would have to question whether they will continue to when a dozen key countries have failed to follow it. As it stands now, I don't believe they've completely decided that they will develop nuclear weapons. They're definitely leaving that option open, though I don't believe they see them as an offensive, first strike option. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread how the Islamic powers haven't used diplomacy. The Iranian support and gradual disillusionment with the NPT is an excellent example of an Islamic attempt at peaceful, diplomatic achievement of stability in their region, and I don't blame them for feeling that diplomatic resolutions aren't likely to do them any good.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thanks for proving my point. The Bush administration recieved a hell of a lot more then 'Iraq has WMD.'

Your point was that the Administration received more than one intelligence report on Iraq? Strange how shifty your points are.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So you don't think Iran and Afghanistan are controled by crazy *******s?

If it weren't for Western support for countries like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and many other middle eastern countries they would be just as whacked.

R

Jolinar of Malkshor said:
What?? Is your memory that bad that you can't remember what I post about 30 mins ago. Wow. I think I said 15 to 20 years is definately possible.

I'm not sure my memory is the problem. I asked what the timeframe was for "them" to stop fighting each other so they can get it together to fight us. I made reference to your 20 year prediction later in the post.

My point about Israel is this: You say that within 20 years Muslim fanatics may be able to take over all non-Muslim countries and convert us all to their religion. I say they've had 60 years of trying to take over a single, tiny non-Muslim country in right in the Middle East and they have not been succesful, so I find it hard to believe that 20 years will be sufficient time to take over the rest of the world and convert us all to Islam. Do you get it?

Your fantasies about what Iran (or Saddam would have been able) will be able to do sound like something you saw in a movie. Do you remember the title?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Jolinar of Malkshor said:
What?? Is your memory that bad that you can't remember what I post about 30 mins ago. Wow. I think I said 15 to 20 years is definately possible.

I'm not sure my memory is the problem. I asked what the timeframe was for "them" to stop fighting each other so they can get it together to fight us. I made reference to your 20 year prediction later in the post.

My point about Israel is this: You say that within 20 years Muslim fanatics may be able to take over all non-Muslim countries and convert us all to their religion. I say they've had 60 years of trying to take over a single, tiny non-Muslim country in right in the Middle East and they have not been succesful, so I find it hard to believe that 20 years will be sufficient time to take over the rest of the world and convert us all to Islam. Do you get it?

Your fantasies about what Iran (or Saddam would have been able) will be able to do sound like something you saw in a movie. Do you remember the title?

What I have been saying is that if we let things continue as they are by ignoring the problem, in 20 years when they have nuclear weapons they will have the ability to attack us with devistating consequences. As I said in my previous post I don't think they would win, but there may not be to many people around to even care.

My question is why let these governments act the way they do. If you don't think they are anykind of a threat then fine, they still need to be stopped for doing what they do to there own people. You won't just sit by while your neighbor beat his wife every night. So why sit by and allow another country to do the same. By remaining silent you do nothing but perpetuate the problem.

[jolinar of malkshor]

That hasn't happened, as the US and every other nuclear power continues to develop its nuclear weapons further, and Iraq's neighbours (Israel and Pakistan) develop nuclear weapons with no repercutions.

The US has brought their Nuclear stash down from a high of 32,000 in 1965 to 10,000 in 2006. They are continuing to reduce the stock pile so how are they and every other nation developing them?

As for Pakistan and India, now that they have them there isn't much we can do about it. Those two countries are in a mini nuke race. We dont need that to happen else where.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Jolinar of Malkshor said:
What?? Is your memory that bad that you can't remember what I post about 30 mins ago. Wow. I think I said 15 to 20 years is definately possible.

I'm not sure my memory is the problem. I asked what the timeframe was for "them" to stop fighting each other so they can get it together to fight us. I made reference to your 20 year prediction later in the post.

My point about Israel is this: You say that within 20 years Muslim fanatics may be able to take over all non-Muslim countries and convert us all to their religion. I say they've had 60 years of trying to take over a single, tiny non-Muslim country in right in the Middle East and they have not been succesful, so I find it hard to believe that 20 years will be sufficient time to take over the rest of the world and convert us all to Islam. Do you get it?

Your fantasies about what Iran (or Saddam would have been able) will be able to do sound like something you saw in a movie. Do you remember the title?

Rouge I agree with you but I'd like to know your thoughts about my comments on the ability for a treaty to ignite a much larger, global scale war including those countries that are very quickly becoming as powerful as the United States.

I agree- alone- the Middle East doesn't stand a chance, but united with an economic giant they do. And I don't think it's so that they can push their religious agenda on western countries but rather to take over, destroy and occupy Israel alone. An action that surely would introduce western countries into a war don't you think?

Isn't that a plausible situation?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The US has brought their Nuclear stash down from a high of 32,000 in 1965 to 10,000 in 2006. They are continuing to reduce the stock pile so how are they and every other nation developing them?

As for Pakistan and India, now that they have them there isn't much we can do about it. Those two countries are in a mini nuke race. We dont need that to happen else where.

If the US wanted there to be no chance of nuclear war, they should reduce their inventory from 10,000 to more like 10-20.

And I'm sure that they could do that within 41 years.

Why does the US need all those?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The US has brought their Nuclear stash down from a high of 32,000 in 1965 to 10,000 in 2006. They are continuing to reduce the stock pile so how are they and every other nation developing them?

As for Pakistan and India, now that they have them there isn't much we can do about it. Those two countries are in a mini nuke race. We dont need that to happen else where.

Development is different from stockpiling. Things deteriorate, get old and need to be replaced. New technology allows for more accuracy etc....

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If the US wanted there to be no chance of nuclear war, they should reduce their inventory from 10,000 to more like 10-20.

And I'm sure that they could do that within 41 years.

Why does the US need all those?

HA! This reminds me of the NDP through the 70-80's. If only we disarm the Nice Soviets would do so as well because we would show them we mean them no harm.

As for the number it is to ensure that the enemy gets good'n blowed up even if they attack first. There would be plenty left to fire back. Hence the concept MAD.

[Looger]

looks like some people need enemies.

the maniacs running the propoganda right now NEED iran to be developing nukes, they really really NEED it.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nat...wsnation-front

Under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the UN Security Council, saying Iran has failed to prove it is not building weapons, has demanded Iran stop enrichment by Aug. 31 or face economic sanctions. This week, Iran offered "serious talks" on its nuclear activities but did not promise to stop enriching uranium.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...594977,00.html

It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.

these neo-cons are DYING to catch iran in the 'act'. the only agreements iran has broken involve voluntary frameworks agreed to years ago and LAPSED.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/wmid27.xml

Israel air force chief to plan war on Iran



Israel has appointed a top general to oversee a war against Iran, prompting speculation that it is preparing for possible military action against Teheran's nuclear programme.

whenever iran makes its 'threats' it's in response to the EXTREME saber-rattling going on against them. open your eyes people, we are fed a ton of bull**** on this issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Your point was that the Administration received more than one intelligence report on Iraq? Strange how shifty your points are.

My point was that the intelligence the Bush administration recieved went beyond WMD in Iraq.

I firmly believed that the intelligence that was provided to Bush gave him, in his opinion as POTUS, reason to invade Iraq. How that is presented to the public and to the UN can be manipulation in 'your' eyes.

I don't think the leader of the most powerful country in the world would act on intelligence that is 'half-assed' in theory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If the US wanted there to be no chance of nuclear war, they should reduce their inventory from 10,000 to more like 10-20.

And I'm sure that they could do that within 41 years.

Why does the US need all those?

Nuclear weapons, including all 32,000 of them that the US had during the Cold War, were the only thing holding the USSR and the US from war.

MAD. Works good in theory.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Development is different from stockpiling. Things deteriorate, get old and need to be replaced. New technology allows for more accuracy etc....

The US hasn't decreased their supply of nuclear warheads since 1992, when it was reduced to around 10,000. It's no coincidence this coincided with the end of the cold war. Once the soviet threat of weapons was gone, the US completely abandoned any efforts to further disarm. Other violations of the NPT include the fact that they are stockpiling weapons in non-nuclear countries, and they've provided a limited amount of nuclear technology to NATO allies to allow those countries to modify their bombers with capability to drop US nuclear warheads.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

MAD. Works good in theory.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh man, that's just too perfect.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh man, that's just too perfect.

Yeah no kidding.

In reality, it might seem a bit extreme for some people. Hence the reason of not having nuclear weapons at all.