Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 11:34am PT
|
WoodySt wrote - "He's probably going to get the chance."
OOOOOOOOOH! Sounds like a threat! Oh no!
Woody, you are the ebodyment of the Pat Paulsen skit where he taks out of both sides of his mouth.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 01:01pm PT
|
Now, now...
I 've read probably probably thousands of Fatty's posts, and while I almost completely disagree with whatever he states about foreign affairs, I believe he is interested in a secure world, just like the rest of us.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
"When was the last time a US leader said let's invade/destroy N. Korea? NEVER. Now, several have called for leadership changes and economic reforms. Both No. Korea and Iran have been pushing for nuke capability long before 1988, I've been getting Iran nuke briefings for tweleve years. The North Koreans broke the deal Clinton had signed with them. "
Fatty- President Bush declared N. Korea, Iran and Iraq to be the "Axis of Evil" just months after invading Afghanistan in no less than the State of the Union. He had been and continued to make threatening overtures to any country that "supported or harbored terrists." N. Koreas stated multiple times that it would consider a range of options if only the U.S. would give assurances that they wouldn't be attacked. Bush responded by making it VERY clear that option could not be removed from the table, and then of course refused to engage diplomatically.
And then of course the often repeated half-truth about N. Korea breaking the Clinton deal. Your boy McCain has even cited it, which is one reason I won't be voting for him. Clintont struck a deal with N. Korea and N. Korea held up their end of the bargain (as far as we can tell) from the beginning. The Republican Congress, irate that Clinton was still breathing much less negotiating foreign policy, then refused to hold up OUR end of the bargain.
So on December 31st, 2002 N. Korea booted the IAEA inspectors and began enriching uranium again. America was neither holding up our end of the deal and Bush basically said "we might attack you." Had another country done the same to us you'd be on this forum saying something like "if a country refuses to hold up their end of a nuclear treaty and then threatens to attack us we have every right to begin developing nuclear weapons to defend ourselves."
Please advise McCain that if he is going to be riding the "Straight Talk Express" again that he should actually talk straight, and not repeat half-truths.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 03:14pm PT
|
HighDesertDJ, very good points.
Yeah UncleDoug, I saw that story in on the Irish Times (or was it the Irish Examiner's) website today.
What I would like to see Fattrad properly and truthfully explain, is why does Israel feel the need to be ambiguous about them having nuclear weapons? We all know they do, why don’t they just fess up to it?
What was that? What nuclear proliferation treaty?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 03:30pm PT
|
I'm beginning to think that eventually, no one will be able to afford to carry out an occupation-style "war," even if it means bilking the occupied land's oil to offset costs and put a few billion in the pockets of the right folks. Even if they had the men and equipment, what other country is going to invade Iraq but us? China could probably pull it off but aside from not fulfilling the role of global police, do you think they'd actually want to spend the trillion dollars to do so? I gotta hunch this might be one of the last of these kinds of conflicts, once some credible source honestly reports the costs in terms of life (on both sides) and dollars. I think from here on out it will be air strikes and stealt assination teams--the occupying force thing is just too big a bust.
JL
|
|
Wild Bill
climber
Ca
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 05:04pm PT
|
Largo said: "I'm beginning to think that eventually, no one will be able to afford to carry out an occupation-style "war," even if it means bilking the occupied land's oil to offset costs and put a few billion in the pockets of the right folks."
Better watch those shocking accusations, some Tacoers seem to take offense at these truths, truths that appear before us so clearly, so blatantly that they are dismissed as being improbable or impossible conspiracies. *sigh*
And: "I think from here on out it will be air strikes and stealt assination teams--the occupying force thing is just too big a bust."
Yes, Bush's run-up to this war was rather old fashioned, what with the months of warnings, threats, timetables and promises. The cash had been cleaned out of Bhagdad by the time we arrived.
The stealth assasination team might have accomplished the goal of removing Saddam, but the resulting chaos and power vacuum would have weighed heavily against the US. Oh wait, we ended up with a chaotic power vaccum anyway.
Never mind.
--Bill
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 07:58pm PT
|
"Either you are not well informed or telling a lie. The N. Koreans shut down nuke development at one facility (inspected by IAEA), but were operating another concurrently. Exactly why they became a member of the "Axis of Evil" and selling missile technology to Iran. Bush never stated wipe them off the map or invade, he would have gone ahead with it. Get your info correct. "
Even if that is true it does not repudiate the simple fact that they were violating the treaty at the same time that WE were violating the treaty.
Pakistan sold nuclear technology to N. Korea and they are an "Ally in the War on Terror."
Cheney did business with Iran throughout the 90's and he is the VPOTUS.
The distinctions on which you base your arguments all have rotten cores even though they look shiny on the outside. Your rhetoric could be used by any nationalist from any party and sound correct. If you were a N. Korean you'd be citing unchecked US aggresion as perfectly sound justification for nuclear research in defiance of international law. If you were Iranian you'd be out there shouting "Death to America" and if you were Shiite you'd be writing checks to Moqtada al-Sadr instead of calling for his assasination.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 09:00pm PT
|
Good post HDDJ and Largo.
I think I wrote in another thread the same observation as Largo.
As far as Bush denouncing all countries that harbor Terrorists, how about our good buddies Pakistan? They seem to be really helping out with Afghanistan right now.
And for Peace in the Middle East fatty? Simple, get rid of Israel. We are only talking one country as opposed to several and it would overwhelmingly make the majority of the ME happy.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 - 09:39pm PT
|
i think he was trolling the troll.
compared to what we gain, Israel has not been the best ally we have ever had...
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 13, 2006 - 02:19am PT
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
shit, please allow me to introduce my good friend, the fan.
saudi arabia just told bushco, during cheney's recent visit in fact, that if we leave iraq, they are going to back the iraqi sunnis vs. iran and the shiites- sweet!
so long civil war, welcome to a legitimate full scale regional conflict!
so fatty can finally be right, and yes it will be a religious war after all!
(it's just not the one he's long been advertising around here).
so it turns out, i was wrong all along!
i admit i was wrong-
i never really thought it would be worse than it is now-
hold on to your hats boys and girls-
it may not yet be too late for the neocons to have "transformed the middle east"-
are we all feeling "safer" now?
please remember to leave your shampoo and nail clippers at home when you fly...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 09:56am PT
|
Yes Matt it's FUBAR, alright. This is exactly the wrong time to have incompetent leadership.
Bad, bad, bad, and getting worse!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 10:28am PT
|
Mutt wrote
"saudi arabia just told bushco, during cheney's recent visit in fact, that if we leave iraq, they are going to back the iraqi sunnis vs. iran and the shiites- sweet!"
STFU Mutt. How are US military contractors going to make money from our enemies fighting our enemies instead of us doing it?
"so long civil war, welcome to a legitimate full scale regional conflict!"
So what? The price of oil will skyrocket and it will conserve the Middle East supplies which the conflict will shut down. All bliss for the Bush oily friends. We can always go invade whoever eventually wins.
"are we all feeling "safer" now?
please remember to leave your shampoo and nail clippers at home when you fly..."
People, especially the elderly, who think they can smuggle shampoo on planes obviously hate America and must be stopped! Can't they read? They're lucky the government lets them wear shoes on the plane to begin with.
Besides, it's a good reminder that we're not safe and the government is trying to protect us by doing all the right things.
Vomit
Flying friends have told me some funny stories lately, The small items of Liquid MUST be put COMFORTABLY in a QUART bag. The Homies have be diligently enforcing this to the letter so don't think you can act like a terrorist scum and fill a gallon bag 20% full or stuff your quart bag unconfortably, cause homeland security knows when your toothpaste is not feeling roomy.
But if you want to storm a nuclear reactor at your local university, you shouldn't have too much trouble.
Peace
karl
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
the Hooterville World-Guardian
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 10:47am PT
|
Vomit?
if you do, make sure it's 3.4 oz's or less.
look on the bright side though, the TSA offers employment to those that are otherwise unemployable. no reason these people should be out of work.
besides, while we're all standing around with our shoes off, it gives us time to recognize and report any suspicious towels about the head and body of our fellow passengers.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 10:52am PT
|
I flew from the UK to Barcelona for a weekend break earlier this year.
On the way to Spain, I had to take off my belt, shoes and jacket, and throw away a bottle of water. My SO had to toss lip balm, decongestant spray and chewing gum. It took 2 hours to get through security.
On the way back from Spain, I had a bottle of water again. I said to the security guard, "do I have to toss this away?". She looked blank and said, "why?". I said, "for security, you know...".
She sighed, took the bottle off me, opened it, sniffed it and said, "that's water. We're only confiscating explosives" and waved me through.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 11:49am PT
|
And btw, this leadership hole I referred to above is not only limited to Republicans. Incoming House Intellegence Chair Reyes did not correctly guess, when given the choices, whether Al Qaeda are Sunnis or Shiites.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 12:14pm PT
|
In principal the taxpayers pay the salaries for career people in Washington who sit around with the best (or worst) information they can get along with economic, cultural, political, and historical data to try and do better than just have America wait for the bullet with our name on it. Presumably the president is willing to listen to them and to collect together the best minds available to review that data. And the electorate was presumed by Jefferson, to be educated to the point they are able to understand the issues and to elect people able to perform these tasks in other than self-interested fashion.
Go ahead. Pick your point or points of failure.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 12:33pm PT
|
This is just the beginning. I've been predicting this for quite awhile. Further, because of the critical importance of the ME to all the major powers, they will all have to get involved one way or the other.
Have you also noticed that the smaller Sunni states are now talking seriously about developing nuke programs? Note that they never talked this way vis a vis any concern with a threat from Israel because they knew Israel's nukes were defensive and would only be used in extremis. No, they are deeply concerned about Iran's nuke program because they fear the consequences of Iran getting nukes.
On top of this add Hezbohlla rearming, Syria trying to foment civilwar in Lebanon, possible meltdown in the Palestinian territories etc.
I still believe the way to, possibly, stop this is for the West to stop Iran's nuke program, using whatever force is necessary. That, of course, isn't going to happen; however, a day will come when we'll look back and say why didn't we prevent this disaster.
The world rolls on and cycles through the same stupidities time after time; but, as I've stated time after time, the weapons, this time around, are a good deal more powerful.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 - 12:44pm PT
|
"And btw, this leadership hole I referred to above is not only limited to Republicans. Incoming House Intellegence Chair Reyes did not correctly guess, when given the choices, whether Al Qaeda are Sunnis or Shiites."
Agreed. Absolutely pathetic and inexcusable.
The clowns are merely new and improved, but the noses are still brown and bulbous
Peace
karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!