|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And they are still enriching Uranium.
Lets see they stopped working on making a bomb in 2003, which in itself shows they had the desire to do so, they are still making the materials that could make said bomb at the same pace as always.
The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, <h3>say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.</h3><h3>what happened in 2003 which may have changed their plans?</h3>
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
2003 US invades Iraq, with WMD's being the key reason given.
2003 Iran demilitarizes their nuclear program but keeps making enriched Uranium despite having basically free energy underneath them and having far more important uses for state money.
By approximately 2011-2015 they should have enough nuclear material for a bomb, this has not changed.
2008 we should have a democrat as president. <h3> They need a Carter again, not a Reagan.</h3>
I'm not sure what has changed here? They are not actively trying to build a bomb, a bomb they can't build until 2010+ no matter what. Building the bomb is not the rate limiting step here.
|
Iran was able, after march, 2003...to dominate their neighborhood militarily, because their greatest "neighborhood" threat was taken out by rabidly delusional American military pre-emption.
That is the rational explanation for discontinuing their nuclear weapons program, if they ever had one of any significant nature operating in the first place. US intelligence was corrupted by Cheney during that period.
You cannot see that the unnecessary invasion of Iraq made the ME more dangerous for the US, not less, and at a cost of 4000 US military lives, another thousand dead US paid "contractors", at least 20000 seriously wounded US troops, a trillion plus dollars in short and long term costs, 3 million Iraqis driven from their homes, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, and a ground down US military land force....hobbled in it's entirety, right down to the 50 individual state militias....and you still don't see it.
You have one thing right, the republican "leadership" you show such high regard for, is about one thing only, making it appear that they are "the answer" to dealing with the greatest threats to our nation. What you don't recognize is that they have been, since 9/11 themselves the greatest threat.
Their rhetoric, plans, and policies are killing our military, our reputationin the world, our treasury, and our fellowship with one another here at home.
You are what you read, Ustwo. Read the first page of this thread to see the stark differences between what each of us posted, and our posted supporting sources. If you read Ken Timmerman et al, as "serious" sources, you buy the BS.
You spout your parisan "blather" about "manly man" "republican daddy" we'll keep you safe from "the other" and those sissy weak kneed democrats....it's hard to tell the difference between the two, isn't it....BULLSHIT.
You read the obvious propaganda from sources like Ken Timmerman and PowerlineBlog, and who knows how many CNP/SCIAFE/COORS/MELLON financed "sources", AEI & HERITAGE-ized, tomes with Bozell's ridiculous agenda all over them....and, miracle of miracles, they all reinforce your POV, and nothing else EVER gets through:
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380
.....8) Help train the next generation.
Imagine, if you will, a future wherein <h3>the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States.</h3> A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."....
|
Above is the description of "the media" you seek out for the information that shapes your views, and....it shows, you betcha.
The problem is, you're wrong, always wrong, and lotsa people who didn't have to die, are killed by the empty, senseless policies your so heartily embrace. Look at the two leading candidates of your "party of protection".
Giuliani, 9/11 shill and corrupt joke, at this point. He was so committed to "keeping our nation safe", that he appointed an NYPD police commissioner...the head of a 45,000 officers dept., who he knew had mob ties, and avoided a full background check for, as a condition of appointment to that key security position. He then pushed Bush to appoint Kerik as first chief of the new DHS, and Bush did! Giuliani insisted on building his new NYC "disaster command center", within walking distance of his city hall office"
<h3>Ustwo, you recited it....but you don't understand it. Understand that you've bought a line of political lies intended no the "keep us safe", but to keep republicans in office. They don't believe their own bullshit, but you obviously have bought it:</h3>
Quote:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/0...of_context.php
Romney Campaign: Remark About Sons Was Taken Out Of Context
By Greg Sargent - August 8, 2007, 2:26PM
Okay, the Romney campaign is suggesting that his remark earlier today -- in which he appeared to say that his sons were supporting the country by helping get him elected President -- was taken out of context by the Associated Press.
The campaign has sent out this YouTube with his full remarks:
Question: "Hi, my name's Rachel Griffiths, thank you so much for being here and asking for our comments. And I appreciate your recognizing the Iraq War veteran. <h3>My question is how many of your five sons are currently serving in the U.S. military and if none of them are, how do they plan to support this War on Terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?"</h3>
Governor Romney: "Well, the good news is that we have a volunteer army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made their decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty. I respect their decision in that regard. I also respect and value very highly those who make a decision to serve in the military. I think we ought to show an outpouring of support just as I suggested. A surge of support for those families and those individuals who are serving. My niece, for instance, just to tell you what a neighborhood can do and how touching it can be.
"My niece, Misha, living out West, her husband I think he got a call on a Tuesday. He's in the National Guard. He got a call on a Tuesday that he was going to be called up and shipped overseas on a Thursday. And they just bought a home -– they hadn’t landscaped it -– but the rules in the neighborhood were that unless you got your home landscaped within a year of the time that you bought your home, they began fining you, because they didn’t want people having mud holes in front of their homes. And she was very worried and just before the year expired, she woke up one morning and looked out the window and all the neighbors were out there, rolling down sod, putting up trees, getting it all done."
<h3>"It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president.</h3> My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country."
|
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/073...63,6.html/full
Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11
On the stump, Rudy can't help spreading smoke and ashes about his lousy record
by Wayne Barrett
with special research assistance by Alexandra Kahan
August 7th, 2007 9:44 PM
....Don't blame me for 7 WTC, Rudy says.
....The 7 WTC site was the brainchild of Bill Diamond, a prominent Manhattan Republican that Giuliani had installed at the city agency handling rentals. When Diamond held a similar post in the Reagan administration a few years earlier, his office had selected the same building to house nine federal agencies. Diamond's GOP-wired broker steered Hauer to the building, which was owned by a major Giuliani donor and fundraiser. When Hauer signed onto it, he was locked in by the limitations Giuliani had imposed on the search and the sites Diamond offered him. The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects. Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. <h3>His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.</h3> Great concern was expressed in writing that the platform in the press room had to be high enough to make sure his head was above the cameras. It's inconceivable that the hands-on mayor's fantasy command center was shaped—or sited—by anyone other than him.
Of course, the consequences of putting the center there were predictable. The terrorist who engineered the 1993 bombing told the FBI they were coming back to the trade center. Opposing the site at a meeting with the mayor, Police Commissioner Howard Safir called it "Ground Zero" because of the earlier attack. Lou Anemone, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD, wrote memos slamming the site. "I've never seen in my life 'walking distance' as some kind of a standard for crisis management," Anemone said later. "But you don't want to confuse Giuliani with the facts." Anemone had done a detailed vulnerability study of the city for Giuliani, pinpointing terrorist targets. "In terms of targets, the WTC was number one," he says. "I guess you had to be there in 1993 to know how strongly we felt it was the wrong place."
Bizarrely, Giuliani even tried in the Wallace interview to deny that the early evacuation of the bunker left him searching for a new site, contrary to the account of that frantic morning he's given hundreds of times, often for honoraria reaching six figures. "The way you're interpreting it," he told Wallace, "it was as if that was the one fixed command center. It was not. There were backup command centers." To minimize the effect of the loss of the bunker, Giuliani said that, "within a half hour" of the shutdown of the bunker, "we were able to move immediately to another command center."
In fact, as Giuliani himself has told the dramatic tale, he and his entourage were briefly trapped in a Merrill Lynch office, "jimmied the lock" of a firehouse, and took over a deluxe hotel until they realized it was "sheathed in windows." They considered going to City Hall, but learned it was covered in debris. The only backup center that existed was the small one at police headquarters that had been put out of business when the WTC bunker opened; but Giuliani said its phones weren't working. "We're going to have to find someplace," Giuliani said, according to his Time account, which described it as a "long and harrowing" search. "Our government no longer had a place to work," he wrote in Leadership.
They wound up at the police academy uptown and, according to the account Giuliani and company gave Time, "we are up and operating by 4 p.m."—seven hours, not a half-hour, after the attack. But Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission that they quickly decided the academy "was too small" and "were able to establish a command center" at Pier 92 "within three days," virtually building it from scratch. Hauer said he'd asked for a backup command center years before 9/11, "but they told me there was no money for it." After Hauer left, and shortly before 9/11, the city announced plans to build a backup center near police headquarters—a site quickly jettisoned by the Bloomberg administration. Police officials told reporters that they were looking for space outside Manhattan and underground, citing the lessons of 9/11.
BIG LIE
4. 'Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.'....
|
<h3>And if the republicans are what you claim they are, explain how they've improved the agreement with North Korea formulated during the Clinton administration:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/wo...=1&oref=slogin
North Koreans Agree to Disable Nuclear Facilities
By HELENE COOPER
Published: October 4, 2007
....The accord is the second stage of a six-nation pact reached in February, one that has continued to draw sharp criticism from conservatives who complain that the United States is rewarding North Korea for its test of a nuclear device last October. <h3>The agreement has not yet resolved the contentious question of when North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons.
</h3>
The agreement calls on the United States to “begin the process of removing” North Korea from a United States terrorism list “in parallel” with the North’s actions. Conservative critics said the United States should not take North Korea off the terrorism list until it gave up all its nuclear weapons, and argued that the pact was far too conciliatory toward a nuclear power with alleged ties to international terrorism.
But the Bush administration has been eager to show diplomatic progress, and President Bush suggested that the deal should serve as an example to Iran, which has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program.....
...John R. Bolton, the administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said the White House violated the original purpose of the diplomatic talks by agreeing to negotiate side agreements with North Korea about taking it off both the terrorism list and a second list of “enemy” nations forbidden from trading with the United States.
“If they come off either or both lists, without any final verification of their performance on the nuclear issue, I think the president will have embarrassed his administration in history,” Mr. Bolton said.
Critics of the White House, including some Democrats, note that the February accord bears a strong resemblance to the 1994 agreement between North Korea and the Clinton administration, one that Bush administration officials denounced in the past as a giveaway, and which fell apart in 2002.
Conservatives are also angry that the United States went ahead with the agreement despite a recent Israeli airstrike in Syria that Israeli officials have said was directed at nuclear material supplied by North Korea. During meetings this past weekend, Christopher R. Hill, the chief United States negotiator, told North Korea that one of the things it must disclose were details of whatever nuclear material it had been supplying to Syria, two senior Bush administration officials said.
Both officials, who asked that their names not be used because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said that North Korean officials denied giving Syria any assistance.
“We did not achieve clarity on this issue, but that does not mean we do not intend to keep trying,” one of the officials said. “We aren’t operating on faith.”......
|
<h3>For once, back up your assertions</h3>...start a new thread that describes the great progress in dealing with the North Korean nuclear weapons threat achieved by your "we'll keep you safe"republicans, vs. the plan in place in 2001. Tell us which republican 2008 presidential primary contender is "the real deal"...someone with a workable plan to identify and deal with real national security threats, has not been a "flip flopper" or a hypocrite on these issues of vital importance, and does not have a corrupt background. Don't look too hard, there are none, among republcan frontrunners.
Last edited by host; 12-04-2007 at 10:13 AM..
|