Regime Change!

[lI1|1!]

 

you can't make a bomb from heavy water BTW

[kevbone]

US and Britian were very concerned.

 

Were there brows pointed at a downward angle? How concerned were they?

[Seahawks]

US and Britian were very concerned.

 

Were there brows pointed at a downward angle? How concerned were they?

 

Kevbone no wonder Arch dislikes you. You ask others to be serious and answer you and when others ask the same you, nothing. Can you answer some of the previous questions??? I want to hear some of your intelligent answers. Please. Lets hear it.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Seahawks

[JayB]

You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it??

 

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program.

 

Which we only determined after they had been defeated.

 

When the survival of the free world was literally at stake, it would have made much more sense to cross our fingers and trust Hitler, who surely would have disclosed both the specific location of their research facilities and the progress that they'd made along these lines to his enemies in the middle of a war to destroy them.

 

Is there a single sane historian who contends that anything other than fear of Germany acquiring the weapons first that impelled the Allies to undertake the Manhattan project?

 

 

[kevbone]

US and Britian were very concerned.

 

Were there brows pointed at a downward angle? How concerned were they?

 

Kevbone no wonder Arch dislikes you. You ask others to be serious and answer you and when others ask the same you, nothing. Can you answer some of the previous questions??? I want to hear some of your intelligent answers. Please. Lets hear it.

 

First of all, we are all on this site for information or entertainment. I just made a funny. You will either laugh or not. I could care less either way.

 

What questions are you referring too? I will answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Back on topic- Iran.

Iraq, though a fiasco that should never have happened, has nonetheless "happened". I'm not sure at this point that simply leaving outright is a good idea, but I'm quite sure that just using a bigger hammer is an even worse idea. So on top of this seemingly impossible situation, we now have Bush admin. war hawks starting the clamoring and fear mongering about how we need "regime change" in Iran too. I think anyone with an ounce of sense should be suspicious of Iran's intentions, yet another attack and invasion of a sovereign country "preemptively" will unleash hell on earth. The current US administration blew it with Iraq, therefore IMHO they have no credibility with which to craft yet another unprovoked invasion. This government, with what time it has left, needs to focus it's energies on the Taliban in Afghanistan first and foremost. Attack Iran? These people are out of their fucking minds. With what army? With what strategy? The ones that can't even control Iraq after 4 years? The result will be 6 or 7 figure deaths, the US utterly alone and isolated, global economic meltdown, and regional chaos across the middle east. Not to mention, assurance of another 1000 years of angry Jihadists.

Regardless of who wins in 2008, the end of this administration cannot happen soon enough.

[Seahawks]

Back on topic- Iran.

Iraq, though a fiasco that should never have happened, has nonetheless "happened". I'm not sure at this point that simply leaving outright is a good idea, but I'm quite sure that just using a bigger hammer is an even worse idea. So on top of this seemingly impossible situation, we now have Bush admin. war hawks starting the clamoring and fear mongering about how we need "regime change" in Iran too. I think anyone with an ounce of sense should be suspicious of Iran's intentions, yet another attack and invasion of a sovereign country "preemptively" will unleash hell on earth. The current US administration blew it with Iraq, therefore IMHO they have no credibility with which to craft yet another unprovoked invasion. This government, with what time it has left, needs to focus it's energies on the Taliban in Afghanistan first and foremost. Attack Iran? These people are out of their fucking minds. With what army? With what strategy? The ones that can't even control Iraq after 4 years? The result will be 6 or 7 figure deaths, the US utterly alone and isolated, global economic meltdown, and regional chaos across the middle east. Not to mention, assurance of another 1000 years of angry Jihadists.

Regardless of who wins in 2008, the end of this administration cannot happen soon enough.

 

Thanks Seagal to have a thought out response.

[Seahawks]

Back on topic- Iran.

Iraq, though a fiasco that should never have happened, has nonetheless "happened". I'm not sure at this point that simply leaving outright is a good idea, but I'm quite sure that just using a bigger hammer is an even worse idea. So on top of this seemingly impossible situation, we now have Bush admin. war hawks starting the clamoring and fear mongering about how we need "regime change" in Iran too. I think anyone with an ounce of sense should be suspicious of Iran's intentions, yet another attack and invasion of a sovereign country "preemptively" will unleash hell on earth. The current US administration blew it with Iraq, therefore IMHO they have no credibility with which to craft yet another unprovoked invasion. This government, with what time it has left, needs to focus it's energies on the Taliban in Afghanistan first and foremost. Attack Iran? These people are out of their fucking minds. With what army? With what strategy? The ones that can't even control Iraq after 4 years? The result will be 6 or 7 figure deaths, the US utterly alone and isolated, global economic meltdown, and regional chaos across the middle east. Not to mention, assurance of another 1000 years of angry Jihadists.

Regardless of who wins in 2008, the end of this administration cannot happen soon enough.

 

I would have to agree with most of this. What worries me the worst is that somehow Iran would get control of Iraq. That should worry America Democrat or Republican.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Ah, what the hell. Why not have another war?? It's good for the economy

[kevbone]

Back on topic- Iran.

Iraq, though a fiasco that should never have happened, has nonetheless "happened". I'm not sure at this point that simply leaving outright is a good idea, but I'm quite sure that just using a bigger hammer is an even worse idea. So on top of this seemingly impossible situation, we now have Bush admin. war hawks starting the clamoring and fear mongering about how we need "regime change" in Iran too. I think anyone with an ounce of sense should be suspicious of Iran's intentions, yet another attack and invasion of a sovereign country "preemptively" will unleash hell on earth. The current US administration blew it with Iraq, therefore IMHO they have no credibility with which to craft yet another unprovoked invasion. This government, with what time it has left, needs to focus it's energies on the Taliban in Afghanistan first and foremost. Attack Iran? These people are out of their fucking minds. With what army? With what strategy? The ones that can't even control Iraq after 4 years? The result will be 6 or 7 figure deaths, the US utterly alone and isolated, global economic meltdown, and regional chaos across the middle east. Not to mention, assurance of another 1000 years of angry Jihadists.

Regardless of who wins in 2008, the end of this administration cannot happen soon enough.

 

I would have to agree with most of this. What worries me the worst is that somehow Iran would get control of Iraq. That should worry America Democrat or Republican.

 

What worries me is how long it will take to shut you up. Brow pointing down at the moment.

[Seahawks]

Answer the question boner. Can you think??? Do you think we will make fun of you? bring something.

[kevbone]

Answer the question boner. Can you think??? Do you think we will make fun of you? bring something.

 

Holy crap….can you read? What questions are you referring too?

[Stonehead]

I think most of us common folk are so out of the loop with what's really going on. I mean how can we not be? We rely on MSM and blogs for information.

 

What the hell is Bolton talking about? Does Iran actually have any nuclear weapons to give up? I suspect this rhetoric about regime change has more to do with Iran's efforts to assert itself as a regional leader if what they say is true concerning the peaceful goals of their nuclear research. For the record, which countries in the Middle East/Near East have nuclear weapons?

 

There are other ways to engage Iran, for instance, by controlling opium production in Afghanistan.

Poppy proliferation--Opium production and consumption in Afghanistan and Iran

I teach courses on modern Iranian politics and culture at Stanford University. A couple of years ago iranian.com agreed to publish some of the best papers written for these classes. Last quarter, I taught a course on US relations with Iran. Mathew McLaughlin presented a fascinating, and frightening paper on the opium trade and production in Afghanistan and how it impacts Iran. Many of those who live in Iran, or who have traveled there or a brief visit, share the opinion that addiction to drugs -- from opium and heroin to crack cocaine other “designer” drugs -- is one of the most serious problems facing the country. McLaughlin’s paper looks at the problem at its source of production from the sober point of view of scholarship, and free from the frills of ideology.

 

 

If I recall correctly, opium production and use was a significant factor in the rise of the Taliban.

 

Edited March 21, 2007 by Stonehead

[Seahawks]

Thought this was funny article just another example why Europe will do nothing becuase they are so corrupt and in bed with these Mid-east countries.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_bi_ge/france_total

 

 

 

 

[Stonehead]

Syriana

[StevenSeagal]

What worries me the worst is that somehow Iran would get control of Iraq. That should worry America Democrat or Republican.

 

Iran is and always has been the regional power. Iraq was a colonial state created by the British. The division is more about "Sunni" and "Shiite", or "Persian" vs. "Arab". The reality is that Iran is probably destined to have a major influence over Iraq- they are next door neighbors.

 

At this point, I would rather see us make a deal with the devil- negotiate from a position of strength (at this point that's shaky...) and forge a cooperative relationship with Iran to share the oil profits- than see another bloodbath with millions of dead people. Get real- oil is what this is about after all. The government wants us to believe it's about security and threats. Yes, it's possible Iran could develop a bomb and pass it off to extremists who would try to nuke New York or something. But I don't think it is in Iran's, or any nation state's, interest to see the US go down, and Iran knows it. They depend on our economy behind all the posturing. The posturing is about threats and nukes when the reality is about who controls the resources- oldest story in the book.

There are those who saying negotiating with Iran makes us look weak...do we look strong in the region right now??!? If we did I doubt Iran would be challenging us as they are. The emperor has no clothes here and everyone knows it. The ironic position of strength may be the US' willingness to suck up it's pride and start talking. Not from this administration though- they won't do it anyway, and they aren't credible or trustworthy. It HAS to be someone else- anyone but Bush. He's done, stick a fork in him.

[kevbone]

Still waiting Seahawks......

[Stonehead]

The sleight-of-hand trick appears to be working. All eyes on Iran as troublemakers.

 

Did you see 300?

Edited March 21, 2007 by Stonehead

[Seahawks]

Still waiting Seahawks......

 

Go back and read. I wasn't the only one asking.

[kevbone]

Bush has done more to stir up terrorists than to defeat them. When asked about what to do with them in 03 his response was “Bring em on”. If you have a big ego and are drivin by God, wouldn’t this statement make you want to go out a cause a ruckus with the US?

[Seahawks]

What worries me the worst is that somehow Iran would get control of Iraq. That should worry America Democrat or Republican.

 

Iran is and always has been the regional power. Iraq was a colonial state created by the British. The division is more about "Sunni" and "Shiite", or "Persian" vs. "Arab". The reality is that Iran is probably destined to have a major influence over Iraq- they are next door neighbors.

 

At this point, I would rather see us make a deal with the devil- negotiate from a position of strength (at this point that's shaky...) and forge a cooperative relationship with Iran to share the oil profits- than see another bloodbath with millions of dead people. Get real- oil is what this is about after all. The government wants us to believe it's about security and threats. Yes, it's possible Iran could develop a bomb and pass it off to extremists who would try to nuke New York or something. But I don't think it is in Iran's, or any nation state's, interest to see the US go down, and Iran knows it. They depend on our economy behind all the posturing. The posturing is about threats and nukes when the reality is about who controls the resources- oldest story in the book.

There are those who saying negotiating with Iran makes us look weak...do we look strong in the region right now??!? If we did I doubt Iran would be challenging us as they are. The emperor has no clothes here and everyone knows it. The ironic position of strength may be the US' willingness to suck up it's pride and start talking. Not from this administration though- they won't do it anyway, and they aren't credible or trustworthy. It HAS to be someone else- anyone but Bush. He's done, stick a fork in him.

 

I don't buy it was all about oil bizz. 80 to 90% oil from that area goes to Europe. To me that more of the shreik cries of the Democrats. I think really what it comes down to is we need to develop something like this http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070321/tc_nm/hydrogen_cars_dc

So that we take all the money and political clout away from these countries.

[chucK]

Your post first says you don't think Iraq (Iran?) is all about the oil, then you conclude with a link implying that hydrogen cars (lessen our dependence on oil) will solve the problem?

 

You make no sense.

[kevbone]

Seahawks I have come to a realization about you. You are a republican aren’t you? If you are, how can you sleep at night with the deaths of over 3500 US (INNOCENT) military personnel on your conscience? Over 75,000 Iraq and other pedestrian deaths. How can you?

[chucK]

Pedestrian deaths? Obviously it's all about the oil. DRIVE OR DIE!!!!!!

[Seahawks]

Your post first says you don't think Iraq (Iran?) is all about the oil, then you conclude with a link implying that hydrogen cars (lessen our dependence on oil) will solve the problem?

 

You make no sense.

 

What I was saying was that I don't beleive that is the underlining reason why we went to war in Iraq. That said I also beleive that by developing these cars this will take away money and political clout to these countries that we have problems with. Make sense?

Edited March 21, 2007 by Seahawks