BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Don't tell me he isn't making Nukes

Apparently the new Liberal argument seems to be "he doesn't even have nukes." This makes me wonder, do these morons know the difference between Iraq and Iran? Or is it all the same. Just because we couldn't find Saddams weapons, somehow, no other dictator is making or storing any either. This pathetic argument isn't going to fly at this blog, the truth is way to apparent to be missed. On that note, here are some images of Iran's nuclear material and facilities.


No big deal here, it's only a little bit of uranium. They're probably just using it for fireworks or something.

Natanz nuclear complex? I don't see it. It's just a big Wal-Mart, right?


uranium conversion, huh. Don't be so paranoid. They're obviously making flower vases out of glass.

64 Comments:

  • At 18/1/06 9:03 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Hey Cody. I went ahead and read the CNN article you grabbed those pictures from. Maybe you should do the same.

    Listen, I'll be the first guy to say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a bad man, but there is no evidence to support the idea that those Iranian Nuclear Faclities you see there are used for anything other than nuclear research and power. As a sovereign nation they have the right just as we do to participate in nuclear research.

    I'm not saying he doesn't have nuclear weapons. I have no way of knowing that, but I do know that at this time all evidence points to them not existing.

     
  • At 18/1/06 10:20 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I have to agree with everything "the recliner" said, but remember Cody said "Don't tell me he isn't making Nukes". He doesn't want to hear it. Be prepared to have your argument smacked down moron.

     
  • At 19/1/06 6:11 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yes, obviously the vat was full of chocalate Cody, to give the starved little Iranian children. You must be paranoid.

    (sarcasm)

     
  • At 19/1/06 7:23 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Listen, no one is saying that what we see in that photo isn't nuclear technology. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly admits that. The issue here is that there is no evidence to support the idea that it is involved in the creation of nuclear weapon technology.

     
  • At 19/1/06 7:59 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    No evidence? How about CNN, CBS, Fox and Condaleeza Rice? Do you believe Iran over the US?

     
  • At 19/1/06 9:17 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Oh my god, CNN, CBS, Fox and Condaleeza Rice all say that Iran has nuclear technology, as in nuclear power, but no one has made the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons. They've said that they believe they could be on the road to them, or have the capabilities to make them, but there is no evidence that they have nukes.

     
  • At 20/1/06 1:22 AM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    More like talking to a brick wall with a severe concussion and a speech impedement, but you get the general idea.

     
  • At 20/1/06 1:48 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    The Recliner said... More like talking to a brick wall with a severe concussion and a speech impedement, but you get the general idea.

    This was in reply to a comment I deleted stating that debating DarkSaturos was like talking to a brick wall... sorry about that.

    I replaced it with:

    You think you're going to get anywhere debating Republicans with facts?!

     
  • At 20/1/06 2:03 AM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    No problem dfkz, it was worth it. That article was an interesting read.

     
  • At 20/1/06 4:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    The facts? obviously you are too dumb to know that they said nuclear threat which doesn't mean civilian purposes.

     
  • At 20/1/06 6:02 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Darksaturos, just listen. Yes, other countries said they were afraid of a nuclear threat, or were suspicious of a nuclear threat, but as of this time there is no proof that Iran has nulear weapons. All research that has been conducted points them not having nukes. Whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons is a mystery, but all evidence says they do not.

     
  • At 20/1/06 7:03 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Like what evidence may I ask?

     
  • At 20/1/06 10:40 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    This is an interview with the person who, excluding anyone actually on the inside of the Iranian nuclear program, would know the most about the situation as to whether or not there is proof Iran has nuclear weapons.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/elbaradei_3-18.html

    In it he says, and I quote:
    "...so far I haven't seen any concrete proof that what Iran is doing is directly linked to the weapon program..."

    Now, what is your evidence to prove him wrong?

     
  • At 21/1/06 11:07 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    A PBS interview? PBS is liberal. Bring me an article from an unbiased news source and I'll believe you.

     
  • At 22/1/06 2:04 AM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    A PBS interview? PBS is liberal. Bring me an article from an unbiased news source and I'll believe you.

    I'll indulge you here and post another link, but the information there didn't come from PBS, or the questions asked. It came from the person they were interviewing, an unbiased, and informed source.

    http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2006/newsweek12012006.html

    It's very recent, and as you can see, Mohammed ElBaradei is no fan of the Iranian government. You can also see, that as of now there is no proof of a nuclear weapons program.

     
  • At 22/1/06 9:59 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    The Recliner said... I'll indulge you here and post another link, but the information there didn't come from PBS, or the questions asked. It came from the person they were interviewing, an unbiased, and informed source.

    Your link is broken. Is this the interview you were referring to?

    Transcript of the Director General's Interview
    "American Morning" Segment with Bill Hemmer, CNN Anchor
    (March 18, 2004)

    HEMMER: The U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector says the jury is still out on whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Mohammed El Baradei told Congress and the White House yesterday there is no specific proof of Tehran's nuclear intentions. The head of the IAEA is our guest today from D.C. [Read More]

    Here's another, more recent interview:

    Diplomacy and Force. Newsweek Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei
    (January 12, 2006)

    The man in the middle of the escalating tensions between Iran, Europe and the United States is Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the United Nations´ International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei and the IAEA, recipients of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, are charged with verifying Iran's compliance -- or lack thereof -- with international safeguards against nuclear-weapons proliferation.

    In his first interview since Iran broke the seals on nuclear research equipment last week, ElBaradei spoke bluntly at his Vienna headquarters with NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey about his frustrations with Tehran, and his ideas on how to avoid further escalation.

    DICKEY: You've said you're running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean?

    MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.

    DICKEY: But there's another problem. Even if the declared nuclear research is all that Iran has going, there's nothing in the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself to prevent them from enriching uranium -- which they say is their right. They could get to the point of producing their own nuclear fuel, or bomb material, then tell you, "We're pulling out of the treaty".

    ELBARADEI: Sure. And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far -- a few months -- from a weapon. We need to revisit the treaty, because that margin of security is unacceptable. But specifically on Iran, the board is saying, "You have a right under the treaty to enrich uranium, but because of the lack of confidence in your program and because the IAEA has not yet given you a clean bill of health, you should not exercise that right. In a way, you have to go through a probation period, to build confidence again, before you can exercise your full rights".

    DICKEY: That was the basis of the European and Russian negotiations with Iran. But that's been declared a dead end, and tensions are escalating. There´s probably going to be an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board in the next couple of weeks. Washington and now Europe have called for the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue.

    ELBARADEI: I'll tell you, nobody wants to go to the Security Council -- if they can avoid that... [But] even if it goes to the Security Council, it will be a graduated approach. If [the Iranians] decide to go the confrontation route, everybody will be hurt, there is no question about it. But at the end of the day, in my view, they will hurt more because there is a more united international community. [Read more]

    After reading that there is no way you can say that Mr. El Baradei is lying to help his "Muslim brothers".

    The Recliner said... They've said that they believe they could be on the road to them, or have the capabilities to make them, but there is no evidence that they have nukes.

    Who are you going to believe? Mr. El Baradei -- who says more inspections are needed before anything can be know for sure -- or Cody -- who says he has all the evidence he needs to conclude with certainty that Iran is making nukes.

    I'm not sure who to believe -- they both have equal qualifications, experience and expertise...

     
  • At 22/1/06 3:49 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    You guys just don't get it, do you. Haven't you ever asked the question, maybe the guy's lying? And maybe, just maybe, Bush and Condi Rice aren't? Have you thought about that? Don't you find it suspicous that he says something like this:

    "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?" he asked. "But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

    Then he starts a nuclear "research" program?

    Come on, if you can tell me Bush stole the elections, is it too much of a stretch to believe this guy is lying about his nuclear program?

    I'm not questioning your patriotism, but I will question your basic logic skills, or lack thereof.

    You guys are just too left for me, I mean, even France is on my side now, FRANCE! You guys are left-wing extremists!

     
  • At 22/1/06 4:14 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Oh, I must add, the "World without Zionism" convention was state sponsored by the way. (see images in posts and quotes)

     
  • At 22/1/06 4:48 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    You guys just don't get it, do you. Haven't you ever asked the question, maybe the guy's lying?

    Yes, I have. In fact, I'm suspicious as hell of them, but I know that as of now I have no real information to back up my suspicion.

    I'm not questioning your patriotism, but I will question your basic logic skills, or lack thereof.

    You guys are just too left for me, I mean, even France is on my side now, FRANCE! You guys are left-wing extremists!


    Show me once where I sympathized with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Show me once where I said that I believe a word he says. Then, you can question my basic logic skills.

     
  • At 22/1/06 5:04 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm not questioning your patriotism

    Oh I am. When they think that Bush is lying and the Iranians aren't I question their patriotism.

     
  • At 22/1/06 5:19 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Oh I am. When they think that Bush is lying and the Iranians aren't I question their patriotism.

    First of all, questioning the current administration doesn't make you any less patriotic, though I'll be sure to remember you think that the next time there's a Democrat in the office.

    I pose to you, the same challenge I gave to Cody, show me where I said I believe a word the Iranian government says.

     
  • At 22/1/06 9:07 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    It has nothing to do with the admin and everything to do with trusting our enemies. For instance I trust Clinton more than Iran.

     
  • At 22/1/06 10:13 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Darksaturos, did you understand what I just said? I said to you, in plain english, that I do not trust what the Iranian government says. Show me where I say I trust them, and then you can bring my patriotism into question.

     
  • At 23/1/06 3:13 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Well you believe them when they say they don't have nukes. So there ya go.

     
  • At 23/1/06 4:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Well you believe them when they say they don't have nukes. So there ya go.

    He didn't say anything of the sort! What we're saying is that we believe Mr. el-Baradei when he says there isn't any proof that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. Regardless of how many times this is pointed out you will continue to say that it's because we trust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we're ant-american, etc. Is this the only way you can win an argument?! Twist people's words, and OUTRIGHT lie about what they mean?

    "the recliner" was quite clear when he stated that he does not trust the Iranian president -- yet how does DarkSaturos reply -- with a LIE, of course.

    And NO, I don't trust a single thing bush says!! The guy is a pathological liar! I don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth.

    DarkSaturos said... Oh I am [questioning your patriotism]. When they think that Bush is lying and the Iranians aren't I question their patriotism.

    Well, I'm questioning YOUR patriotism (and reading comprehension skill). Patriotism is love of one's country, not love for a president who acts more like a king than a public servant. You support a president who thinks he can start preventative wars, torture, spy on American Citizens, destroy our environment, run up the National debt, favor the wealthy, etc -- all things I would call extremely unpatriotic. I say if you don't love everything American stands for -- which bush clearly does NOT -- then YOU should leave!

     
  • At 23/1/06 6:51 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Well you believe them when they say they don't have nukes. So there ya go.

    I think now that you've said that we can all agree that you are either a liar, or do in fact have serious reading comprehension problem.

     
  • At 23/1/06 8:03 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I wish I could believe you guys when you say the program is for research but it's just too suspicious for me. He openly talks about how the world would be better without America or Irael, then months later he's caught breaking UN seals in his nuclear program. So the UN comes over to inspect, and the Iranian president deny's the UN and continues the program, even though it's breaking seals. He doesn't negotiate, he just continues. If he was making nukes do you think he could convince the UN it was okay? No, he had something to hide. Plans, materials, or even finished nukes, I don't know, but he's up to something and I know it. But I think it's pretty fair to say that military action is the last plan on the table, and that's if every other option of dealing with Iran non-violently fails. If this was all about just research, he wouldn't take it that far. If he was making nukes and planning attacks, he would however, do whatever he could to succeed. And again it's not so much of a strech to believe he would be doing this. Just read some of the quotes I found, he's a crazy man!

     
  • At 23/1/06 8:18 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I said to you, in plain english, that I do not trust what the Iranian government says. Show me where I say I trust them

    “Our nuclear activities are fully legal, and they will never be used for military purposes,”
    -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

    "there is no evidence to support the idea that those Iranian Nuclear Faclities you see there are used for anything other than nuclear research and power."
    -the reliner

    It looks like you trust him to me. But by all means, if you've changed your mind, or have something else to say, say it now, because right now it looks like you're trusting him. I'm not saying you're defending him, but trusting him I would say.

     
  • At 23/1/06 8:46 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    In response to your first post, I too am suspicious, but I have the capability to seperate my emotions and suspicions from the facts.

    It looks like you trust him to me. But by all means, if you've changed your mind, or have something else to say, say it now, because right now it looks like you're trusting him. I'm not saying you're defending him, but trusting him I would say.

    We both know what you did there Cody, and it seems to me to be an act of desperation on your part. I trusted you were without reading comprehension problems unlike your friend. I never once cited that quote, and you are well aware of that.

    I base my belief not on that quote by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but on the words of Mohammed ElBaradei, the single most unbiased and informed person related to this subject. I believe you know this to be the case, and claimed otherwise in your previous post intentionally.

     
  • At 23/1/06 8:59 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I think now that you've said that we can all agree that you are either a liar, or do in fact have serious reading comprehension problem.

    Gee that didn't answer my question. Could it be you have no answer? You're slipping recliner.

     
  • At 23/1/06 10:46 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Gee that didn't answer my question. Could it be you have no answer? You're slipping recliner.

    You once again prove your refusal to fully comprehend a discussion. No, I didn't answer you in that comment, because I'd responded to esentially that same question in my previous six comments, and the one following it.

    I'd say that you're slipping, but you were never any higher.

    And just incase, here's the question I supposively have never responded to, which I will then respond to, my quoting what I have already said.

    Question:
    " Well you believe them when they say they don't have nukes. So there ya go."

    Answers:
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a bad man

    CNN, CBS, Fox and Condaleeza Rice all say that Iran has nuclear technology, as in nuclear power, but no one has made the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons.

    All research that has been conducted points them not having nukes.

    This is an interview with the person who, excluding anyone actually on the inside of the Iranian nuclear program, would know the most about the situation as to whether or not there is proof Iran has nuclear weapons.

    he says, and I quote:
    "...so far I haven't seen any concrete proof that what Iran is doing is directly linked to the weapon program..."

    I'm suspicious as hell of them, but I know that as of now I have no real information to back up my suspicion.

    I do not trust what the Iranian government says.

    I base my belief not on that quote by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but on the words of Mohammed ElBaradei, the single most unbiased and informed person related to this subject.


    Still think I never responded to that Darksaturos?

     
  • At 24/1/06 12:43 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    We both know what you did there Cody, and it seems to me to be an act of desperation on your part. I trusted you were without reading comprehension problems unlike your friend. I never once cited that quote, and you are well aware of that.

    I have no reading comprehension problems, I thought you would understand what I was doing. It's called comparison. You know, when you show two different things and find similarities. I'm guessing that either you have your own problems with understanding writing techniques, or you just got bi*ch slapped and you know it.

     
  • At 24/1/06 12:49 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I base my belief not on that quote by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but on the words of Mohammed ElBaradei, the single most unbiased and informed person related to this subject.

    How is ElBaradei unbiased? He has an opinion about this issue, also known as a bias. I too have an opinion about this issue, it is also a bias. Not having a bias is something news companies like CNN have, or at least are supposed to have. Induvidual people like ElBaradei have a bias. Pretty simple, well for most people anyways....

     
  • At 24/1/06 12:53 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Also, trusting someone who trusts Ahmedinjad, is just a roundabout way of trusting Ahmedinjad.

     
  • At 24/1/06 1:21 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    I have no reading comprehension problems, I thought you would understand what I was doing. It's called comparison. You know, when you show two different things and find similarities. I'm guessing that either you have your own problems with understanding writing techniques, or you just got bi*ch slapped and you know it.

    Actually, what you just did there is called misrepresenting the facts. You showed a quote which I did not base my opnion on, then implied that it was my source. You knew this to be the case, but made the implication none the less.

    If you honestly did not know this to be the case, then you either have not read any of my previous comments, or do in fact have a reading comprehension problem. I don't believe this to be the case however.

    How is ElBaradei unbiased? He has an opinion about this issue, also known as a bias.

    Now, that's just not true.

    bi·as
    n.

    An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

    -

    o·pin·ion
    n.

    A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.

    How about you use your comparison skills now? Those seem pretty different to me.

    Not having a bias is something news companies like CNN have, or at least are supposed to have. Induvidual people like ElBaradei have a bias. Pretty simple, well for most people anyways....

    So, an indivudal person can't be unbiased? Then, what about the individual people who write the stories on CNN/FOX/CBS/MSNBC, or the reporters?

    Mohammed ElBaradei is not just some rogue individual. He is a representative of the IAEA. He's just as unbiased, if not more so than any news source.

    Also, trusting someone who trusts Ahmedinjad, is just a roundabout way of trusting Ahmedinjad.

    That would be a great response, if Mohammed ElBaradei based his information off of the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he doesn't. He bases it off of the information he's learned by actually studying and examining the Iranian Nuclear Program.

     
  • At 24/1/06 3:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Still think I never responded to that Darksaturos?

    Exactly. You answered saying you trust Iran more than the US. Good job. You proved my point, way to go!

     
  • At 24/1/06 3:22 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Exactly. You answered saying you trust Iran more than the US. Good job. You proved my point, way to go!

    Oh, dear god. Darksaturos, please, just listen carefully to what I have said:

    "I do not trust what the Iranian government says."

    "I base my belief not on that quote by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but on the words of Mohammed ElBaradei"

    How could you possibly, after that, think that I "trust Iran"?

     
  • At 24/1/06 5:03 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    "I base my belief not on that quote by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but on the words of Mohammed ElBaradei"

    who agrees with Iran. End of story.

     
  • At 24/1/06 7:44 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    the recliner said...
    Actually, what you just did there is called misrepresenting the facts. You showed a quote which I did not base my opnion on, then implied that it was my source. You knew this to be the case, but made the implication none the less.

    Oh, come on. You make no sense. What is there to be misinterpreted? You said you trust Mohammed ElBaradei, who said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. That Is also what the president of Iran is saying. Me not understanding what you're saying does not make me unable to comprehend writing. It means I can't understand YOUR writing because it just doesn't make sense. Can you just tell me straight on what your opinion is about the president of Iran and what you think he's doing? You're just hopping around like bugs bunny on speed and you expect me to follow. Lets keep it simple.

    The question is not, do you trust the president of Iran necessarily, the question is, do you trust him when he says the nuclear program is just for energy?

    The other question is, do you trust the Bush administration when they claim he does have a nuclear weapons program?

    And I don't know what facts you've been basing your answers on. I've given you mine, do yours add up higher? But the more important point is, is that current "facts" about this program may not be worth anything in the future, they may not even be true, if we want to speculate we have to look at the past. Take a look in this mans past, he's not the type who's going to hold back. He WANTS to destroy America and Israel and he's SAID it. He's not talking about some peaceful negotiation either. In the past he has proven to mistreat some of his own people.

    So you can take your pick, but even if you're right it's a risky gamble. We must be cautious with Iran because even though there may be a good chance he's NOT a threat to us, if he in fact IS, then we're SCREWED. It's a risk we cannot take.

     
  • At 24/1/06 8:15 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... who agrees with Iran. End of story.

    Wrong again.

    Excerpt from a 1/12/2006 Newsweek interview with Mohamed El-Baradei.

    Interviewer: You've said you´re running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean?

    Mohamed El-Baradei, Director General, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals and locations that we have seen all that we ought to see...[Link]

    And yet you say Mr. El-Baradei is in agreement with Iran's president. He's their "mouthpiece"?! Hans Blix, Director General of the IAEA from 1981 to 1997, said the same thing about Iraq (no evidence of WMDs) -- so how did you discredit him? He isn't of Middle eastern descent -- he's Swedish. (so you can't say Mr. Blix lied for Saddam, his "Muslim Brother".)

    The recliner said... That would be a great response, if Mohammed ElBaradei based his information off of the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he doesn't. He bases it off of the information he's learned by actually studying and examining the Iranian Nuclear Program.

    Clear evidence of a reading comprehension problem.

    Cody said... How is ElBaradei unbiased? He has an opinion about this issue, also known as a bias. I too have an opinion about this issue, it is also a bias.

    He's unbiased because he's basing his conclusions on personally observed FACTS. Really, this should be quite simple to understand -- why are you having such a hard time comprehending it?

     
  • At 24/1/06 8:45 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Oh, come on. You make no sense. What is there to be misinterpreted? You said you trust Mohammed ElBaradei, who said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. That Is also what the president of Iran is saying.

    You said that anyone who agrees with Mohammed ElBaradei also agrees with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which is TOTAL BS. These two men are NOT in agreement. They are NOT "muslim brothers". For you to keep stating this nonsense over and over regardless of the FACTS presented is making you look extremely stupid.

    If you simply said that you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is successfully hiding his Nuclear Weapons program from the inspectors -- that would be one thing -- but to implicate Mohammed ElBaradei in a scheme to hid nukes is completely unsupported by the facts -- and it smacks of racism.

    Cody Said... Can you just tell me straight on what your opinion is about the president of Iran and what you think he's doing?

    I believe he did so. Multiple times.

    The question is not, do you trust the president of Iran necessarily, the question is, do you trust him when he says the nuclear program is just for energy?

    I trust Mr. ElBaradei. I think anything the US decides to do it should be in conjunction with the IAEA.

    The other question is, do you trust the Bush administration when they claim he does have a nuclear weapons program?

    If that's what they're saying, then no. Simply because I don't trust anything they say. Anyway, I don't know that is what they're saying. Point me to a news story in which it states that bush firmly believe that Iran has Nukes (as opposed to him firmly SUSPECTING they do).

    I've given you [my facts], do yours add up higher?

    What "facts", specifically, are you referring to? The photographs? All they prove is that Iran has a Nuclear ENERGY program. I didn't see missiles in any of the pictures.

    Cody Said... he's not the type who's going to hold back. He WANTS to destroy America and Israel and he's SAID it.

    That is all he has done -- TALK about his hatred for America and Israel. Honestly -- What bush might do frightens me a LOT more than what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might do. I say it's a gamble to leave bush in power. I say impeach him now before he starts WW3.

     
  • At 25/1/06 6:30 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Mohammed ElBaradei believe's there is no nuclear bombs, Ahmadinejad said there is no nuclear bombs, I'm not saying their friends, I'm just saying they both are saying similar things, can it be an any simpler terms than that!?

    But his opinion doesn't matter if Iran is hiding thier weapons program.

    Point me to a news story in which it states that bush firmly believe that Iran has Nukes (as opposed to him firmly SUSPECTING they do).

    I said believe not know, two different words. Suspecting and believing are similar words, like I can believe in the tooth fairy, even though it doesn't exist, and I can suspect there is one two. Lets not turn this into a word game, and please don't make me hunt around cnn.com for quotes from Rice that I already know exist, I have a life you know.

    Hans Blix, Director General of the IAEA from 1981 to 1997, said the same thing about Iraq (no evidence of WMDs) -- so how did you discredit him?

    Because he failed us. You know as well as I do that the UN couldn't inspect certain areas because Saddam didn't want them to. So, the UN just leaves those places out in their inspection. It probably isn't much different with Iran. Oh, and I'd love to see you proove that Saddam had no WMD, because I know you can't do it, nobody can win either side of that argument, not unless we find them.

     
  • At 25/1/06 3:10 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program.

    Ok that just proves that he doesn't think they're making nukes. Thanks to dkfz for the information.

     
  • At 25/1/06 3:56 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    It means I can't understand YOUR writing because it just doesn't make sense.

    You and DarkSaturos seem to be the only ones with this problem.

    Can you just tell me straight on what your opinion is about the president of Iran and what you think he's doing?

    My honest opinion is that he is a very bad man who is not to be trusted. I also think he might have nuclear aspirations. I just have no evidence to back that up. This is something I've said before.

    You're just hopping around like bugs bunny on speed and you expect me to follow. Lets keep it simple.

    First of all, I haven't been trying to get you to do anything. You just joined this debate. What I've been doing is repeating myself over and over again trying to get DarkSaturos to understand.

    Oh, come on. You make no sense. What is there to be misinterpreted? You said you trust Mohammed ElBaradei, who said that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. That Is also what the president of Iran is saying.

    No, the president claims that to be a fact. Mohammed ElBaradei simply says that there is no evidence of a nuclear program that he can find.

    Mohammed ElBaradei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have a similar conclusion, but ElBaradei does not listen to, or trust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He gets his own information.

    The question is not, do you trust the president of Iran necessarily, the question is, do you trust him when he says the nuclear program is just for energy?

    No, personally I do not. I think Iran has the potential to be a serious nuclear threat, but I have no evidence to back that up.

    The other question is, do you trust the Bush administration when they claim he does have a nuclear weapons program?

    I don't believe I've ever actually heard them say he does in fact has nuclear weapons. They've said they're suspicious, and that he could pose a nuclear threat, but I've never heard them say he has nuclear weapons.

    And I don't know what facts you've been basing your answers on. I've given you mine, do yours add up higher?

    You have no real facts. You have some substantial/character evidence but that's all.

    But the more important point is, is that current "facts" about this program may not be worth anything in the future, they may not even be true,

    That's almost always the case, but it's no reason to disregard the facts we have. There's always a chance that any one medication might get pulled off the shelves due to an unforeseen negative side-effect, but doctors still write prescriptions, because the most we can know is the information we have now.

    . Take a look in this mans past, he's not the type who's going to hold back. He WANTS to destroy America and Israel and he's SAID it. He's not talking about some peaceful negotiation either. In the past he has proven to mistreat some of his own people.

    That's certainly true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not he actually has nuclear weapons.

    I said believe not know

    Actually you said:

    "The other question is, do you trust the Bush administration when they claim he does have a nuclear weapons program?"

    You used the word claim, not believe. You said you don't want to get into semantics, but that's a real difference.

    please don't make me hunt around cnn.com for quotes from Rice that I already know exist

    Despite the fact that it wouldn't really change my opinion of the subject, since I believe ElBaradei to be better informed than Rice, I would appreciate a quote where she claims they actually have nukes.

    nobody can win either side of that argument, not unless we find them.

    Well, as they say, the burden of truth is on the accuser. So, unless Bush can back it up, why would it be considered a mystery as opposed to a lie?

     
  • At 25/1/06 3:59 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    You know, I think the actual expression is, "the burden of truth is on the state," but I'm sure you got the point.

     
  • At 25/1/06 6:38 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Okay, I think you've explained your position on this pretty good here, but do you agree with me when I say this:

    "So you can take your pick, but even if you're right it's a risky gamble. We must be cautious with Iran because even though there may be a good chance he's NOT a threat to us, if he in fact IS, then we're SCREWED. It's a risk we cannot take."

    I'm not saying we need military action, but to ignore the problem completely is just a risk I don't believe we can take.

    You used the word claim, not believe. You said you don't want to get into semantics, but that's a real difference.

    oops. I guess I missed that one. I'll go back to using the word 'suspect' because that's what I mean.

     
  • At 25/1/06 9:24 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    "So you can take your pick, but even if you're right it's a risky gamble. We must be cautious with Iran because even though there may be a good chance he's NOT a threat to us, if he in fact IS, then we're SCREWED. It's a risk we cannot take."

    I'm not saying we need military action, but to ignore the problem completely is just a risk I don't believe we can take.


    I'll agree with you there. I believe he does pose a threat, and ignoring that threat completely would be a serious mistake.

    Military action is definitely the wrong choice here. A real problem here is that due to Iraq I'm sure Iran is going to be nervous of a preemptive strike which will make everything more difficult.

    oops. I guess I missed that one. I'll go back to using the word 'suspect' because that's what I mean.

    I realize this was on a rather small issue, but being willing to admit to a mistake is a very important part of having a real discussion, so I greatly appreciate that.

     
  • At 25/1/06 10:07 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Iran Is Judged 10 Yeairs From Nuclear Bomb. A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

    The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said.[August 2, 2005]

    Cody Said... please don't make me hunt around cnn.com for quotes from Rice that I already know exist

    I don't know they exist. I think you are misrepresenting what these quotes actually say.

     
  • At 25/1/06 10:14 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... oops. I guess I missed that one. I'll go back to using the word 'suspect' because that's what I mean.

    Right... It only took about 20 or 30 posts by the recliner and I before you realized that was the very distinction we were pointing out?

     
  • At 26/1/06 6:22 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Right... It only took about 20 or 30 posts by the recliner and I before you realized that was the very distinction we were pointing out?

    Why don't you make a big deal out of it, I'm sure that'll make you look smart. I know it's a big tendancy for Liberals to point out every single mistake (in an unkind fashiong usually) but it really doesn't have to continue. But I know in your mind your calling me a liar because is mistakedly wrote claim instead of believe or suspect, and you can add this to your list of why you hate Republicans for all I care, but all it really is is a mistake.

    I'll agree with you there. I believe he does pose a threat, and ignoring that threat completely would be a serious mistake.

    I'm glad we can at least agree here.

     
  • At 26/1/06 11:32 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... oops. I guess I missed that one. I'll go back to using the word 'suspect' because that's what I mean.

    Given the title of this thread, "Don't tell me he isn't making Nukes", I don't believe you. Unless you're changing your mind. But you can't tell me that you meant "suspected" all along.

    Every single one of my posts was in regards to how we should be using the word "suspected" instead of "known". EVERY ONE. Every link I posted was in an attempt to get you to acknowledge this. You refuted everything I said.

    You told me bush and condi are also saying Iran is making nukes (NOW, for a fact) -- but that you just couldn't be bothered to provide links proving this. NOW you say that you meant to use the word "suspected" ALL ALONG?! I don't buy it. Either you are EXTREMELY dense, or this was a big joke you were playing on me (and recliner) -- to see how frustrated you could get me. Which is it?

    Anyway, back to the link I posted earlier which states that Iran is 10 years away from having the technology to produce nukes (even if it is their desire). If Iran is TEN YEARS away from nuclear weapons technology why is bush making such a huge stink about this NOW? I think he wants to make it appear as if he did everything possible to avoid bombing -- before he bombs. I'd say that he also had invasion plans, if I weren't also hearing about how thin our military is stretched. Where's this going to lead? A draft? I think another terrorist attack is needed before people would accept that.

    Thursday January 26, 2006

     
  • At 26/1/06 3:08 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Hee hee. No! those pictures don't relate to nuclear activity. (Huge amounts of sarcasm)

    Good post.

     
  • At 26/1/06 4:42 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Hee hee. No! those pictures don't relate to nuclear activity. (Huge amounts of sarcasm)

    Good post.


    Wow, no one is saying those pictures don't have to do with Nuclear activity. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that. The issue is whether or not it has to do with nuclear weapons. Did you even read part of the discussion that's been going on here?

    Also, you say that with such confidence, where did you get your nuclear physcis degree?

     
  • At 30/1/06 6:34 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Given the title of this thread, "Don't tell me he isn't making Nukes", I don't believe you. Unless you're changing your mind. But you can't tell me that you meant "suspected" all along.

    You've once again missed the entire point. The Bush Administration suspects, I believe, and in one year when they've finished you might too.

    Anyway, back to the link I posted earlier which states that Iran is 10 years away from having the technology to produce nukes

    Again, it's closer to 1 year. Of course it takes 10 years to make these kinds of weapons, but it's not like this program just started recently, they've been working on nukes for a long time.

    I'd say that he also had invasion plans, if I weren't also hearing about how thin our military is stretched. Where's this going to lead? A draft? I think another terrorist attack is needed before people would accept that

    Oh your going to play the military is broken and their bringing back the draft card. Neither are true. The military is meeting their goals for volunteer soldiers, so it's not being stretched thin, and so there is no need for a draft. In fact there is no need for an invasion at this point either, all we're worried about is a few buildings containing nuclear material.

     
  • At 30/1/06 6:54 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    According to the following link Iran has 3 years until they would be finished making nukes. Why are you complaining that we care now? At this point diplomacy is on the table, if we wait 3 years a military strike would be our only option.

    http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/30/wiran30.xml

    "Iran has formed a top secret team of nuclear specialists to infiltrate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the UN-sponsored body that monitors its nuclear programme, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

    Its target is the IAEA's safeguards division and its aim is to obtain information on the work of IAEA inspectors so that Iran can conceal the more sensitive areas of its nuclear research, according to information recently received by western intelligence."
    -news.telegraph.co.uk

    Do you still believe your oh so trusting IAEA now? Now that you know they have said they have no nuclear weapons program, even though they have been kept out of some places. You can choose to ignore this story or not, but to me this story just deletes all of your arguments out of my mind, I have NO doubt whatsoever that Iran is making nuclear weapons, AND they will be finished in three years. We need to start diplomatic talk NOW before it's too late and the only option we have is a military strike.

     
  • At 30/1/06 2:39 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Also, you say that with such confidence, where did you get your nuclear physcis degree?

    And you got yours where?

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:10 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Do you still believe your oh so trusting IAEA now?

    They are NOT "oh so trusting". Yes, I believe them.

    Cody Said... Now that you know they have said they have no nuclear weapons program, even though they have been kept out of some places. You can choose to ignore this story or not...

    This story sounds like a CRAZY conspiracy theory to me.

    Cody Said... but to me this story just deletes all of your arguments out of my mind, I have NO doubt whatsoever that Iran is making nuclear weapons, AND they will be finished in three years.

    I didn't realize you had any doubt to begin with. Of course you "know" these things. Because you've been there and seen what's going on firsthand, right?

    Cody Said... We need to start diplomatic talk NOW before it's too late and the only option we have is a military strike.

    huh? I thought you couldn't negotiate with terrorists. Anyway, why doesn't bush simply demand that the inspectors be let in? It should be easy to get them to agree, since, as DarkSaturos pointed out, The quagmire bush has created in Iraq scared the cr@p out of them.

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:13 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    dkfz said the following:This story sounds like a CRAZY conspiracy theory to me.


    Can you say the pot calling the kettle black or what?

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:51 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    dkfz said...
    "This story sounds like a CRAZY conspiracy theory to me."

    I didn't write the news story, and they didn't fabricate the news story. This is what's going on. I think it's time you stopped trusting the UN and the Iranian government, and start trusting America, FOR ONCE!!

     
  • At 31/1/06 8:24 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos Said... Can you say the pot calling the kettle black or what?

    So you can call each and every one of my posts a "conspiracy theory", but I'm banned from using the word? Why?

    Cody Said... I didn't write the news story, and they didn't fabricate the news story. This is what's going on.

    Hmmm... you didn't write the story, but you MUST know the author personally. Are you his research assistant? That would explain how you "know" everything in the article is true.

    Cody Said... I think it's time you stopped trusting the UN and the Iranian government, and start trusting America, FOR ONCE!!

    You mean that I should trust that lying traitorous a$$hole bush -- which I most certainly am NOT going to do. Why do you keep saying bush = America?? They are NOT ONE IN THE SAME!!

    Tuesday January 31, 2006

     
  • At 31/1/06 8:57 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Why do you keep saying bush = America?? They are NOT ONE IN THE SAME!!

    I'M NOT SAYING THAT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT! I'M SAYING AMERICA=AMERICA YOU MORON!

    Supporting the UN to take care of this this problem as America does nothing has nothing to do with Bush, at all. This has to do with stopping Iran to save America and Israel. If your too stupid to see that then you really need to pull your head out of this hate Bush cult and take a look at reality. The reality is, is that there are people who are a danger to the safety of Americans and we have to do SOMETHING! If only words could describe the frustration you are putting me through now. Every single frickin' thing turns into Republicans vs Democrats, Bush bad Democrats good, just SHUT UP ALREADY. This discussion is too important for your petty politics! This is not about Bush, this is about doing what's right for the country! The longer this BS continues, the more hostility you'll see from me.

     
  • At 31/1/06 11:13 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... I'M NOT SAYING THAT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT! I'M SAYING AMERICA=AMERICA YOU MORON!

    In my posts I always clearly state I don't trust bush. Every time, after I state that I don't trust bush, you ask me why I don't support America. Clearly you think bush = America.

    Cody Said... Supporting the UN to take care of this this problem as America does nothing has nothing to do with Bush, at all.

    I don't think we should do nothing. I think we should work with the UN.

    Cody Said... This has to do with stopping Iran to save America and Israel. If your too stupid to see that then you really need to pull your head out of this hate Bush cult and take a look at reality.

    I think you need to wake up to reality. bush is a liar. He lied us into the Iraq war, and he's probably lying now about Iran. I predict more lies then bombing.

    Cody Said... If only words could describe the frustration you are putting me through now.

    The feeling is mutual.

    Cody Said... Every single frickin' thing turns into Republicans vs Democrats, Bush bad Democrats good...

    No. Bush bad, anyone (Democrat or Republican) standing up to bush good.

    just SHUT UP ALREADY. This discussion is too important for your petty politics! This is not about Bush, this is about doing what's right for the country!

    That is TOTAL BS! You think that only Republicans know "what's right for the country".

    Lastly, my concern over the Antichrist being in the White House is NOT "petty politics"!!

     
  • At 1/2/06 6:39 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    bush is a liar. He lied us into the Iraq war, and he's probably lying now about Iran. I predict more lies then bombing.

    What did I tell you, everything i write about this country is turned into Bush, you are obviously making a connection I haven't. And about him being a liar about the Iraq war, I thought we already covered that one.

     
  • At 1/2/06 7:01 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    So what the hell did you mean when you said that I should "start trusting America, FOR ONCE!!"

    GEORGE W. BUSH and others in his corrupt administration are the ones saying Iran has nuclear weapons (or that they are actively working to produce them). ERGO when you say I should "trust America" (meaning I should believe this to be true) what you are really saying is that I should trust bush.

    Can your statements be interpreted any other way????

    Cody Said... And about him being a liar about the Iraq war, I thought we already covered that one.

    Bushco LIED us into the Iraq war. FACT. Check this out. It doesn't prove anything other than it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that bush wanted to invade Iraq from day one. (And it is extremely hilarious as well).

     

Post a Comment

<< Home