Oil for food = Haliberton.Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
Same shit.
Printable View
Oil for food = Haliberton.Quote:
Originally Posted by attaboy
Same shit.
The UN is a tool of the devil ... and liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
^ do you believe in God, SK ?
I believe there is a Supreme Architect of the Universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
and do you believe that supreme being can make a difference or hold a difference in what constitute good or evil ? in other words do you believe in retribution ?
Are you asking from a theological point of view ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
well it's petty obvious, isn't it ?
I think he's questioning your statement that 'the UN is a tool of the devil' - which was tongue in cheek, but not far from what some of your religious compatriot nuts do post on the net.
UN's Nuclear Watchdog Group Bows to Iranian Pressure
"And yet we still get some people on the left wondering why we on the right don't trust the UN:
When Chris Charlier arrived in Iran in April of this year, he was received the same way as had always been the case in each of over 20 visits to the Islamic Republic of Iran. "Wherever we went, whatever we did, they always followed us, monitoring us with video cameras and capturing every single one of our conversations. Never letting us out of their sight for a second, watching everything over our shoulder."Now, why would the IAEA kowtow to Iranian demands? Oil for food ring a bell? Saddam wasn't hte only dictator with a large checkbook with which to blind the hopelessly corrupt UN. Of course, I don't know if el-Baradei is bribed, stupid or an Iranian agent, but in any case, his actions as head of the IAEA show that the UN is entirely unreliable as a monitor of WMD proliferation.
"How the devil were we supposed to rationally do our work" comments the 64-year old Belgian.
Chris Charlier, who heads a team of 15 Atomic Energy inspectors of the IAEA have been inspecting the Islamic Republic's nuclear program since 2003.
For the first time a Viennese based inspector speaks openly and under his own name about the conditions under which UN inspectors try to bring to light the darkness surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.
The reason for his outspoken comments is because since April of this year he is for all practical purposes unemployed. Responsible for this is his Vienna based direct superior, Mohammad El-Baradei.
When Baradei went to Tehran in April for consultations, the chief negotiator of the Shiite theocracy, Ali Larijani gave him an ultimatum to fire Chris Charlier.
Mohammad El-Baradei acted swiftly in accepting the demand.
Chris Charlier had made himself highly unpopular in Tehran since 2003. "I am not a politician, I am a technician and as such the only thing which interests me is whether Iran's nuclear program is a civil or military one", Charlier states. "The inspections have to reach an unambiguous conclusion".
Also, for the zillionth time we have proof-positive of the uselessness of negotiations with closed, totalitarian societies. As long as the Iranian regime is as it is, we simply will not know what they are up to, and we can place no reliance on agreements they make with us. Corrupt, power mad and entirely unresponsive to the will of the people, the only thing we can be sure of is that Iranian government actions will be done with a mind to whatever most benefits the tyrants to run Iran.
The whole Iran nuclear dance has so far been a farce - but there is reality, and President Bush lives in it. The dance, I'll be bound, is soon to come to an end." (Mark Noonan)
"UN's Nuclear Watchdog" should be "UN's Nuclear Chihuahua"...
...all bark, no bite. :p
Try to look at it from the Iranian perspective:
"We have vast uranium deposits, and want to enrich uranium for power generation purposes. Perhaps our leaders will want to develop nuclear weapons, but the western world seems to have a problem with this, calling for sanctions and threatning with war. We were sceptical of the IAEAs motives and neutrality, and it seems we were right.
Israel on the other hand, possesses no uranium deposits of their own, and have developed nuclear weapons (estimates range from 100-300 warheads) with considerable western assitance. The IAEA has never been allowed access to Israeli nuclear sites. The western world has made no mention of sanctions or war against Israel."
Can't blame the Muslim world for calling the west in general, and the US in particular for being hypocritical and biased......
Do you really want the Iranians and North Koreans building up a nuclear arsenal ? I don't think so. I really don't care if they have nukes, but the problem I have is that when they really get their programs going then the US, USSR and alot of other countries are going to be right back in a nuclear arms race ... zillions of dollars spent on another "detente" only this time with wackos who might actually launch an attack. If that's the way it's going to be then I want the US to take a first strike position ... I think it's a stupid policy to only retaliate if attacked first with nuclear arms ... FUCK THAT !
The only "wacko" nation which has actually employed nukes in warfare is the US. They've also threatened to use them again several times, for example to "free" Berlin from communist occupation. Strategic use of nukes is still not a taboo. In fact, haven't they recently developed small-scale nukes for just this purpose?
Having nukes is the only way for non-US-friendly nations to prevent the yanks from "liberating" them.
We'll bear the burden of leadership. But whether you like it or not England will always be on the same side as the US in the vast majority of instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
Like I said ... let them have as many as nukes as they want or can afford. All I want is a President with an itchy trigger finger.
^ you are suicidal, aren't you ?
That's one way one might to look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
How about this, "If you're an Iranian and have nukes or you're a seppo and have nukes ... what's the purpose of having them if you ain't willing to use them?" Do you think the Iranians will be willing to use them ?
The scary thing is that when I read posts like these, Bin Ladin & Co actually start to make sense......Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2006/07/151.jpg
The World's Most Impotent Man
The antisemitc UN: "If the intemperate United Nations response to Israel's defense of its citizens, or U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's off-the-cuff, before-any-investigation charge that Israel deliberately targeted U.N. peacekeepers surprises you, check out a small sample of facts National Center policy analyst Ryan Balis collected about the United Nations' shameful legacy vis-a-vis Jews and Israel"
Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog: The United Nations Legacy of Anti-Semitism
Just had a quick look at the link:
Well, that's true, isn't it? Zionism claims Jews to be the chosen race above others, and the state of Israel practises racial discrimination.Quote:
In November of 1975, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 3379, which determined, "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”
How is calling a spade a spade "antisemitic"?
And what do the quotes from representative of UN member states prove? That the entire UN is antisemitic, or does it confirm the attitude of these representatives, all from Middle-Eastern nations in conflict with Israel?
You need to be more selective in your sources, SK.
Strollerrooski,
Did you know that both Jews and Muslims are Semites ?
Why was the UN resolution repealed if it were true ? Why did you ignore that little tidbit in your retort?
The bombing of Lebanon and the invasion of Iraq should be proof of what happens when a country fails to possess nuclear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteshiva
In other words, with the USA and Israel on this planet nobody is safe from Neofascistfundamentalist Christianjews.
This sounds like severe Troll-material to any rational-thinking person.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
So Mote It Be...;)
Do you really think Lebanon would have been invaded if Lebanon had nukes? What if Iraq could have hit Los Angeles with an ICBM? Would Iraq have been bombed into civil war or would we have just run away scared as we are with North Korea?
Why don't we apply the same logic to North Korea? Is it because we're afraid? My God, they can't even feed their people. So, why not apply the Lebanon-Iraq "they're weak so let's invade/bomb them" mentality?
Iraq and Lebanon give proof to the rest of the Muslim world as to why the USA and Israel are not to be trusted.
Maybe he got the short of the Cable Tow. ;)
:mad: That is no laughing matter! Any more such insane suggestions, and I will be forced to report you to the UNBPA (United Nations Bong-smokers Protection Agency).Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
:star: