P
Iran Update...
- Thread starter CrackerJax
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
I'll still take a 100 year old Reagan right about now. We can only go up from where we are now.Ol' Bill Buckley said it right long ago. "I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard".
K
Keenly
Guest
ok everyone, why dont we take a moment to hear what Ron Paul has to say on the subject hmm?
Ron Paul on the Iranian Nuclear Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE&feature=player_embedded
Ron Paul on the Iranian Nuclear Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE&feature=player_embedded
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
Their wish for israeli to disappear
K
Keenly
Guest
basically he says that iran has been complying with all the laws even thought they are vouluntaryno audio...
summary?
they told the UN about this way back in 06
they notified the UN 6 months before they started building
ron paul is stating that iran hasnt broken any laws and that its warmongering just like after 9/11 when there was all the talk about saddamn buying yellowcake
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
my opinion on iran
ahem
we shouldnt allow a country like iran to have anything close to nuclear power, they are for the most part a backwards ass nation (in regards to government) who have repeatedly committed acts of unwarranted violence against many of its own people and will continue to do so. their system of government is fascist to say the least and to allow them any sort of power that would even bring them closer to a "more civilized existence" without first addressing the serious issue of how corrupt and DANGEROUS their government is, is a grave mistake, one which history has shown us again and again
before there is any drastic change and signs of a true democracy in Iran they should be shunned and kept well below the US or any of its allies power level, whether this be military, economical, or any other influential means
ahem
we shouldnt allow a country like iran to have anything close to nuclear power, they are for the most part a backwards ass nation (in regards to government) who have repeatedly committed acts of unwarranted violence against many of its own people and will continue to do so. their system of government is fascist to say the least and to allow them any sort of power that would even bring them closer to a "more civilized existence" without first addressing the serious issue of how corrupt and DANGEROUS their government is, is a grave mistake, one which history has shown us again and again
before there is any drastic change and signs of a true democracy in Iran they should be shunned and kept well below the US or any of its allies power level, whether this be military, economical, or any other influential means
K
Keenly
Guest
you know whats funny
you can take every instance of the word "Iran" and replace it with "U.S."
and the entire statement would still make sense
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
no not at all
our government doesnt hang homosexual, rig elections, and has an all out death wish for jews and claims the holocaust never happened
now go sit in the corner
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
The Iranian people dont deny the holocoaust. Ahmadinejad just likes to wind up the paranoid yanks...
K
Keenly
Guest
you were saying?
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
and so his threats against israel shouldnt be taken seriously
AND WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY DUMB BRITISH DUDE REFER TO AMERICANS AS YANKS
we dont fucking call you red-coats, its like your living 250 years ago in the past (i guess when british was cool)
ya, step aside england, america is number one
attack the person, no good argument to make, so let's attack the person.And most of us laugh at this statement:
i have talked to some of the wealthiest, most affluent and influential people in this hemisphere, over steak, fine wines, and good cigars.
Which means fucking nothing in the scheme of things.Steak and fine wine and cigars are for the ones who have truly fucked our world.
And you are very naive if you think iran would not use a nuke.
We laugh back at you....
keep drinking the koolaid...
i dnt have to prove anything to you.
i HAVE traveled the world, i do speak 3 languages, i have met and hung out with billionaires, i have had a very diverse view of the world, not what I see on TV, and yes, i say you are wrong. not because I saw it on MSNBC, but because it is my true belief, based on my general life experiences. good luck in life....
i've said this to conservatives before: i'll be happy to watch you live a lie.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Nuking Israel will not make Israel disappear.
Mission UN-accomplished if that's the goal.
It would kill millions of Israelis and Arabs, and most likely lead to WW3, in turn killing MANY MORE MILLIONS of Iranians. Do you think Iran - a country of 75 million people - would innitiate WW3 because their leaders - a group of no more than 50 men - don't recognize Israel as legitimate, really?
Do you realize that cannot happen? It couldn't happen in the US, it can't happen in Iran.
There is no clear benefit for Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, period. Nobody can come up with shit!
I kinda dig being called a ''yank''. The British are some of the few people around the world who still respect us, so why are you insulting friends again?
"ya, step aside england, america is number one"
...oh you're one of those "Americans"... I guess I can mark it off as simply ignorance... still no more acceptable...
CrackerJax
New Member
* SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
French Atomic Pique
Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality.
President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.
Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy flanked by President Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.
Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.
"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.
"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . .
"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."
We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.
French Atomic Pique
Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality.
President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.
Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy flanked by President Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.
Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.
"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.
"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . .
"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."
We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.
stalebiscuit
Well-Known Member
how the hell does england respect us (maybe their government, but their subjects dont obviously)
plus.....im obviously joking, i really got nothing against red-coats
CrackerJax
New Member
Obama has been using Gordo brown as a whipping boy since he was elected.
let's face it. Obama is an empty suit, only his puffed up elitism keeps his shirts from wrinkling.
He's no Commander in Chief.
let's face it. Obama is an empty suit, only his puffed up elitism keeps his shirts from wrinkling.
He's no Commander in Chief.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
This pic was just e-mailed to me...
Attachments
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Statements like this are what make it a shame that I can only give you ONE +rep.
Well said, Keenly.
