[Buckaroo]

NYT: CHIRAC WAVERS IN ASSAILING A NUCLEAR IRAN

Chirac said if Iran had one or two nukes, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch nuke weapon against Israel, it would lead to immediate destruction of Tehran... Developing...


DRUDGE REPORT 2007®

[Buckaroo]

That Iranian President would level Tehran himself in exchange for the complete elimination of Isreal. He's willing to accept 2/3 distruction of Iran in the war to destroy Isreal. Chirac is a French fool.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

That Iranian President would level Tehran himself in exchange for the complete elimination of Isreal. He's willing to accept 2/3 distruction of Iran in the war to destroy Isreal. Chirac is a French fool.

Yeah yeah, he's old and he's got another 4 months to go. soon he will be history, thanksfully.

[Chuckit]

Yawn. Chirac is a nimrod. I don't think anybody doubts this fact.

[voodoo]

Hmm... since Americans seem to generally dislike him, he must be doing something right!

I don't pay much attention to Jacques, but I respect him more than, say.. Bush Jr.

V

[macintologist]

Chirac is right. Just because Iran has nukes doesn't mean they are going to use them. I personally don't give a sh--. Nuclear weapons create lasting peace due to deterrence.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Chirac is right. Just because Iran has nukes doesn't mean they are going to use them. I personally don't give a sh--. Nuclear weapons create lasting peace due to deterrence.

Unless a total nutball like the Iranian president has them...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Chirac is right. Just because Iran has nukes doesn't mean they are going to use them. I personally don't give a sh--. Nuclear weapons create lasting peace due to deterrence.

You're talking about a country that encourages suicide bombing. Mutually-Assured Destruction doesn't foster peace — it just makes war an all-or-nothing gamble.

[OAW]

I find it interesting that nearly every foreign leader that the US has a problem with mysteriously becomes a "nutball" or "deranged" or "crazy". Consistently. Every time.

OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

That Iranian President would level Tehran himself in exchange for the complete elimination of Isreal. He's willing to accept 2/3 distruction of Iran in the war to destroy Israel.

You're probably right. Although, recent critical remarks of Ahmadinejad by the Grand Ayatollah of Iran and numerous student protests against Ahmadinejad have shown that not everyone in Iran agrees with him.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Chirac is right. Just because Iran has nukes doesn't mean they are going to use them. I personally don't give a sh--. Nuclear weapons create lasting peace due to deterrence.

Agreed. Mutually Assured Deterrence has a remarkable track record. Having said that, I do have concerns over a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The fact remains that the more nuclear weapons exist the greater the risk that some group not tied to a nation-state can acquire one. This is the real danger. But going after Iran while the US is expanding and upgrading its nuclear arsenal is extremely short-sighted and hypocritical IMO. I'd have more respect for the US government position if it was actively reducing its arsenal. But as it stands now, it is on some "we can have one but you can't" tip. Which simply is not going to work over the long haul. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle.

OAW

[moodymonster]

Ahmadinejad is losing support in Iran for his posturing. They don't want to get destroyed either.

Personally I'm more concerned by the efforts of the Saudis to export Salafism.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But going after Iran while the US is expanding and upgrading its nuclear arsenal is extremely short-sighted and hypocritical IMO.

Iran is a rogue state. The United States is not. And as the world's only super power, America has the discretion to enlarge its arsenal however it wishes to.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Iran is a rogue state. The United States is not. And as the world's only super power, America has the discretion to enlarge its arsenal however it wishes to.

"Rogue state"? According to who? The US government and media? Are those words used to describe the Iranian nation around the world?

OAW

[BRussell]

Uh, "What a moron?" The correct spelling is "moran," or in French, "maroon."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I find it interesting that nearly every foreign leader that the US has a problem with mysteriously becomes a "nutball" or "deranged" or "crazy". Consistently. Every time.

If you're trying to suggest it's not true, I suggest you read up a big on Ahmadinejad.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

Ahmadinejad is losing support in Iran for his posturing. They don't want to get destroyed either.

Personally I'm more concerned by the efforts of the Saudis to export Salafism.

You mean Wahabism, right?

Ahmadinejad never had his support for postering (might be a welcome side-effect though)... From what I know, he is/was popular for being a non-corrupt maker, standing for small government and direct action. Especially from the poor population's view.
Much of his fame faded though, since he concentrated on bad-mouthing the west and risking the economy with some of his maneuvers.


Regards
PB

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're trying to suggest it's not true, I suggest you read up a big on Ahmadinejad.

I'm suggesting, no I'm stating that it's a common and rather typical refrain.

Ahmadinejad
Chavez
Qaddafi
Hussein
Noriega
Nasrallah

etc.

Yet our good president consistently tops world surveys as being the #1 threat to world peace. Go figure.

OAW

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

You mean Wahabism, right?

Ahmadinejad never had his support for postering (might be a welcome side-effect though)... From what I know, he is/was popular for being a non-corrupt maker, standing for small government and direct action. Especially from the poor population's view.
Much of his fame faded though, since he concentrated on bad-mouthing the west and risking the economy with some of his maneuvers.


Regards
PB

Wahabism/Salafism, differing names for similar things.

I take on board your point about Ahmadinejad and his reasons for being popular. And lack of support from the offset for his postering.

Sometimes I do think that perhaps, from Iran's POV it better to have nukes given recent history in the ME vs recent history with the other member of the 'axis of evil'.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm suggesting, no I'm stating that it's a common and rather typical refrain.

And you don't intend to draw any conclusions from this? This is just an observation along the lines of "People in San Diego often go to the beach"?

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yet our good president consistently tops world surveys as being the #1 threat to world peace. Go figure.

It's the Paris Hilton Effect. People hate him not because he's that much worse, but because he's that much more prominent.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's the Paris Hilton Effect. People hate him not because he's that much worse, but because he's that much more prominent.

Or both...

Just because someone's who's hated is prominent doesn't meant they don't also deserve it.

It's like Macs and Windows. Sure Macs have problems too and Windows' problems get so much more coverage because it's more prominent, but that doesn't mean that Windows is flawless.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm suggesting, no I'm stating that it's a common and rather typical refrain.

Or maybe, just maybe Ahmadinejad really is a nutball douche bag?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

That Iranian President would level Tehran himself in exchange for the complete elimination of Isreal. He's willing to accept 2/3 distruction of Iran in the war to destroy Isreal. Chirac is a French fool.

Why do you care?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Unless a total nutball like the Iranian president has them...

A "total nutball" hasn't ruled ANY nation since Nazi Germany.

Just because you *think* he's a total nutball doesn't mean he is

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Or both...

Just because someone's who's hated is prominent doesn't meant they don't also deserve it.

It's like Macs and Windows. Sure Macs have problems too and Windows' problems get so much more coverage because it's more prominent, but that doesn't mean that Windows is flawless.

Flawless? I think you're reading in a defense of Bush that wasn't there.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Or both...

Just because someone's who's hated is prominent doesn't meant they don't also deserve it.

It's like Macs and Windows. Sure Macs have problems too and Windows' problems get so much more coverage because it's more prominent, but that doesn't mean that Windows is flawless.

Absolutely. It also doesn't mean that MacOS is any better. (you'll note, that you can't really compare Macs with Windows. Microsoft doesn't make computers)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I find it interesting that nearly every foreign leader that the US has a problem with mysteriously becomes a "nutball" or "deranged" or "crazy". Consistently. Every time.

OAW

Hello? If a leader has a problem with the US he's naturally insane, crazy and deranged all at the same time and needs to be replaced immediately.

Goes without saying. How could anyone at the short end of the stick of US policy be against the US?

He should be thankful that he's being given attention by the overlords of the planet. That ungrateful SOB.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Iran is a rogue state. The United States is not. And as the world's only super power, America has the discretion to enlarge its arsenal however it wishes to.

The US is the only country currently active in invasions of sovreign states, which is far more dangerous than political posturing and prolifiration.

The US is also supporting Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. Pakistan, another US 'ally' being next.

The US is making the world more dangerous than Ahmadinejad and Iran ever could.

V

[pooka]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The US is making the world more dangerous than Ahmadinejad and Iran ever could.

Apples to oranges. Sure, the US invades sovereign nations and imposes its will on countless nations across the globe. But the US also provides the world with Apple Computers, Scientology and the worlds greatest plot driven pornography. To say the US takes more than it gives would be disingenuous at best.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Apples to oranges. Sure, the US invades sovereign nations and imposes its will on countless nations across the globe. But the US also provides the world with Apple Computers, Scientology and the worlds greatest plot driven pornography. To say the US takes more than it gives would be disingenuous at best.

I didn't mean to imply the US was bad or anything.

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The US is the only country currently active in invasions of sovreign states

How many states is Iraq, again? I think I forgot.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How many states is Iraq, again? I think I forgot.

Your point being?

You think it is better because right now it's only one? The US is like a wife-beater in these matters. It commits the act, regrets ever doing it, and then after a while does it again.

Because of this, the US can only expect scorn when acting like a lunatic (invading countries) and subtle praise when the US does something positive in the world (minding its own damn business).

V

[Snow-i]

I hate to tell ya buddy...but when they come on our soil and kill 3000 of our citizens in suicide attacks then it is "minding our own damn business."

When the middle east decides to get their **** together then we'll get our **** out of there. I hate to tell you, but i'm not sure anyone in America really gives a damn about what those in spain have to say about our response to threat on our citizens' lives. I sure as hell don't.

Now, i do believe that we did not do Iraq the proper way. We stopped fighting a war a long time ago and now we are (re)building a nation, something that our leadership under estimated and ignored. Now we are suffering those consquences. Saddam made his choice though, and the UN shouldn't allow such blatant disregard for international security.

Now, may I ask you something.....since 9/11 have their been any attacks on US soil...nearly 5 and 1/2 years later?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I hate to tell ya buddy...but when they come on our soil and kill 3000 of our citizens in suicide attacks then it is "minding our own damn business."

I had to stop here because Iraq or for that matter Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks you speak of.

What's your point?

V

[Snow-i]

Saddam was threatening the safety of our country. It doesn't matter if he was linked to previous aggressors or not.

For practical matters I used the term "they" to encompass all those threatening United States national security.

You didn't answer my question, nor did you respond to the rest of my post. Should i take that as a concession to those arguments? If not, lets hear some rebuttal.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The US is the only country currently active in invasions of sovreign states, which is far more dangerous than political posturing and prolifiration.


V

Riiiiight because no other country joined up to form the coalition.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Saddam was threatening the safety of our country. It doesn't matter if he was linked to previous aggressors or not.

No he wasn't. How could he possibly harm us? He was one of Al Quada's biggest opponents in the Middle East. Not to mention Saddam was Sunni and Al Quada is Shia, and I should hope people in the US should be able to understand now why this would instantly kill any potential relationship between Saddam and Al Quada.

The reality is the Bush administration didn't care about the politics of the region, and instead cared about ousting Saddam.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Your point being?

You think it is better because right now it's only one? The US is like a wife-beater in these matters. It commits the act, regrets ever doing it, and then after a while does it again.

You're like that guy who keeps talking as though something has happened multiple times even when he's just admitted there's only one incident in question. Once is not a trend. Unless you're thinking of Japan 60 years ago, I'm not sure how you can say we keep doing it repeatedly. (And if you are thinking of Japan, you apparently have a more positive view of the Iraq war than I do.)

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yet our good president consistently tops world surveys as being the #1 threat to world peace. Go figure.

OAW

Or world appeasment?
And it's the MSM that consistantly pushes this opinion.
The MSM.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No he wasn't. How could he possibly harm us? He was one of Al Quada's biggest opponents in the Middle East. Not to mention Saddam was Sunni and Al Quada is Shia, and I should hope people in the US should be able to understand now why this would instantly kill any potential relationship between Saddam and Al Quada.

The reality is the Bush administration didn't care about the politics of the region, and instead cared about ousting Saddam.

Actually Al Qaeda is Sunni. But while Saddam was nominally a Sunni he was a secular leader. And you are correct that he was a big opponent of Al Qaeda. But it was because he was secular and Al-Qaeda is Islamist.

OAW

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're like that guy who keeps talking as though something has happened multiple times even when he's just admitted there's only one incident in question. Once is not a trend. Unless you're thinking of Japan 60 years ago, I'm not sure how you can say we keep doing it repeatedly. (And if you are thinking of Japan, you apparently have a more positive view of the Iraq war than I do.)

I was thinking of Vietnam. Duh.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Saddam was threatening the safety of our country. It doesn't matter if he was linked to previous aggressors or not.

Exactly. This is why the US will always be looked upon with scorn. Like a rapist.

It doesn't matter whether anyone was linked to that terrorist attack on sept. 11th. It never mattered, just like the act itself.

Keep on raping, just never expect a whiff of gratitude from the rest of the world when you guys happen to do something right. Your foreign policy stinks to high heaven and it has made you look like assholes all around the world.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're like that guy who...

you're like that guy who is going out of his way to be an apologist. Aww does it hurt you personally when I criticize US foreign policy through the decades? Also, brush up on your history.

Oh and then there is the invasion of Cuba and support against the Sandinistas, support for Pinochet, support for Saddam (until you got him killed) etc etc.

The US is a twit and will always be treated as one in international relations. And wow do you people whine when criticized. Insolent idiots.

Whatever, it isn't like rapists can be cured. They'll always apologize and justify their crimes and play nice for a while. Until they strike again. Like the US will. In perhaps 20 years some other country will be invaded by the US.



V

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

you're like that guy who is going out of his way to be an apologist. Aww does it hurt you personally when I criticize US foreign policy through the decades? Also, brush up on your history.

Oh and then there is the invasion of Cuba and support against the Sandinistas, support for Pinochet, support for Saddam (until you got him killed) etc etc.

The US is a twit and will always be treated as one in international relations. And wow do you people whine when criticized. Insolent idiots.

Whatever, it isn't like rapists can be cured. They'll always apologize and justify their crimes and play nice for a while. Until they strike again. Like the US will. In perhaps 20 years some other country will be invaded by the US.



V

20 years? You are being generous here IMHO. Isn't it something like one invasion per presidential term? (at work, can't be bothered to check the facts.......)






Oh, and Al Qaida are Sunnis, SH was secular, Iran is mostly Shia. All enemies of each others because they are too bothered about these labels instead of the only one (besides being human) that matters. They are all Muslims.

And Salafism /= Wahhabism. Salafism is a term many extreme groups want to label themselves as as it is about the "return to the original Islam".

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Exactly. This is why the US will always be looked upon with scorn. Like a rapist.

It doesn't matter whether anyone was linked to that terrorist attack on sept. 11th. It never mattered, just like the act itself.

Keep on raping, just never expect a whiff of gratitude from the rest of the world when you guys happen to do something right. Your foreign policy stinks to high heaven and it has made you look like assholes all around the world.

V

You think we did this for gratitude?

You still never answered my question. Have their been any attacks on US soil since 9/11?

I'll answer it for you
No, so we must have done something right.


Call me an asshole for being an American all you want. It doesn't bother me the least. You need someone or something to hate and if I'm it, go for it. I have no sympathy for Iraq. The country will either destroy itself, or the people will get fed up with the violence and start taking control of their own land.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No he wasn't. How could he possibly harm us? He was one of Al Quada's biggest opponents in the Middle East. Not to mention Saddam was Sunni and Al Quada is Shia, and I should hope people in the US should be able to understand now why this would instantly kill any potential relationship between Saddam and Al Quada.

The reality is the Bush administration didn't care about the politics of the region, and instead cared about ousting Saddam.

AQ aren't the only ones capable of "hurting America." I stated there was no relationship. The only common thing is their threat to US homeland security. Regardless of any links to past aggressors the US took a more aggressive stance to ensuring that NO ONE could kill American citizens on American soil. Links to AQ are irrelevant.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You still never answered my question. Have their been any attacks on US soil since 9/11?

I'll answer it for you
No, so we must have done something right.

I have this here magic rock that keeps tigers away...

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

AQ aren't the only ones capable of "hurting America." I stated there was no relationship. The only common thing is their threat to US homeland security. Regardless of any links to past aggressors the US took a more aggressive stance to ensuring that NO ONE could kill American citizens on American soil. Links to AQ are irrelevant.

Of course creating more and more enemies to the USA is surely the best thing to ensure that... Gah!