Stop World War #3.

[Technosoul]

Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear - Yahoo! News

As we the spooks come out in Oct and as we near Christmas and Thanksgiving day.... we get THIS !

Damm.

[Sweet Katie]

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I theorize that Bush's statement isn't as off the wall as it may seem. I've been obsessing about whether history and chaos could accurate predict future trends and the situation in Iran scares the bejesus out of me. In my humble opinion, Putin is playing a deadly chess game.

[bishop]

and here's what war-mongering hillary has to say, in her latest contribution to "foreign affairs".. she is absolutely no different than bush on iran, just as she's no different from him on iraq.

Foreign Affairs - Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

i eagerly await the cheerleader pro-hillary response.....

/sarcasm

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: bishop and here's what war-mongering hillary has to say, in her latest contribution to "foreign affairs".. she is absolutely no different than bush on iran, just as she's no different from him on iraq. Foreign Affairs - Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Hillary Rodham Clinton i eagerly await the cheerleader pro-hillary response..... /sarcasm

While I dread quoting other people, I can't help but think of "those who do not learn from the past are destine to repeat it".

[bishop]

the sad thing is while people will criticize a politician from one party for advocating certain policies, they'll support the same policies if they're championed from a politician of a different party. (i.e. people will bash bush and support hillary for the same exact policy.)

that's complete hypocrisy, in addition to repeating past mistakes.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop and here's what war-mongering hillary has to say, in her latest contribution to "foreign affairs".. she is absolutely no different than bush on iran, just as she's no different from him on iraq. Foreign Affairs - Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Hillary Rodham Clinton i eagerly await the cheerleader pro-hillary response..... /sarcasm

The difference is she wants to sign the international treaty that would establish a plan, with oversite inspectors, to disarm all countries by downsizing nuclear stock piles and by disarming missles with nuclear war heads. And the Bush White House has authorized the building of more nuclear bombs, and has proposed developing hand held weapons that discharge nuclear bombs. She supports the idea of not allowing a lot of other nations from attaining nuclear warheads, which is possible if they get nuclear energy plants. America must take the leadership when it comes to downsizing our nukes and Russia was willing to do likewise, as were other nations. We must support U.N. inspectors to insure the Israel does not have a nuclear program along with inspectors for other middle-eastern countries. Such a plan must be established on an internatonal bases and not just "policed" by the USA for those countries we might not be on friendly terms with. With another Bush style frist strike war.

Of course Hillary is firm about not permitting Iran to develope nuclear bombs, who would not be? Nuclear energy plants is another matter, as not every country can use water power, etc. to provide electric power to thier cities. That is where the problem come into play because we have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a "peaceful use" of nuclear technology. But to prevent the spread of nuclear arms we must, as HIllary pointed out in the link you provided, get involved in signing those treaties and international agreements about nuclear weapons of mass distruction. For anything short of that is just hypocritical.

Bush, and the Repubicans who want to replace him, are not willing to even concider signing those treaties being proposed or to get involved in talks to do this on a global scale.

And concerning Iraq their is a difference, the democrats want to pull out and the republicans want to stay and continue the war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul The difference is she wants to sign the international treaty that would establish a plan, with oversite inspectors, to disarm all countries by downsizing nuclear stock piles and by disarming missles with nuclear war heads. And the Bush White House has authorized the building of more nuclear bombs, and has proposed developing hand held weapons that discharge nuclear bombs.

I must admit I haven't looked in much of any detail at Hillary's platform promises (most of which are likely just that). But I honestly doubt there is a big difference between her plan and those of previous administrations.

And I don't think disarmament plans will work so long as we're discussing the modern state. It's pretty difficult for such organizations to remain peaceful, when their very nature is that of expansionism and selling weapons around the world. Many "developing" countries realize this just a smuch as the bigger ones, which is why arms race tendencies emerge to begin with.
Any disarmament program could be a diplomatic nightmare. For example, addressing Israeli nuclear technology could get one labelled "anti-Semitic," and Iran may just argue they are develoiping nuclear energy programs, not weapons programs.

Two things should be crystal clear:
1. The ‘nuclear crisis’ is the product international hostilities, which stem largely from statecraft.

2. The US set a bad precedent by attacking a country just for having alleged nuclear weapons.

Grandpa h.

[bishop]

Quote by: technosoul The difference is she wants to sign the international treaty that would establish a plan, with oversite inspectors, to disarm all countries by downsizing nuclear stock piles and by disarming missles with nuclear war heads.

while you seem to readily digest whatever hillary says, i am not about to confuse this politician's campaign rhetoric as being something immediately credible or trustworthy. moreover, this is a difference without much distinction. bush would also love to have a unscr against iran, just like 1441 for iraq... nevertheless, "all options are on the table" as hillary plainly states.

if iran doesn't cave in, she's willing to go to war - period. none of the apologist hot air seems to have refuted that point.

Quote by: technosoul And concerning Iraq their is a difference, the democrats want to pull out and the republicans want to stay and continue the war.

the public elected democrats in the past election, in hopes that with control over congress, that they'd find a way to start bringing the troops home. several months later, and not a single notable accomplishment. for you to assert that the democrats want to pull out, given what they've done with their newfound power, is totally laughable. accept the reality that there are many more pro-war democrats than you with to believe - including hillary (and all other dems with voting records identical to republicans). and, accept the reality that the anti-war crowd remain a bunch of spineless jellyfish, incapable of influencing themselves upon congress.

[grandpa]

Quote by: bishop while you seem to readily digest whatever hillary says, i am not about to confuse this politician's campaign rhetoric as being something immediately credible or trustworthy. moreover, this is a difference without much distinction.

Trustwirthiness is a problem here, obviously. That's why I recommend only exercising the window shopping approach to a given politician: Just look and don't buy.

I don't know if there have been many candidates who are not financed by
corporations, by religious loons or what have you. On this issue, I expect as much or as little from the US as I do from the Iranian political system.

Grandpa h.

[Eraser]

I suggest you get some plans for a bomb-shelter, and apply for a building permit with your municipality, just in case.

Hey it may not happen, tomorrow, or next year, but a massive conflict is inevitable. As countries around the world become prosperous, their ambitions increase, competition for resources increases. Although we are in the 21st century, we still haven't got past greed for land and territory, and hollow ideas like "pride" and "sovereignty"
See:
1) China & Taiwan
2) The Korean peninsulas
3) Iran (will probably lay claim to some strategic territory after getting enough military strength)
4) Britain (laying claim for 7million sq. km of Antartica)...not as serious but its there
5) Artic (Canada, USA, Russia, Denmark)
6) South Asia

A war will start most likely over a land dispute, which will fuel a massive conflict. Oh and don't expect the troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan within the next decade, no matter what some dumb ass analyst or politician tells you. Not until the costs have been recovered, and then some.

[Praxius]

Iran still claims they are not producing nuclear weapons, there has been no evidence yet proving they are gearing up for weapon development, and they have clearly stated that if they are attacked, they will respond....

Therefore so long as the US or IZ doesn't attack Iran, and Iran keeps to their word, then there will be no WWIII.

If WWIII starts, I'll be sure to remember who started it and I know exactly which side I'll choose.

This is the same damn tactic and methods of getting people to believe they have weapons as what was used in Getting everybody on board with invading Iraq.... we all know how much of a blunder that was, and that nothing was ever found, so why the hell is anybody still listening to these clowns?

There is a lot at stake when it comes to starting or even throwing the word WWIII around.... I would hope those idiots in power would work on solid and provable evidence, rather then this Soap Opera on TV trying to make people believe in somethng that doesn't exist.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius Iran still claims they are not producing nuclear weapons, there has been no evidence yet proving they are gearing up for weapon development, and they have clearly stated that if they are attacked, they will respond.... Therefore so long as the US or IZ doesn't attack Iran, and Iran keeps to their word, then there will be no WWIII. If WWIII starts, I'll be sure to remember who started it and I know exactly which side I'll choose. This is the same damn tactic and methods of getting people to believe they have weapons as what was used in Getting everybody on board with invading Iraq.... we all know how much of a blunder that was, and that nothing was ever found, so why the hell is anybody still listening to these clowns? There is a lot at stake when it comes to starting or even throwing the word WWIII around.... I would hope those idiots in power would work on solid and provable evidence, rather then this Soap Opera on TV trying to make people believe in somethng that doesn't exist.

I think the idea is that it is rather silly to rely upon the good nature and honorable intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[bishop]

Quote by: praxius This is the same damn tactic and methods of getting people to believe they have weapons as what was used in Getting everybody on board with invading Iraq.... we all know how much of a blunder that was, and that nothing was ever found, so why the hell is anybody still listening to these clowns?

huh? it isn't just bush who's hyping up the prospects of war - hillary clinton is, just as her leading republican counterparts...

[Praxius]

Quote by: BobbyO I think the idea is that it is rather silly to rely upon the good nature and honorable intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Hmmm... that also sounds familar towards another country we couldn't trust. Apparently they were telling the truth. I look past the media spin and a president's wild finger pointings, because everything they do have for building nuclear tech, can be used for both.

Now They are not pulling a N.Korea giving the world the finger telling them to kick them in the ballz and see what happens because they got a gun and they'll use it...... So far, Iran is saying they want energy and a means to help their economy and enviroment. Considdering everybody is complaining about industrialization, wouldn't improving their enviroment be a good way to get further assistance from other countries?

And yeah, they could be building a nuclear weapon, so what? They already said they will not use such devices unless in self defense, and considdering how moody the US has been with their cowboy hang'em high attitudes, I think we should all have nukes.

Well hey think about it. You guys have the mentality that you all need firearms for your protection, because everybody else will have a gun regardless and you can't rely on the police......

..... so why should the guys with the nukes go around shoving talk about WWIII and nuclear war like a gun in the worlds face and pointing fingers at the next country to hang because they're the next bad guy? I don't see the logic.

I'm not suprised more countries are not seeking nuclear weapons, cripes.

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, the US government has gone Lo-Co in the Co-Co.

Seriously, do you guys actually think Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuke as an attack anyways? Does anybody realise what would happen once any country pulls that stunt?

It ain't gonna be pretty.... and I'm gonna be long friggin gone while all you hosers nuke each other, because I'm gonna see it all happen days beforehand, and I know exactly where to go. BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA

So long Suckers!

But seriously, all this war stuff is just a peeing match. There isn't going to be one friggin country dumb enough to start WWIII.... well except one. :rolleyes:

So long as the people finally take control of the country, we may actually avoid one, because we all know Bush will want to keep showing his grape sack to the rest of the world and will never want to back down.... if somebody doesn't put a fabric softener in the dryer with his teddy bear, he'll start pushing all kinds of buttons.

And we all know he'll want to stir more crap up before he looses power.... that is unless he uses that bill he passed where he can be dictator..... oh goodie, the next 12 years are gonna be fun!

[Praxius]

Quote by: bishop huh? it isn't just bush who's hyping up the prospects of war - hillary clinton is, just as her leading republican counterparts...

I think in that quote I was being general towards the US government as a whole. The Republicans used it like a bloody knife (Which was ketchup) and now both are doing the same thing. I've noticed Clinton being pretty stupid, and I hope that if by some freak accident she becomes president, that she looks at all this classified BS and see that there's nothing useful.

Hell, I'd even go as far as getting a third party intelligence to look into it to double check to make sure things add up. But that's just me.

But I doubt that will happen. It looks like most are wanting to steer the country in one direction.

[Alive]

bishop,

It's not just Hillary that says all options are on the table, it's most of Europe too--for that matter, has any Democratic candidate said anything different?

The problem with Bush is that 1) he invaded a nation that didn't actually have nuclear weapons 2) he didn't just invade, but decided to stay there indefinitely, thereby getting millions of people killed. If Bush invaded, found a WMD program, took out it and Saddam, and left, there would be very little political resistance in the US or Europe.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Praxius Iran still claims they are not producing nuclear weapons, there has been no evidence yet proving they are gearing up for weapon development, and they have clearly stated that if they are attacked, they will respond.... Therefore so long as the US or IZ doesn't attack Iran, and Iran keeps to their word, then there will be no WWIII. If WWIII starts, I'll be sure to remember who started it and I know exactly which side I'll choose. This is the same damn tactic and methods of getting people to believe they have weapons as what was used in Getting everybody on board with invading Iraq.... we all know how much of a blunder that was, and that nothing was ever found, so why the hell is anybody still listening to these clowns? There is a lot at stake when it comes to starting or even throwing the word WWIII around.... I would hope those idiots in power would work on solid and provable evidence, rather then this Soap Opera on TV trying to make people believe in somethng that doesn't exist.

I would agree, IF for example the U.N. inspectors find real evidence that Iran has a nuclear bomb project underfoot then I would support military action, by the say so of the United Nations, to remove that threat, which is why Hillary left the cards on the table. But I do not favor another strike attack like Bush did in Irag just based on rumors or the lies of that political party's top dogs. Bush keeps speaking about ending the problem like China did for us with North Korea. but he also said that about Irag before bombing them anyway due to false information he presented on behalf of the V.P. Hillary and other Democrats also would like to make sure Iran does not venture into creating nuclear bombs and they likewise would pursue talks about that concern. But why talk when Iran has also stated they have no intent of making such weapons? Iran has already agreed to keep within the boundries of the U.N. resolutions, and Russia who is helping them build a nuclear energy plant has confirmed it. So why is Bush still hollering about Iran as if it was a big threat? He should tone down the big bully speeches and act civilized instead of trying to raise unfounded alrarm and fears among his sheepe.

I will be glad when the radicals move out of the White House and someone with some brians in her head takes his place.

[bishop]

Quote by: alive It's not just Hillary that says all options are on the table, it's most of Europe too--for that matter, has any Democratic candidate said anything different?

europe can be trusted to never initiate a war themselves - not unless they can follow our lead.

most of the other dems have said similar things (save kucinich). but then again, they're all part of the same one-party establishment.


when push comes to shove and iran doesn't willingly stop their program, it appears clear that ANY establishment politician will resort to war. and, few people if any will ask whether/not we truly NEED to go to war over this.

[Technosoul]

Iran continues to stand firm and will not back down form it's nuclear programs and has backing from Russia and China whom have invested interests in Iran's Nuclear Energy projects.

Iran firm on nuclear plans before Rome talks - Yahoo! News

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop europe can be trusted to never initiate a war themselves - not unless they can follow our lead. most of the other dems have said similar things (save kucinich). but then again, they're all part of the same one-party establishment. when push comes to shove and iran doesn't willingly stop their program, it appears clear that ANY establishment politician will resort to war. and, few people if any will ask whether/not we truly NEED to go to war over this.

Is Ron Paul the only hypocrit who claims to be a Republican but is not following the Republican book on that party line? That is simular to Carter not following the platform of the So. Baptist Chruch in reguards to abortion issues. As well as Kucinich not following the playbook in confromity with United Nations demands.

Iran firm on nuclear plans before Rome talks - Yahoo! News





I guess you believe that the U.N. is also part of that "one party system" of politics.