|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Obama to Urge Elimination of World’s Nuclear Weapons - lololololol
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Obama to Urge Elimination of World’s Nuclear Weapons - lololololol
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Obama to Urge Elimination of World’s Nuclear Weapons
By JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”
Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.
“In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another.”
His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012.
The exact number of weapons being dismantled, like the overall stockpile, is secret, but officials said Monday that with the planned reductions, the total number of American nuclear weapons would be at the lowest levels since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.
Under a 2002 treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to limit the number of operational nuclear weapons in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012, though that agreement did not address weapons in reserve stockpiles.
Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is seeking to draw attention to his foreign policy views with the approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq. He is highlighting his early opposition to the war, which he argues is a sign of judgment that is more important than the number of years served in Washington.
Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.
If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.
In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.
In setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Obama is endorsing a call for “urgent new actions” to prevent a new nuclear era that was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal written by several former government officials. The authors of the article were George P. Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William J. Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
David E. Sanger and Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.
wow, this sure makes me feel good...
he is gonna waste time with this totally unrealistic goal |
|
|
| mingmen |
| eliminate? where did he say this? sounds like reduce. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
eliminate? where did he say this? sounds like reduce. |
what diff does it make...its bullshit and a feel good thing. its not real. talk about real things |
|
|
| mingmen |
what diff does it makes how many nuclear weapons there are in the world?
I cannot think of anything more important than that. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
what diff does it makes how many nuclear weapons there are in the world?
I cannot think of anything more important than that. |
anything more important than that
lol
then vote for him...let me tell you what will happen with this
nothing...its bullshit but go defend it if you want ...make signs
lol |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
what diff does it make...its bullshit and a feel good thing. its not real. talk about real things |
Nuclear reduction is worth talking about. Maybe then, you chickenhawks won't be so afraid to go into Pakistan after OBL. |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Nuclear reduction is worth talking about. Maybe then, you chickenhawks won't be so afraid to go into Pakistan after OBL. |
Chickenhawk but you're talking about going to war with Nuclear pakistan?
Let us role play
USA: Reduce your nukes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No
USA:Yes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Are you going to make us?
USA:uuhhhh I'm a democrat so Yes.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Fuck you.
USA:Let's talk about this.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No, fuck you.
To be continued....... |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
Chickenhawk but you're talking about going to war with Nuclear pakistan?
Let us role play
USA: Reduce your nukes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No
USA:Yes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Are you going to make us?
USA:uuhhhh I'm a democrat so Yes.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Fuck you.
USA:Let's talk about this.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No, fuck you.
To be continued....... |
It is about getting smart - not throwing away strategy. What is it you think Obama is proposing? All seems common sense to me. |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
It is about getting smart - not throwing away strategy. What is it you think Obama is proposing? All seems common sense to me. |
It's great to talk about it and that's as far as it will go. I can say great things right now here in the USA but will the rest of the world relate the same way you're thinking?
Common sense is great but when you're dealing with assholes of the world...it only goes so far. |
|
|
| mb33139 |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
what diff does it make...its bullshit and a feel good thing. its not real. talk about real things |
So Barack wanting to talk to other countries and organize a reduction in nuclear arms is a bad thing ?
In your world, up must be down.... |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Nuclear reduction is worth talking about. Maybe then, you chickenhawks won't be so afraid to go into Pakistan after OBL. |
fucken idiot |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
So Barack wanting to talk to other countries and organize a reduction in nuclear arms is a bad thing ?
In your world, up must be down.... |
yes because the countries who should really get rid of them will not ...its a dumb topic..it raises emotions and does nothing else ..kind of like the senate discussing rush limbaugh and passing resolutions against him... |
|
|
| Stonewall |
The world should recognize the danger in nuclear weapons.
The U.S. should settle on about 1000 new nukes with lower yields, maybe the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
Get rid of all the older weapons developed during the Cold War when we were developing 'nation killers'. The amount of destruction of just one of these bombs is enormous. It's like 1000 Hiroshima's. We need to scrap all of those.
The world is in the stage of proliferation and we can't ignore that. The NPT is almost dead. The U.N. worthless and without any reason to exist. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The world should recognize the danger in nuclear weapons.
The U.S. should settle on about 1000 new nukes with lower yields, maybe the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
Get rid of all the older weapons developed during the Cold War when we were developing 'nation killers'. The amount of destruction of just one of these bombs is enormous. It's like 1000 Hiroshima's. We need to scrap all of those.
The world is in the stage of proliferation and we can't ignore that. The NPT is almost dead. The U.N. worthless and without any reason to exist. |
Too late man. The genie's out the bottle and she ain't going back in.
Nuclear holocaust is mankind's cruel fate. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Too late man. The genie's out the bottle and she ain't going back in.
Nuclear holocaust is mankind's cruel fate. |
exactamundo |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Too late man. The genie's out the bottle and she ain't going back in.
Nuclear holocaust is mankind's cruel fate. |
I'm not so sure it'll be exactly like that. Someday a nuke or nukes are going to go off. If people believe that this will never ever happen, that is a fantasy.
Pakistan and India are a good place to imagine this. Soon Iran will be thrown into the mix and you will have 5 nuclear powers bordering each other, not liking each other very much. Varying degrees of dislike.
There were times during the Cold War where either the U.S. or the Soviets thought an attack was in progress. The time it took for a missile to arrive gave time for the mistake to be seen and a retaliatory strike was not launched.
Had the U.S. and the Soviet Union been like India and Pakistan, we would be dead today. One side would have had to make a decision within a minute or so.
As proliferation moves along it is inevitable that a mistake will be made or an actual attack be made.
Of course when you throw terrorism into the mix... |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
Chickenhawk but you're talking about going to war with Nuclear pakistan?
Let us role play
USA: Reduce your nukes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No
USA:Yes
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Are you going to make us?
USA:uuhhhh I'm a democrat so Yes.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:Fuck you.
USA:Let's talk about this.
China,Pakistan,North Korea:No, fuck you.
To be continued....... |
No. I'm talking about going after OBL. Remember him? He caused 9/11. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
fucken idiot |
Coward. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
exactamundo |
So do nothing?
You fuckin' cowards are disgusting. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
So do nothing?
You fuckin' cowards are disgusting. |
do nothing about what stupid ? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
do nothing about what stupid ? |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
No. I'm talking about going after OBL. Remember him? He caused 9/11. |
Right after 9/11 Bush threatened Pakistan and Pakistan decided to cave.
We have struck sites inside of Pakistan.
There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan.
When Musharraf falls and a Taliban type government takes over we will probably have to war with Pakistan, nukes or not. I would hope that we know where all these Pakistani nukes are. The minute any trouble is seen I would hope we would strike these sites immediately. |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
No. I'm talking about going after OBL. Remember him? He caused 9/11. |
When Pakistan says you can't come into our country.....are you willing to go to war with Pakistan? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
When Pakistan says you can't come into our country.....are you willing to go to war with Pakistan? |
gtfo :rolleyes:
is that what you think will happen? :jj: |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
When Pakistan says you can't come into our country.....are you willing to go to war with Pakistan? |
obama is . he said so |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
obama is . he said so |
you should too, pussy :burst: |
|
|
| BeerPal |
| Reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world? What stupid idea. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Yeah non-proliferation is such a horrible idea that didnt ease tensions whatsoever during the Cold War, and the abandonement of non-proliferation certainly hasnt led to countries like Iran to seek the nuke just so they can be on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:
How do you guys expect to stop other countries from trying to get nukes if we are actively creating more nuclear weapons as it is? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you should too, pussy :burst: |
i should wanna go into pakistan ? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
i should wanna go into pakistan ? |
:yes: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
i should wanna go into pakistan ? |
If you want to hold Osama Bin Laden accountable, yes....Or if you want to send the message that if you get a nuke you can do whatever the fuck you want, then see how many more Iran's pop up looking for them.
Do you think Bin Laden should be held accountable? If yes - that means going to get him...If no - then you are a giant pussy and a horrible excuse for an American |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Yeah non-proliferation is such a horrible idea that didnt ease tensions whatsoever during the Cold War, and the abandonement of non-proliferation certainly hasnt led to countries like Iran to seek the nuke just so they can be on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:
How do you guys expect to stop other countries from trying to get nukes if we are actively creating more nuclear weapons as it is? |
ITS UNREALISTIC ...ITS LIKE TRYING TO TEACH KIDS ABOUT ABSTANANCE |
|
|
| mingmen |
| or "grammer"? :jj: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
ITS UNREALISTIC ...ITS LIKE TRYING TO TEACH KIDS ABOUT ABSTANANCE |
You mean that giant Republican led education policy that is our sole sex-ed program?
so since its "unrealistic" to try and get peace...should we just start nuking all our enemies now?
Its unrealistic to tell Iran to not develop weapons when we are non-stop....Its unrealistic to tell Iran they must listen to the UN, when we will tell the UN to stop bothering Israel. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Yeah non-proliferation is such a horrible idea that didnt ease tensions whatsoever during the Cold War, and the abandonement of non-proliferation certainly hasnt led to countries like Iran to seek the nuke just so they can be on the same level playing field. :rolleyes:
How do you guys expect to stop other countries from trying to get nukes if we are actively creating more nuclear weapons as it is? |
The NPT was designed to help developing nations with the peaceful use of nuclear technology. If a country did not join the NPT they could not get help from NPT members for their nuclear program. So, it's a deal they make. They get help from the USA and Russia, etc., and for that they are prohibited from creating nuclear weapons. Nations that do not join cannot get help but they can develop nukes. There is nothing that says a country cannot develop nukes... unless they join the NPT.
All the nations that joined the NPT knew who had nukes already. They signed anyway because they wanted the latest most modern technology for their peaceful use of it. Nuclear plants and power.
Iran signed the NPT and did this knowing the terms of the treaty, knowing that other countries had nukes. They signed the deal anyway and this regime has reaffirmed that.
So, they have no excuse such as the one that you describe. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The NPT was designed to help developing nations with the peaceful use of nuclear technology. If a country did not join the NPT they could not get help from NPT members for their nuclear program. So, it's a deal they make. They get help from the USA and Russia, etc., and for that they are prohibited from creating nuclear weapons. Nations that do not join cannot get help but they can develop nukes. There is nothing that says a country cannot develop nukes... unless they join the NPT.
All the nations that joined the NPT knew who had nukes already. They signed anyway because they wanted the latest most modern technology for their peaceful use of it. Nuclear plants and power.
Iran signed the NPT and did this knowing the terms of the treaty, knowing that other countries had nukes. They signed the deal anyway and this regime has reaffirmed that.
So, they have no excuse such as the one that you describe. |
did israel sign? |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
or "grammer"? :jj: |
One could say that you don't capitalize "I" or the beginning of your sentences.
Think about it....if Pakistan says no what would happen? Are you willing to support BUSH when he invades Pakistan? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
One could say that you don't capitalize "I" or the beginning of your sentences.
Think about it....if Pakistan says no what would happen? Are you willing to support BUSH when he invades Pakistan? |
Its not an invasion, its a tactical strike to get bin laden...and yes i would support him getting bin laden.
Why do you want Bin Laden to go free? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
One could say that you don't capitalize "I" or the beginning of your sentences.
Think about it....if Pakistan says no what would happen? Are you willing to support BUSH when he invades Pakistan? |
Oh, right. That is why we nurture our relationship with Pakistan. To not go after OBL? Whatever. Your argument is silly at best.
If you gave a fuck about terrorism, you would support this too. What do you want, an overthrow of the government? Then who will have your precious nukes?
Bullshit walks :jj: |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
You mean that giant Republican led education policy that is our sole sex-ed program?
so since its "unrealistic" to try and get peace...should we just start nuking all our enemies now?
Its unrealistic to tell Iran to not develop weapons when we are non-stop....Its unrealistic to tell Iran they must listen to the UN, when we will tell the UN to stop bothering Israel. |
YEA thats right ..they were wrong there and obama is wrong here
like artie, iran is gonna do what iran is gonna do |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
One could say that you don't capitalize "I" or the beginning of your sentences.
Think about it....if Pakistan says no what would happen? Are you willing to support BUSH when he invades Pakistan? |
no, only if obama does it
than its ok |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
no, only if obama does it
than its ok |
you're the one who doesnt want to go after Bin Laden |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
did israel sign? |
No. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
you're the one who doesnt want to go after Bin Laden |
i don't..i want him to die and stay incharged for as long as possible...
reason...anyone who replaces him will want to make a huge splash and maybe will be worse ..hes the devil we know for now |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
| I'm just going to donate...fuck it |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Right after 9/11 Bush threatened Pakistan and Pakistan decided to cave.
We have struck sites inside of Pakistan.
There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan.
When Musharraf falls and a Taliban type government takes over we will probably have to war with Pakistan, nukes or not. I would hope that we know where all these Pakistani nukes are. The minute any trouble is seen I would hope we would strike these sites immediately. |
Wrong, Stoney. There is evidence.
I hope we know where the nukes are, too. But, who knows? Maybe they're imaginary like the ones in Iraq.
:lol: |
|
|
| mb33139 |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
yes because the countries who should really get rid of them will not ...its a dumb topic..it raises emotions and does nothing else ..kind of like the senate discussing rush limbaugh and passing resolutions against him... |
How do we know what other countries will do if we do not talk with them about it first?
And the senate discussing resolutions to condemn MoveOn.org and Limbaugh are both wastes of time... Or does your partisan ideology only allow you to see the anti Rush resolution as a waste? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
i don't..i want him to die and stay incharged for as long as possible...
reason...anyone who replaces him will want to make a huge splash and maybe will be worse ..hes the devil we know for now |
You're cowardly even for a chickenhawk:
"Don't go after Osama 'cause the next guy might be worse!"
Good grief, what a bunch of losers! |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
do nothing about what stupid ? |
Nuclear proliferation, fucktard.
Do you not even read the posts you reply to??? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
How do we know what other countries will do if we do not talk with them about it first?
And the senate discussing resolutions to condemn MoveOn.org and Limbaugh are both wastes of time... Or does your partisan ideology only allow you to see the anti Rush resolution as a waste? |
any resolution for a host of TV or any media is a waste of time ..you should ask reed why he is doing it |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Nuclear proliferation, fucktard.
Do you not even read the posts you reply to??? |
yes its stupid
its a waste of time but since it makes you feel good and all fuzzy inside lets waste time with it |
|
|
| Halcyon |
You can't undo technology.
The technology for building nuclear weapons is here. Someone will have them despite everyone saying they don't. We will tell the world to get rid of their nukes, but I guarentee we will still have them.
Obama is a fucking hippie. No offense, but the hippies were not the brightest group in the bunch. |
|
|
| mb33139 |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
any resolution for a host of TV or any media is a waste of time ..you should ask reed why he is doing it |
Ask the entire republican senate why they participated and sponsored it. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Let me go on record here to urge the elimination of world hunger. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Let me go on record here to urge the elimination of world hunger. |
That could be accomplished with California's farmlands alone. But the government would not allow a complete collapse of the 'grocery' market. That's why they subsidize farmers to throw out extra food they grow rather than sell it to markets. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Let me go on record here to urge the elimination of world hunger. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| I can handle only one shell game at a time.... |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
You can't undo technology.
The technology for building nuclear weapons is here. Someone will have them despite everyone saying they don't. We will tell the world to get rid of their nukes, but I guarentee we will still have them.
Obama is a fucking hippie. No offense, but the hippies were not the brightest group in the bunch. |
You're right...Diplomacy is definitely not something anybody should try to pursue...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
It's great to talk about it and that's as far as it will go. I can say great things right now here in the USA but will the rest of the world relate the same way you're thinking?
Common sense is great but when you're dealing with assholes of the world...it only goes so far. |
And right there, in your words, is the problem.
The right believes that because they can't accomplish something well, that it can't be done.
The US cannot simply tell the world what to do, and then go ahead and do something else.
When we lead by example, we stand on much firmer ground.
Unfortunately, all of the ideas that we're trying to export aren't espoused by us anymore. Hell, even Democracy, which SHOULD be our greatest trait, something we should ahve a lock on, is a shaky thing. In our democracy, we have made Habeus Corpus null and void, we engage in warrentless wiretapping, we purge any voters who might vote in a way we don't like, we hinder peoples' right to protest, and limit their speech to "free speech" zones.
In what way do we have the authority to tell anyone about freedom and democracy? We are a racist, bigoted, and hateful nation, and although our leaders don't come out and say it, it's evident that racism as a policy exists and is alive and well. Imagine if NOLA was a white city...
As far as nukes are concerned, we can't possibly preach to N. Korea or even Iran, when we have the world's greatest stockpile of nuclear weapons and are the only Nation in history to use them in anger. In addition, WE have invaded 2 coutries in the past 5 years alone, nevermind the many invasions the US has been involved in over the past 50 years. We have been the most aggresive nation in recent history.
To lead, we must set an example. We need to show the world a better way to generate energy, a better way to be efficient and self-reliant, a better way to coexist with other peoples, and a better way to live, where those who dissent have an undeniable right to, and those who are accused of crimes are handled in the light, and not renditioned in darkeness, with their loved-ones clueless whether or not the US abducted is even alive.
The world has many examples to point to when showing our hypocrasy. I for one, applaude Obama. Nothing is worth the devastation that a nuclear weapon can inflict upon INNOCENT people who have nothing to do with whatever conflict they've been unwillingly embroiled in. |
|
|
| Abba |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Let me go on record here to urge the elimination of world hunger. |
If you're being sarcastic, I don't understand why.
Ending world hunger is a great thing, and something that we should strive for.
Gordon Brown, the new British PM, said upon taking office that our strength should be measured in what we can create and not what we can destroy. Is that idealistic? Of course, but it takes men of vision to get great things done.
Children who are born in poverty starve through not fault of their own.
Incidentally, the next great War WILL be fought over water. Believe that. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
You're right...Diplomacy is definitely not something anybody should try to pursue...
:rolleyes: |
Don't be a simplistic piece of shit.
It's simple, we try diplomacy, everyone pretends to play the game, meanwhile nuclear weapons are still stockpiled.
It's called 'lying' and every country does it. And if we ENFORCE this on people, what makes you think that we'll get rid of ours? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Don't be a simplistic piece of shit.
It's simple, we try diplomacy, everyone pretends to play the game, meanwhile nuclear weapons are still stockpiled.
It's called 'lying' and every country does it. And if we ENFORCE this on people, what makes you think that we'll get rid of ours? |
Until Bush we did a good job of not producing any new nukes didnt we? What ground do we stand on telling Iran that 1- they cant have nukes, but we can and will and 2 - Israel has the right to defend itself, whereas you do not? |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Don't be a simplistic piece of shit.
It's simple, we try diplomacy, everyone pretends to play the game, meanwhile nuclear weapons are still stockpiled.
It's called 'lying' and every country does it. And if we ENFORCE this on people, what makes you think that we'll get rid of ours? |
So, I've come to this.....the world will have nukes. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
How do we know what other countries will do if we do not talk with them about it first?
And the senate discussing resolutions to condemn MoveOn.org and Limbaugh are both wastes of time... Or does your partisan ideology only allow you to see the anti Rush resolution as a waste? |
You're arguing with an idiot. The Bushbots don't believe in talking. They are all about going off half-cocked and inventing their reasons later. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by sixsixsix666
So, I've come to this.....the world will have nukes. |
I'd keep a low-profile if I were you Holy Elvis. You've already had 2 accounts deaded, possibly more if my assumption that you're Ironpirate is true.
In any case, you should probably go post in another forum until we've forgotten who you are. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Wrong, Stoney. There is evidence.
I hope we know where the nukes are, too. But, who knows? Maybe they're imaginary like the ones in Iraq.
:lol: |
I don't think there is evidence. I know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out Waziristan for their Islamic State, but there is no evidence that bin Laden is there. He could be anywhere. He could be in Iran. Other bin Ladens are in Iran. His son. One of his wives. One of the leaders of Al Qaeda are in Iran. Supposedly under house arrest although Iran will not turn them over.
It is entirely possible that Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman Zawahiri are in Iran, just as possible as they could be in Pakistan. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| It was already released that the CIA had actiuonable intelligence where Bin Laden was located but Rumsfeld was too scared to go get him. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I don't think there is evidence. I know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out Waziristan for their Islamic State, but there is no evidence that bin Laden is there. He could be anywhere. He could be in Iran. Other bin Ladens are in Iran. His son. One of his wives. One of the leaders of Al Qaeda are in Iran. Supposedly under house arrest although Iran will not turn them over.
It is entirely possible that Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman Zawahiri are in Iran, just as possible as they could be in Pakistan. |
Part of the family was in the US during 9/11 until Bush snuck them out while the planes were grounded. The first of many acts of stupidity by your glorious leader. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Part of the family was in the US during 9/11 until Bush snuck them out while the planes were grounded. The first of many acts of stupidity by your glorious leader. |
That was part of his family but this is his kid who does not fall far from the tree. And, an Al Qaeda leader is there.
It is possible bin Laden is in Yemen or the UAE. |
|
|
| sixsixsix666 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
I'd keep a low-profile if I were you Holy Elvis. You've already had 2 accounts deaded, possibly more if my assumption that you're Ironpirate is true.
In any case, you should probably go post in another forum until we've forgotten who you are. |
Excuse me? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
Ask the entire republican senate why they participated and sponsored it. |
yea ..like they would listen to me
i know why they are doing
it avoids talking about the war |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Let me go on record here to urge the elimination of world hunger. |
thats very bold of you
VERY BOLD |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
You're arguing with an idiot. The Bushbots don't believe in talking. They are all about going off half-cocked and inventing their reasons later. |
You're arguing with an idiot. The MoonBats don't believe in talking. They are all about going off half-cocked and inventing their reasons later |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
You're arguing with an idiot. The MoonBats don't believe in talking. They are all about going off half-cocked and inventing their reasons later |
Very clever use of sarcasm. Quite unusual for a Bushbot.
Being clever, I mean. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
what diff does it make...its bullshit and a feel good thing. its not real. talk about real things |
what? like Iraq's WMD's? |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
You're arguing with an idiot. The MoonBats don't believe in talking. They are all about going off half-cocked and inventing their reasons later |
do you even know what a moonbat is , moron? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
what? like Iraq's WMD's? |
yes...whats your point here ..that bush lied ...but no one else lied about them for over 10 years ...oh..but theie lies are ok because they didn't get us involved in a trumped up war
right ?! |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
do you even know what a moonbat is , moron? |
yes
and you can go look it up too |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
yes...whats your point here ..that bush lied ...but no one else lied about them for over 10 years ...oh..but theie lies are ok because they didn't get us involved in a trumped up war
right ?! |
Well, even you have to admit to the reality that although others before Bush thought Iraq had WMDs, they didn't think it worth invading.
Bush invaded not because he gave a fuck about WMDs or gassing Iraqis but because Saddam (Bush's words) "tried to kill my father."
Cheney was on board on behalf of Haliburton. |
|
|
|
|
|
