It bears noting that the esteemed Mr. Bolton is an advocate of a preventive (newspeak: pre-emptive) war with Cuba to take out their WMD capabilities.
Wow.
Not that I am aware of. As far as the nuclear fuel enrichment program goes, it is not against the rules of the non proliferation treaty. What is against the rules is hiding the activity. It is on that specific point that Iran could potentially be brought before the UN security council. I do not think there is any evidence that they have thus far made any attempts to make nuclear weapons. Of course if they succeed with their fuel enrichment program, they are 90% of the way to getting nukes. Hence the diplomatic activity to peruade them to buy fuel rather than make it themselves.
Because they are fucking insane.
Never stated nor implied that the US were the only ones justified. The US should strive to keep nukes out of the hands of psychos everywhere. I know it’s fun to stroke yourself and believe that America is the problem, it’s not true. There are bad people, worse than the demon US - take my word for it. Everyone shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, no matter how “justified” they are because the US invaded Iraq.
Never stated nor implied i didn’t
:rolleyes:
Cute buzzword usage, but equally moronic/meaningless as the previous question
What’d you think of Kerry’s proposal, RevCo?
Bill Clinton proposed the same thing to North Korea iirc 500000 barrels of oil a year, was it? - it wouldn’t fly because of public opinion/Republican’s in congress from what I saw on Frontline - can’t remember when.
We did start construction on Nuclear Reactors in North Korea without the oil, but they continued their weapons program anyway. The right-wing pundits tore Bill Clinton a new asshole over it - I assume the if Kerry had won, they’d do it again. If GWB proposes this, I expect the left wing-pundits would start ripping him a new asshole - what comes around goes around in the asshole ripping dept.
I think there is clear evidence that the same can be said about the US.
They see WMD’s where there are none, they attack a country to retaliate for an attack that wasn’t performed, nor supported by that country.
Sounds pretty delusional to me.
Oh yeah, and since this is the pit, fuck yourself with a clawhammer, you dim-witted US-centric bavoon.
So, what do you think about the proposal, RevCo?
A bavoon? What is a bavoon? Do you mean a bassoon? You don’t want be messing with a bassoon. A bassoon is a big mother fucker. It has a double reed. You don’t want to be going near a bassoon with a double reed. Even with a claw hammer. Get yourself some WMD’s. Then you are good. A bassoon vs. a WMD. Now that is going to make some telly.
Spot on commentary about fucking with Iran from a guy called “the War Nerd”. I encourage people to read other articles too, they all kick ass.
And a bassoon sounds a lot better than RevCo’s jammering.
BTW I love your username.
Actually I meant baffoon (is that the right spelling?), but that is quite insulting to our simian friends.
You meant baboon. Although, you might opt for buffoon.
Cite?
What do you call an Administration that start wars under false premises, outright lies and count amongst its most prominent members religious fanatics and blind ideologues?
Well, as with the rest of your premises, you’re wrong. I know of no one who’s idea of “fun” is dealing with and trying to infuse some common sense into a bunch of warmongering ideologues in control of the most powerful country in the world.
Your word means nothing to me – however, US actions do. Like destroying a country for no good reason – if we discount filling some pockets with outrageous amounts of money – and butchering countless innocents during the process. Sure, there are worse regimes out there, but A-they do not threaten anyone outside their borders, and B-talk about small comfort, is that what the US is reduced to now a days? Secondly, why wouldn’t a sovereign state under threat from the world’s mightiest military be justified in adquiring any means available for their self-defense? Quite the contrary, I’d say it’s their duty to do so.
Will this warped logic lead to an infinite regress, or a vicious circle?
US: Iran will strike, so we must strike first. Y’hear that, Iran?!
Iran: OMGWTF?! The US is going to strike! We must strike before they do…!
US: Iran has threatened to strike us! We must beat them to it!
Iran: Quick, ready the nukes, we’ve got to get the US before they get us!
US: Fuck, the way things are going, we’ll have to bomb them two years ago!
Soon we’ll be sending each other back in time.
It’s one of the jobs of a government to protect the country from outside aggression. If the USA can ignore its international treaty obligations to promote its own self-interest then so can any country.
True enough, as far as it goes. Iran is, however, being encouraged by the US to believe that it will make itself safer by not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons than by doing so. Which makes one wonder how the Iranians view this. They could look to several other countries and reach different conclusions based on what they see:
Libya. Got rid of all weapons programs and now is a quite respected member of the international community.
Iraq. Got rid of all weapons programs and were invaded. Regime change is now the after the event justification.
N. Korea. Have developed nuclear weapons and have a stronger bargaining position as a result. International pariah, however.
If Iran consider themselves at risk of a regime change minded US, it seems like a no brainer for them. They need to get nukes. But for the precedent of Iraq, it would have seemed a much safer option to avoid them completely.
Aha!! Buffoon it is.
RevCo, you, sir, are a dim-witted US-centric buffoon.
There, take that!!
America - World Bullies
Sorry I missed your point - I think it’s a good idea. I’d like to state that there is a better way, but until you or I think of it - it would have to do. The only other option is to threaten them to the negotiating table - which is another valid course of action since we already have all those troops in their backyard.