• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Ofama... On Iran

bikerdruid said:
nice dodge...gee, no one noticed......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I noticed ...that you posted a flat out falsehood, got busted, and failed to acknowledge.

Mind you, I'm dissappointed that the US didn't agree to some of those treaties. But that's entirely different from signing and cheating.
 
varwoche said:
I noticed ...that you posted a flat out falsehood, got busted, and failed to acknowledge.

Mind you, I'm dissappointed that the US didn't agree to some of those treaties. But that's entirely different from signing and cheating.
Click to expand...

bull puckies.....
there are many treaties on that list to which the u.s. is a signatory and has broken.

are you going to deny that the u.s. has a busy history of breaking treaties?
yes, or no....it's simple.
heck even pardalis didn't try to deny it.
 
bikerdruid said:
do you deny that the u.s. has a history of breaking treaties?
.....yes or no....it's simple.
Click to expand...
See post 44. It's factual; it's informative. Contrast that to your prior non-factual, counter-informative attempt.

If you ground yourself in facts and the un-spun presentation thereof, maybe your daily post count will take a hit, but at least you won't be a serial misinformer.

Add: As to your question, I don't deny that the US has violated treaties.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
my sentiments exactly....:p
Click to expand...

You and citizenzen seem to think only in terms of what the US does or doesn't do, as if the world doesn't exist beyond that. Excuse me but that is quite a simplistic and narrow worldview. Your mind doesn't seem to be capable of seeing beyond your personal feelings about this one country.
 
Pardalis said:
You and citizenzen seem to think only in terms of what the US does or doesn't do, as if the world doesn't exist beyond that. Excuse me but that is quite a simplistic and narrow worldview. Your mind doesn't seem to be capable of seeing beyond your personal feelings about this one country.
Click to expand...


Personally, I'd love to see the day that the United States isn't the be all, end all nation. However, it currently relishes that role and imagines itself as the authority ... not some international agency.

So here is my question for you. If Iran is in non-compliance, what do you propose be done? What would you like your authority, the IAEA, to do? We might find some agreement here, because if the authority is the IAEA, then there might be a measure of recourse that you and I can agree with.

However, if the real authority is the U.S. military, then all of this international agreement stuff is merely a smokescreen for doing what the United States wants to do for its own best interest.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
You and citizenzen seem to think only in terms of what the US does or doesn't do, as if the world doesn't exist beyond that. Excuse me but that is quite a simplistic and narrow worldview. Your mind doesn't seem to be capable of seeing beyond your personal feelings about this one country.
Click to expand...

so you have said.
your red, white and blue blinders are seriously limiting your vision.
 
citizenzen said:
Personally, I'd love to see the day that the United States isn't the be all, end all nation.
Click to expand...

And I couldn't possibly care less.


So here is my question for you. If Iran is in non-compliance, what do you propose be done? What would you like your authority, the IAEA, to do? We might find some agreement here. Because if the authority is the IAEA, then there might be a measure of punishment that you and I can agree with.

However, if the real authority is the U.S. military, then all of this international agreement stuff is merely a smokescreen for doing what the United States wants to do for its own best interest.
Click to expand...
Forget about the US.

Whatever it did, does or will do, it doesn't change that Iran has obligations towards the PNT, and that international agencies which are independent of the US are concerned about their nuclear program.

Capisce?

Sanctions are already on the table, sanctions agreed by all major countries at the UN, US or no US, Iraq war or no Iraq war, George Bush or no George Bush.

Getting clearer? Am I going too fast for you?
 
Last edited:
For Pardalis: NPT's been a bit of a joke for some time.

Giz: deterrent works without resorting to religious arguments in re "the afterlife" and its alleged attraction. It is my view that the Ayatollahs, and the parties they deal with who oppose them under the table, are playing the long game.

I'll wager a few guineas that the image of Iranian/Persian leadership (and the various factions that squabble with one another) as well over the top religiously is oversold.

What was that lyric during the Cold War? I' hope the Russians love their Children too?

How does that NOT apply to Persians?

Is the current policy in re Iran actually containment? No. Iran has too many safety valves, at present.

Please note my closer in the OP:

Keenan wept.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
What was that lyric during the Cold War? I' hope the Russians love their Children too?

How does that NOT apply to Persians?
Click to expand...


They love their children so much they are firing live rounds at them at protests, willing to jeopardize their safety by playing hide and seek with nuclear inspectors, and willing to go to war at any moment.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
They love their children so much they are firing live rounds at them at protests, willing to jeopardize their safety by playing hide and seek with Nuclear inspectors, and willing to go to war over at any moment.
Click to expand...

True enough, and it makes them both interesting and a nation with much internal conflict.

I don't see the truth of an assumption of Armageddon on the day they get their first nuke.

I am not pleased that our policy makers appear to accept that assumption as fact.
 
The sanctions are justified, the UN members agree with eachother. Iran is threatening to cut an important route as a way to protest.

The US has nothing to do with it.
 
Pardalis said:
The sanctions are justified, the UN members agree with eachother. Iran is threatening to cut an important route as a way to protest.

The US has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

which is good, because the US also has a history of ignoring the UN.
it seems that the US only agrees with the UN when it suits their purposes.
btw...the the US ever pay their many millions of dollars in back dues?
 
bikerdruid said:
which is good, because the US also has a history of ignoring the UN. it seems that the US only agrees with the UN when it suits their purposes. btw...the the US ever pay their many millions of dollars in back dues?
Click to expand...

US US US... You really should seek a therapist about that, it's not healthy to obsess like that.

Let's try it again.

Take a deep breath, clear your mind, exhale... Try not to think about the US for just a short moment.

Now...

Do you recognize the UN and the IAEA's authority on the matter of the threat of nuclear weapons?

Do you recognize that the sanctions have been agreed upon by the majority of UN Security members?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom