Breakthrough in Iranian nuclear talks!

[Jocko]

Well, let`s see your evidence...or are you out of your depth?

Considering you're the one who raised the issue, I rather think that's your repsonsibility. But just to show you what a nice guy I am, here you go:

The dispute broke out as it emerged last night that documents found by UN inspectors in Iraq were linked to the creation of nuclear bombs. The 3,000 documents dated from the Eighties, found in an Iraqi scientist's house, detailed techniques to enrich uranium.

That from the friggin' GUARDIAN, demon. Three months before the war. Good enough for you? Now get back to the kiddie pool and go splash someone else... I'm not entertained by your antics.

 

[Jocko]

Developing, yes. If they actually had functional nuclear weapons, do you think we would still have invaded? I think not - so does Iran, I imagine.

Surely even Iran must realize that to have developed nukes, one must go through the process of ... you know, developing them?

Sounds like a homeowner's policy that requires you to soak your house in gasoline and light up a cigarette before it'll take effect, doesn't it?

 

[demon]

Jock, your link says:
"The dispute broke out as it emerged last night that documents found by UN inspectors in Iraq were linked to the creation of nuclear bombs. The 3,000 documents dated from the Eighties, found in an Iraqi scientist's house, detailed techniques to enrich uranium."

LOL.
Is that it?
As I asked, what evidence was there that Saddam had nuclear programmes in the 90`s, and who was supplying that information, and who agreed with it and who disagreed with it?
That line from The Guardian does not support your contention that "in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq".
Try again.

 

[BPSCG]

LOL.
Is that it?
As I asked, what evidence was there that Saddam had nuclear programmes in the 90`s, and who was supplying that information, and who agreed with it and who disagreed with it?
That line from The Guardian does not support your contention that "in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq".
Try again.

Oh, cripes, demon, if Saddam walked up to you on the street, announced, "I'm Saddam Hussein, and I'm here to punch you in the face," and then proceeded to punch you in the face in front of seventeen newspaper photographers, you'd deny it was him and demand more evidence. Give it a rest; you sound sillier every time you open your mouth.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Take a guess as to why Iran is messing around in the "negotiations."

Here's a hint:

We have almost our entire military bogged down in an ill considered war in Iraq and lack the ability to spit in Iran's direction, much less take military action against them.

 

[BPSCG]

Take a guess as to why Iran is messing around in the "negotiations."

Here's a hint:

We have almost our entire military bogged down in an ill considered war in Iraq and lack the ability to spit in Iran's direction, much less take military action against them.

We have, what, 150,000 men in Iraq? Out of two million?

None of our warships are in Iraq.

That's what you call "almost our entire military"?

Another way to look at this is, "We have a large military force parked on Iran's doorstep."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

We have, what, 150,000 men in Iraq? Out of two million?

None of our warships are in Iraq.

That's what you call "almost our entire military"?

Another way to look at this is, "We have a large military force parked on Iran's doorstep."

U-huh. And that doesn't constitute "pulling out of Iraq, like BPSCG's daddy should have pulled out of his mother?"

This is very incivil. Argue the point not the poster.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[BPSCG]

U-huh. And that doesn't constitute "pulling out of Iraq, like BPSCG's daddy should have pulled out of his mother?"

If you care to continue this discussion, please leave the personal insults out of the discussion, particularly those involving my parents.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you care to continue this discussion, please leave the personal insults out of the discussion, particularly those involving my parents.

I see. You get to say things like this:

Oh, cripes, demon, if Saddam walked up to you on the street, announced, "I'm Saddam Hussein, and I'm here to punch you in the face," and then proceeded to punch you in the face in front of seventeen newspaper photographers, you'd deny it was him and demand more evidence. Give it a rest; you sound sillier every time you open your mouth.

But no one can say anything mean about poor little BPSCG.

 

[demon]

BPSCG:
"Oh, cripes, demon, if Saddam walked up to you on the street, announced, "I'm Saddam Hussein, and I'm here to punch you in the face," and then proceeded to punch you in the face in front of seventeen newspaper photographers, you'd deny it was him and demand more evidence. Give it a rest; you sound sillier every time you open your mouth."

Maybe you`d like to present the evidence of why it was believed Saddam had nuclear programmes in the 90`s then when you are finished playing with your straw man.

 

[.13.]

We have almost our entire military bogged down in an ill considered war in Iraq and lack the ability to spit in Iran's direction, much less take military action against them.

Another way to look at this is, "We have a large military force parked on Iran's doorstep."

I agree with BPSCG. US military is not bogged down in a sense that it is vital to their security to keep the troops where they are. Though the sectarian violence would probably increase if the troops left. But there is no threat from the Iraq side of the border if the troops cross to Iran. It would come down to decision wether it is more beneficial for overall situation to move the troops to Iran or curb the sectarian violence in Iraq.

I'd be surprised if Iran is negotiating in this manner because they think US troops are bogged down in Iraq.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree with BPSCG. US military is not bogged down in a sense that it is vital to their security to keep the troops where they are. Though the sectarian violence would probably increase if the troops left. But there is no threat from the Iraq side of the border if the troops cross to Iran. It would come down to decision wether it is more beneficial for overall situation to move the troops to Iran or curb the sectarian violence in Iraq.

I'd be surprised if Iran is negotiating in this manner because they think US troops are bogged down in Iraq.

So, even though our administration has sworn up and down to stay in Iraq for an indefinate length of time, they'd be prefectly willing to invade Iran, a larger and more prepared country if Iran forced us to carry out a military solution?

 

[.13.]

So, even though our administration has sworn up and down to stay in Iraq for an indefinate length of time, they'd be prefectly willing to invade Iran, a larger and more prepared country if Iran forced us to carry out a military solution?

Emphasis added.

I don't know what the US administration is willing to do. But since you put it that way, I'd guess they would be willing to invade Iran.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Emphasis added.

I don't know what the US administration is willing to do. But since you put it that way, I'd guess they would be willing to invade Iran.

Not alone, or, like Iraq, essentially alone, I would hope. If it comes to it I'd like to think our leaders are smart enough to stop antagonizing Europe long enough to get some serious assistance.

 

[Jocko]

Jock, your link says:
"The dispute broke out as it emerged last night that documents found by UN inspectors in Iraq were linked to the creation of nuclear bombs. The 3,000 documents dated from the Eighties, found in an Iraqi scientist's house, detailed techniques to enrich uranium."

LOL.
Is that it?
As I asked, what evidence was there that Saddam had nuclear programmes in the 90`s, and who was supplying that information, and who agreed with it and who disagreed with it?
That line from The Guardian does not support your contention that "in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq".
Try again.

No need to try again. I hand you a report of UN statement regarding their inspector's own anxieties about the likelihood of a nuke program, and you dismiss it on the grounds that... that... er, well, you never really say why you dismiss it. You do realize that's a statement from the UN, summarizing arms inspector reports, right? And you say try again? Ha!

I say, "why bother?" You're not interested in anything that contradicts your rather infantile view of things, which sadly for you, amounts to roughly 100% of everything.

 

[demon]

Jocko:
"and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq".

"So the media also controlled Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities"

That`s a very big claim you see.
As yet you have supplied no evidence for it. Your report from the Guardian with a few cherry picked quotes from Blix in no way addresses my question or proves your claim.
I`ll ask again. How widely was it believed that Iraq was a threat before the second Gulf War and let me see your evidence that the UN Security Council (a clue here...the UNSC consists of more that the US, something some Americans have a problem understanding) and "99% of the planet`s intelligence communities" thought Iraq was a threat prior to second Gulf War.

 

[Jocko]

Jocko:
"and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq".

"So the media also controlled Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities"

That`s a very big claim you see.
As yet you have supplied no evidence for it. Your report from the Guardian with a few cherry picked quotes from Blix in no way addresses my question or proves your claim.
I`ll ask again. How widely was it believed that Iraq was a threat before the second Gulf War and let me see your evidence that the UN Security Council (a clue here...the UNSC consists of more that the US, something some Americans have a problem understanding) and "99% of the planet`s intelligence communities" thought Iraq was a threat prior to second Gulf War.

How widely? "Generally." And I provided a source that reinforces that the UN and its inspectors believed that there were such weapons based on available data.

It's the UN. Quoted in the Guardian. Not the US quoted by Fox News.


That is more than adequate evidence in the face of your complete lack thereof. Of course, since you're the one who's now declaring the inverse, it's your turn to find a PRE-2003 source declaring otherwise, and try to skip anything from democracynow.org and your usual stable of drivel.

EDITED TO ADD: Never mind, don't bother (not that I expected a reliable citation anyway). This is off-topic and I won't help you derail the matter any further.

 

[demon]

Is "generally believed" less or more than "widely believed"?
Are we still talking about 99% of the "planet`s intelligence communities" here, or 98% of them now? 97% maybe? What`s your new figure? There must be one or else there would have been no reason to go from "widely" to "generally". Those two words must mean something different to you.
You keep ducking my direct questions, are you out of your depth?

 

[Jocko]

Is "generally believed" less or more than "widely believed"?
Are we still talking about 99% of the "planet`s intelligence communities" here, or 98% of them now? 97% maybe? What`s your new figure? There must be one or else there would have been no reason to go from "widely" to "generally". Those two words must mean something different to you.
You keep ducking my direct questions, are you out of your depth?

So you have no evidence to offer on this tangential line of debate. Thank you demon, you may be seated now. I think the rest of the class is duly impressed with your reasoning skills; I need say no more.

Tomorrow's lesson will be on the benefits of learning to use the quote function correctly. Don't miss that one.

 

[demon]

I`m asking you to attempt prove your claims Jocko, one is allowed to do that on this forum.
When you have done that then I might offer some evidence of my own.
You made the claims first afterall.
And you didn`t explain why you felt the need to go from "widely" to "generally". What`s the difference between these two words in your mind and in this context?
Are you up to answering?