Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack

guard|an said:
how about 2006.
Click to expand...

even so, drawing board->nukes takes 10 years. Especially for someone like north korea, whos so fucking poor they can't even finish a major skyscraper in the middle of their capital city?

Im also fairly sure I saw north korea openly admitting they started this back in 98
 
I love all you vile zionists yapping on about Iran when it is clear as day to anybody sane, who happens to know history, that Iran is absolutely not a threat to anyone.
 
Yes, Triple.

:picard:

You're so fucking clueless...

That's a failure. That nuclear facility shouldnt have existed in the first place and there is no evidence that they've destroyed their nukes (which were created under Bush's term because he fucked up a containment policy).

Bush's policy:

1. break from containment policy
2. demand compliance with US will
3. fuck up and see north korea make nukes
4. go back to containment policy with bigger concessions

triple said:
even so, drawing board->nukes takes 10 years. Especially for someone like north korea, whos so fucking poor they can't even finish a major skyscraper in the middle of their capital city?

Im also fairly sure I saw north korea openly admitting they started this back in 98
Click to expand...

Again, you dont get it.

North Korea didnt break the 1994 agreement. We did. We cut off aid and then pointed the finger at them. North Korea was backed into the corner and predictably just started up their nuclear program again, after Bush blew off private outreach from Kim himself.

Jesus christ, learn to figure out what's really going on...
 
Yea they started it a long time ago, and yes it's too heavy to actually lift off on one of their shitty rockets but they can still sell it as a bomb. And you can't just backpedal and say "even so, etc...". You made up some facts to prove a point got caught, then you just brushed it off and are continuing on your retarded point. Give it up. N. Korea sucks and Bush shouldn't have let them get away with this shit.
 
absent said:
I love all you vile zionists yapping on about Iran when it is clear as day to anybody sane, who happens to know history, that Iran is absolutely not a threat to anyone.
Click to expand...

Yea, im sure all the arab "zionists" agree with your retarded opinion.

Arabs just LOVE iranian influence in lebanon and iraq...
 
there is no evidence that they've destroyed their nukes
Click to expand...

They probably already used them all in testing.

TseTse, let me tell you about infantile nuclear powers.

They don't have a lot of nukes.

In the 1940s, we had trinity, and the two bombs we dropped on japan.

The president promised to basically nuke every city until japan was glass. It was a total bluff, because guess what? We were out of nukes. We didn't have shit left. We blew our load in the first week.

North korea may have created one.. maybe two nukes.. but seeing as its first couple were nearly total failures (they barely registered) - I doubt its of much concern.

The important thing is nk's nuclear program is stopped. They can't create anything else. They can't improve or refine their technology. Dead in the water. Its a failure only if you expected absolute perfection. What else do you want, the korean war to stop? Well, thats on the table after the nuclear situation is dealt with. You couldn't ask for a better outcome.
 
Last edited:
TseTse said:
Yea, im sure all the arab "zionists" agree with your retarded opinion.

Arabs just LOVE iranian influence in lebanon and iraq...
Click to expand...

Many of the arab leaders are sellouts to the jews, no doubt about it. Regardless, it is none of Americas business. Iran has been a peaceful nation for a thousand years.

The real enemy in the Middle-East is the fetid tumor of "Israel". It needs to be wiped off the map, otherwise the region will not know any peace.
 
triple said:
They probably already used them all in testing.

TseTse, let me tell you about infantile nuclear powers.

They don't have a lot of nukes.

In the 1940s, we had trinity, and the two bombs we dropped on japan.

The president promised to basically nuke every city until japan was glass. It was a total bluff, because guess what? We were out of nukes. We didn't have shit left. We blew our load in the first week.

North korea may have created one.. maybe two nukes.. but seeing as its first couple were nearly total failures (they barely registered) - I doubt its of much concern.
Click to expand...

North Korea has nukes and material to make a few more.

THAT'S MORE THAN THEY HAD BEFORE BUSH CAME TO OFFICE AND FUCKED UP A VIABLE, EFFECTIVE CONTAINMENT POLICY THAT HIS FATHER ESTABLISHED.

Bush has gone BACK to containment... with even bigger concessions than the 1994 pact, and without any clear accounting for the nuclear materials. You call that a success because you've always been entirely clueless about what's going on here.

We told you exactly what would happen, triple.

Bush failed and went back to containment. North Korea happily complied.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes, containment was soooo viable that they created a secret nuclear program under clinton's nose. Is that your definition of success?

We dont' have to contain shit now. They blew up the reactor. They handed over their program docs. This is not a policy of containment, its a policy of total disarmament.

You "contain" a nuclear program like you contain aids. You can't do it. They'll find a way, and they DID under clinton. What bush has done is make them fess up, disarm, and give up. That's not a concession.
 
triple said:
Yes, yes, containment was soooo viable that they created a secret nuclear program under clinton's nose. Is that your definition of success?
Click to expand...

Again, you show how clueless you are.

1. the nukes were created under bush's nose because bush broke the containment policy. they were created AS A RESPONSE to bush's aggressive rhetoric and failed diplomacy.

2. the containment policy was bush's father's idea

3. after fucking up the entire situation, bush went back to a containment policy

You can babble all you want, but those are the bottom line truths. Obviously you cant accept that because you have never been capable of seeing Bush's fuck-ups. YOu're one of the last remaining people who still defends this clown and it's entertaining seeing the delusional "history" and lies it requires to defend him.
 
Last edited:
How can they be created as a response when the R&D happened before his fucking presidency? Its not physically possible. Did the north koreans R&D a future-telling machine, too?

If getting north korea to fully dismantle, explain, and open up its nuclear secrets to the international community is failure, well fuck, more failure. I want the most fail you can give me. Is failure like newspeak for absolute total success?

You know what a fucking real concession is? Letting north korea have nukes.

Bush's job was to eliminate north korea as a threat. He did it without firing a shot. Job well done, and if you think otherwise you're an idiot.
 
TseTse said:
Obama is not talking about personally going over to Iran to talk with the Ayatollah without major concessions or leverage. That's a bullshit twisting of his argument and position for the sake of petty radio host blabbering and campaign attacks.
Click to expand...

From the CNN transcript of the SC cnn youtube debate:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

wow looks like you just got owned

of course you ignored the earlier post with a video

maybe you'll own up to text
 
xcaricature-obama-lyin.jpg
 
You know it is kind of funny we're doing a major redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This places a big portion of our troops on both sides of Iran perfect for a flanking invasion route from the eastern and western borders of Iran.
 
[Golbez-RG-] said:
You know it is kind of funny we're doing a major redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This places a big portion of our troops on both sides of Iran perfect for a flanking invasion route from the eastern and western borders of Iran.
Click to expand...

We wont be INVADING iran.

We just might blow up their nuclear facilities with air strikes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top