Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
'US overstated Iran nuclear threat'
Options
Comments
-
kaiser sauze wrote: »I dispute this. 70% wanted to come home according to a very recent poll. Your figures don't stack up.
Note the part "...if it meant...". I think that says it all and another war, which the US troop levels could not cope with, is inconceivable.
Well then I quess I was right in part in that you can't really rely on polls because I have seen polls asking the exact same question with a completely different result.kaiser sauze wrote: »Are you saying that every weapon that is used in Iraq is coming from Iran?
No but what I am saying is that a lot of the most deadly weapons [mortars,RPGs etc.] are coming from Iran add that to the fact the the Iranian Elite Army is training insurgents and you have a problemkaiser sauze wrote: »See my earlier point about bad intelligence. This is also a indication of lack of foresight.
Yeah your right. But you were definitely trying to imply that America had used agent orange to murder people when in fact that is false.kaiser sauze wrote: »North Korea are not a threat to anyone. They've recently agreed to wind-down their program and are allowing inspectors in.
LOL great those North Koreans stern but fair...inspectors can come in now that they have a nuclear bomb
A bit late dont you thinkkaiser sauze wrote: »Bottom line: it was a UN operation. Period. I'm not interested in how involved the US were in it; I'm just correcting your misstatement about the operation being a solely US venture.
In all but name it was an American operation.
It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for America. America did pretty much all the work. It would be akin to saying that America won the war on the Russian front in WW2 because they provided mimimal support.
If you want to be petty you can say that it was a UN mission made up equally of all the UN nations but in reality it was an American operation with mimimal support from a few UN nations0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I have already stated I saw the polls on t.v awhile ago, I can hardly find a link for thatGot any sources to back that up?
Lots
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6351257.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran313.xml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/politics/06bomb.html
If you need anymore just ask... there is loadsEr no..as far back as Clinton NK was bargaining with the bomb before they had it. There was reniging on both sides so you can't completely call it one sided intransigence.
Yeah and they came to an agreement, N.Korea would stop in their efforts to produce a nuclear bomb if America supplied Aid. America supplied Aid and N.Korea kept developing the bomb. They lied and deceived America.
tell me how does N.Korea letting in inspectors now after that they have already produced a nuclear bomb benefit anyone its clear they had lied to the US. It's not a gesture of goodwill its two fingers up to the US from an unstable, hostile, rogue state.0 -
-
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »No it's not and I have admitted America has made mistakes. This is different from some cynical posters on here that say that America intentionally made this mistakes with the goal of mass murdering civilians
While it would be hard to prove that the US ever did sell weapons for the sole use of harming civilians, it cannot be completely ruled out.
However, a nation, such as the US, with all the intelligence gathering facilities and all the highly paid IQs has not seemed to learn from past mistakes and continues on its blinkered path of meddling in the affairs of sovereign states. The continued lack of foresight is appalling and can only be explained by having vested interests.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »As stated America gave Iraq those weapons with the intention of them being used on Iranian military they did not know Sadaam was going to use them on his own people years after they gave them to him.
And the US is guilty in this instance, of my previously mentioned lack of foresight. These are, what they term nowadays as WMD. See how conveniently they forget about supplying Iraq with them, but they harp on about countries obtaining WMD now, when they freely supplied WMD not that long ago! It shows how US foreign policy is a sham, dictated by political convenience, and always will be until there is a radical shakeup in thinking.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I obviously don't have an exact figure but nearly every credible historian believes the figure to be in the millions.
Link, please, to something, anything to back this statement up? I'm actually begging you!
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I'm not potraying the victims as evil doers I am saying that the Japanese emperor although wanting to surrender couldn't because of the Japanese obsession with honor. The Nuclear bombing allowed him to do this without losing face amongst his people.
Sometimes in order to good you may have to engage in evil.
I find this extremely hard to believe, and again I ask for a link to something that references this.
In relation to stooping to evil, are you going to try and use this to backup torture and rendition, which happens to pass through these waters in a little town in Limerick?SpAcEd OuT wrote: »Oh yes because its not like America are the biggest donaters to charity [and per capita as well if you were to include the amount they give to NGOs,governments etc.] it's not like America have sent the more troops than all other countries put together on peace keeping missions, its not like America gives out free healthcare to other countries etc.
The US, as a percentage of GDP, are far from the largest contributors to charity. Michael Moore stated in his film, Bowling for Columbine, that Saudi Arabia were. I don't imagine that this has changed much. I'd also imagine that the Scandinavian countries and the Dutch are bigger contributors.
Your incorrect stats are now getting tiresome, but I will happily keep debunking them.
I find your point about healthcare to be very interesting. The US has a privatised system that cost patients a fortune. You are saying that they pass out free healthcare to foreigners, while they charge their own citizens? Wait until the US people get a hold of this nugget!SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I was saying that in response to Angry Hippys claim that the British regions in Iraq were more stable because of the BA's conduct whilst America's regions were bad because of the American soldier's conduct, I think you agree with me that that claim is utterly false and that all of Iraq is unstable.
However it is becoming more stable despite the carbombing violence is dropping http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL057734620071205?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Despite the day's bloodshed, overall attacks across Iraq have fallen to their lowest level in nearly two years, focusing attention on whether the Shi'ite-led government can reconcile with disaffected minority Sunni Arabs.
Things are starting to piece together, people are actually disaffecting from Al-Qaeda to join neighbourhood security patrols
Earlier on Wednesday the government took a step in that direction by announcing it would put 45,000 of the patrol members on its payroll by the middle of 2008.
That means tens of thousands of armed Sunni Arabs, many believed to have fought against the government before this year, will soon be working for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL057734620071205?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Can you name me the one US soldier who has caused all this grief? Again, I'm very interested to hear an elaboration on your claim.
Your portrayal of me being in complete agreement with you is false. I agreed the term to describe Basra with Angry Hippy(quiet), but I do not say that the area is without trouble. I would argue that the British troops' professionalism has helped smooth the ride for them, and as I also said earlier in the thread, it is not the capital. They have not been involved in Haliburton, Abu Ghraib[sp?] or Blackwater scandals. As Tesco would say: "Every Little Helps".
The overall reason, and what you are misconstruing me on, is that the illegal incursion is the lynchpin underpining the instability. It was never necessary.
I could play your game and point out who runs Reuters, but it is not really necessary to stoop to the same level.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »I have already stated I saw the polls on t.v awhile ago, I can hardly find a link for that
Lots
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6351257.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran313.xml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/politics/06bomb.html
If you need anymore just ask... there is loads
I'm well aware of the US government/military accusation of Iran being involved. However those articles are just that...accusations. The BBC article says as much.
"US claims the bombs were smuggled from Iran cannot be independently verified."Yeah and they came to an agreement, N.Korea would stop in their efforts to produce a nuclear bomb if America supplied Aid. America supplied Aid and N.Korea kept developing the bomb. They lied and deceived America.
And America reneged on some of that aid.tell me how does N.Korea letting in inspectors now after that they have already produced a nuclear bomb benefit anyone
How does reneging on a promise to provide aid which produced the predicted result of them attaining the bomb benefit? How does threatening them make it less likely they would want to aquire on? How does the only country in the world to ever use one having the most benefit anyone?0 -
SpAcEd OuT wrote: »Well then I quess I was right in part in that you can't really rely on polls because I have seen polls asking the exact same question with a completely different result.
Link? Backup? Reference? Anything? What's a wotsit?SpAcEd OuT wrote: »No but what I am saying is that a lot of the most deadly weapons [mortars,RPGs etc.] are coming from Iran add that to the fact the the Iranian Elite Army is training insurgents and you have a problem
And these people with little tactical knowledge, little armour, little numbers and little ammunition are the root cause of all the mayhem in Iraq? Please spare me, lol.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »Yeah your right. But you were definitely trying to imply that America had used agent orange to murder people when in fact that is false.
I'm obviously not as smart as a former US president of this time, but I can draw the conclusion that if you poison crops, you poison people. It's as clse to premeditated murder that you are going to get.
It really is not a difficult concept.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »LOL great those North Koreans stern but fair...inspectors can come in now that they have a nuclear bomb
A bit late dont you think
It is never too late for diplomacy, and the US government are beginning to latch onto this way of thinking. I remember Bush saying that he would never engage with North Korea. Look what's happening now? They are disarming.
No, it has not been too late.SpAcEd OuT wrote: »In all but name it was an American operation.
It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for America. America did pretty much all the work. It would be akin to saying that America won the war on the Russian front in WW2 because they provided mimimal support.
If you want to be petty you can say that it was a UN mission made up equally of all the UN nations but in reality it was an American operation with mimimal support from a few UN nations
It was under a UN flag, get over it. The overall commander was Clark, but it was a UN operation. I actually must revise it slightly to emphasise that it was a NATO operation, with the blessing of the UN.
I'm not being petty, I'm just stating a fact, something that you can't accept.
0 -
-
kaiser sauze wrote: »While it would be hard to prove that the US ever did sell weapons for the sole use of harming civilians, it cannot be completely ruled out.
Well if somethings unproven it cannot be said with conviction. You are in the wrong here you've already admitted your claims to be utterly unfounded absent of any concrete evidence. Deal with itkaiser sauze wrote: »And the US is guilty in this instance, of my previously mentioned lack of foresight. These are, what they term nowadays as WMD. See how conveniently they forget about supplying Iraq with them, but they harp on about countries obtaining WMD now, when they freely supplied WMD not that long ago! It shows how US foreign policy is a sham, dictated by political convenience, and always will be until there is a radical shakeup in thinking.
Or maybe it shows they have learned from their mistakes and having seen the destruction Sadaam did with them do not want any other unstable leaders having them.I find this extremely hard to believe, and again I ask for a link to something that references this.Link, please, to something, anything to back this statement up? I'm actually begging you!
Beg and you shall receive
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-135164006.html
This brings us to another aspect of history that now very belatedly has entered the controversy. Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman's decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among noncombatant civilians in the victim nations.
There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.kaiser sauze wrote: »In relation to stooping to evil, are you going to try and use this to backup torture and rendition, which happens to pass through these waters in a little town in Limerick?
The accusations of torture are completely over exaggerated. The 3 Britons that went to Guantanamo Bay told their story. They were kept awake a bit and were put in rooms blaring loud music in order to get them to talk. Hardly evil. And besides I don't care what people say you don't get thrown into Guantanamo Bay for nothing. [Those Britons claimed they did not know they were traveling around with insurgents :rolleyes:]kaiser sauze wrote: »The US, as a percentage of GDP, are far from the largest contributors to charity. Michael Moore stated in his film, Bowling for Columbine, that Saudi Arabia were. I don't imagine that this has changed much. I'd also imagine that the Scandinavian countries and the Dutch are bigger contributors.
Your incorrect stats are now getting tiresome, but I will happily keep debunking them.
Your misreading of my posts is getting tiresome, unfortunately the monies America gives to NGOs, governments etc. is not factored in, if it was America would be miles ahead.
I find your point about healthcare to be very interesting. The US has a privatised system that cost patients a fortune. You are saying that they pass out free healthcare to foreigners, while they charge their own citizens? Wait until the US people get a hold of this nugget!
Indeed. Trying to be smart but you are wrong....again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Comfort_(T-AH-20)
humanitarian mission, which began in June 15, 2007, was a major component of the president’s “Advancing the Cause of Social Justice in the Western Hemisphere” initiative. Comfort visited 12 Central American, South American and Caribbean nations where its embarked medical crew provided free health care services to communities in need. The mission offered valuable training to U.S. military personnel while promoting U.S. goodwill in the region. In all, the civilian and military medical team treated more than 98,000 patients, provided 386,000 patient encounters and performed 1,100 surgeries.
The embarked medical crew was made up of more than 500 military and Non-Governmental Organization (Project Hope and Operation Smile) doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals. Their primary focus was to support medical humanitarian assistance efforts ashore. A secondary mission was outpatient shipboard health service support.
Also supporting Comfort’s medical mission was a SEABEE detachment from the East Coast-based Mobile Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 202, which performed civic action repair and minor construction projects in the host countries. Also on the deployment was the U.S. Navy Showband from Norfolk, Va, which performed in each port.
Comfort was operated and navigated by a crew of 68 civil service mariners (CIVMARS) from the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC).
This mission incorporated various non-government organizations and government agencies, such as Operation Smile, Project Hope, the Atlanta Rotary Club, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army, U.S. Health and Human Services and the Canadian Defense Force.
A variety of medical conditions and concerns are common to the region. This deployment helped share best-practices for the most effective, economical treatments that can be made available by regional medical teams.
Comfort’s deployment to the region exemplified the U.S. commitment to cooperative partnerships in the region.
A key element of this deployment was the potential for a variety of medical staffs to collectively address regional medical concerns and develop effective, economical solutions that can be used through the region.
This deployment provided another opportunity for U.S. military services to work with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) so that strong partnerships are in place and can be called upon in the event of a regional situation that requires cooperative solutions.
Patient encounters include a single patient receiving multiple treatments, students in training sessions and even veterinary care services.
Dentists and staff treated 25,000 patients, extracting 300 teeth, and performing 4,000 fillings, 7,000 sealings, and 20,000 fluoride applications.
In addition to treating patients, bio-medical professionals fixed about a thousand pieces of medical equipment at local health facilities. The ship’s crew also delivered nearly $200,000 dollars worth of donated humanitarian aid.
Can you name me the one US soldier who has caused all this grief? Again, I'm very interested to hear an elaboration on your claim.
What are you on about that was just one soldier they asked on the matter hes not the only one claiming this did you even look at all the links, they had showed caches of weapons directly traced to Iran
Maybe try read all the links instead of looking at one and then jumping to your ill informed wrong conclusion.
And on Basra there is just as much insurgent activity for its population as anywhere else in Iraq0 -
-
-
-
kaiser sauze wrote: »And these people with little tactical knowledge, little armour, little numbers and little ammunition are the root cause of all the mayhem in Iraq? Please spare me, lol.
Eh what are you talking about... thats the whole point they are being trained tatically, they are receiving armour and are receiving a wide range of ammunition all from Iran, that is why there is so much mayhem in Iraq.kaiser sauze wrote: »I'm obviously not as smart as a former US president of this time, but I can draw the conclusion that if you poison crops, you poison people. It's as clse to premeditated murder that you are going to get.
Eh not everything thats poisonous to crops is poisonous to people. And I believe the US president was assured it was non lethal to people. So no it was not premeditated murder.It is never too late for diplomacy, and the US government are beginning to latch onto this way of thinking. I remember Bush saying that he would never engage with North Korea. Look what's happening now? They are disarming.
The only reason the US are talking to N.Korea now is that they have nuclear weapons. The fact that North Korea can now posture with nuclear weapons is not a good thing seeing as they are what would definitely be considered an unstable, rogue state.It was under a UN flag, get over it. The overall commander was Clark, but it was a UN operation. I actually must revise it slightly to emphasise that it was a NATO operation, with the blessing of the UN.
I'm not being petty, I'm just stating a fact, something that you can't accept.
I'm not saying it wasn't under the UN flag but lets call a spade a spade it was a US operation
Edit ; just noticed you were banned0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement