Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: 240 is Back on September 03, 2006, 09:41:47 PM
-
I saw this on FOX News but cannot locate it on their website or CNN. Anyone have info on this?
It seems odd we'd consider war BEFORE we even have gone through the UN process with them, especially when we are already strugling with 2 wars right now.
Even those who are very pro-war would likely agree the UN process could buy us a little time to maybe finish up afghan and iraq, right? And the anti-war would have a decent argument that we even let Sadaam get through the UN process first, and he had actually used his WMDs in real life.
-
We were not doing anything. I imagine we would notice here. If we start gettting large numbers of Fighter bombers/refueler/transports I'll start to worry. Not to mention the threat level here will skyrocket.
-
We were not doing anything. I imagine we would notice here. If we start gettting large numbers of Fighter bombers/refueler/transports I'll start to worry. Not to mention the threat level here will skyrocket.
I didn't mean the troops - the news was talking about the final stages of "on paper" planning. Usually takes a few weeks to actually start cooking people.
-
It seems odd we'd consider war BEFORE we even have gone through the UN process with them, especially when we are already strugling with 2 wars right now.
All the EU does is "threaten" Iran with more deadlines:
"oohh... you're not playing nice? In that case we'll give you ANOTHER DEADLINE! Hahaha you hate deadlines bitches!" ::)
Time to take action, the jigs up.
-
I didn't mean the troops - the news was talking about the final stages of "on paper" planning. Usually takes a few weeks to actually start cooking people.
Just so you know, we are constantly preparing things "on paper" just to be ready in case of whatever. I doubt this is anything significant at this point, but good to know they might actually be planning ahead.
-
My point is that it's no accident when FOX News makes a war preparation announcement. And anyone who thinks it's the US' duty to invade Iran, when we refuse to negotiate with them, is just hungry to kill.
The guy has openly asked for debates and discussions on solutions that work for all. Our response? "We won't talk to you. But we will get war plans ready".
Bush ran for office on a strong isolationist platform, because that's what people wanted. "We will not be policemen for the world". Now it seems we're leading the charge to take out Iran to keep Israel happy. We're barely keeping our head above water in 2 wars, and people want a 3rd? I don't get it.
-
if Bush is honestly considering this he should be impeached but congress would never agree to go to war with Iran anyway.
-
if Bush is honestly considering this he should be impeached but congress would never agree to go to war with Iran anyway.
They would if we were atacked by terrorists, likely right before the Nov elections.
-
They would if we were atacked by terrorists, likely right before the Nov elections.
hahahahaha, sometimes i can't believe how stupid 59 million people in this country are to have voted for this moron.
-
hahahahaha, sometimes i can't believe how stupid 59 million people in this country are to have voted for this moron.
i hope if this is the case... if a new bin laden tape comes out on election eve, or some fake attack happens... i hope those in the media and those in both parties step up and tell the cameras the truth. People will believe anything they see on tv.
-
hahahahaha, sometimes i can't believe how stupid 59 million people in this country are to have voted for this moron.
It was a matter of flipping a coin, look at the pompous jackass that was running against him
-
if we are going to do Iran, then we need to cut the vietnam-stlye bullshit we've been pulling since korea and get serious. success will require a draft and huge numbers, at least 400,000-500,000 men in an overwhelming ground invasion, not a 30,000man, 'pinpoint airstrike' campaign which does nothing but drags out the war and leads to a funnel of death but doesnt get anything accomplished.
its funny, we could take on germany and japan at the same time, but now we 'cant' handle iraq ::)
either do things right or dont do them at all, enough fucking around.
that said, i dont see ANY reason to attack iran and i do not think the public would support it AT ALL even if there IS another attack.
-
if we are going to do Iran, then we need to cut the vietnam-stlye bullshit we've been pulling since korea and get serious. success will require a draft and huge numbers, at least 400,000-500,000 men in an overwhelming ground invasion, not a 30,000man, 'pinpoint airstrike' campaign which does nothing but drags out the war and leads to a funnel of death but doesnt get anything accomplished.
its funny, we could take on germany and japan at the same time, but now we 'cant' handle iraq ::)
either do things right or dont do them at all, enough fucking around.
that said, i dont see ANY reason to attack iran and i do not think the public would support it AT ALL even if there IS another attack.
I think we're in complete agreement man.
Also, many in the world believe the govt benefits greatly from instability in the regioon. Once there is peace over there, we are shown the door. Defense spending goes to nil. Bushco stop earning and the PNAC document fails. So expect another 5 years of war.
-
I think we're in complete agreement man.
Once there is peace over there, we are shown the door.
there has been non stop conflict in the middle east thousands of years before the declaration of independence was signed
-
there has been non stop conflict in the middle east thousands of years before the declaration of independence was signed
yep - but we don't belong over there. If the iranian people don't like their situation, let them deal with it. Why should one US soldier die for it?
-
240 - a little off topic but you might find these interesting places to visit
Truthout - http://www.truthout.org/index.htm
Media Matters for America - http://mediamatters.org/
-
I think we're in complete agreement man.
Also, many in the world believe the govt benefits greatly from instability in the regioon. Once there is peace over there, we are shown the door. Defense spending goes to nil. Bushco stop earning and the PNAC document fails. So expect another 5 years of war.
it sickens me to see such an utter waste of life due to the simple fact that the politicians are so concerned with appearance. we could have crushed the vietcong like a bug, but they were scared to fully commit, so what happened? we sent over just enough to keep them dying. they should have (not that they should have been sent there at all) been straightforward about it from the beginning; once you commit to something like that, you have to be ready to commit 100%. we could have send a huge force over there and cleaned them up within a year easy...but the politicians were to afraid of 'how it would appear' and other such bullshit so instead they sent just enough to maintain a steady stream of dying that lasted for 10 years without accomplishing ANYTHING.
its the same thing with iraq now. they are too afraid they will 'be viewed as an occupying force' (which is exactly what they are ::)) and worried about 'what people will think' ect ect and now the same thing happens...dragged out, constant stream of deaths, NOTHING accomplished....
now they want to go after iran. iran is about twice as daunting as iraq, and i have no doubt that they will approach it in the same way, a small force which stays for years, loses thousands of men because of political indecisiveness, wishy-washy, little games, and accomplishes NOTHING.
-
I guess I jst can't understand why we're so darn eager to take on Iran. They've talked tough and they're learning nuclear functions. Well, there are neighbors a lot closer to them with a lot more motive to eliminate their nuclear capability. I see NO reason why ISR can't take them out jsut as easily as we could. And we have plenty of dictators around the world who badtalk us. You don't see us begging for war with Venezuela, Cuba, or N Korea. Of course, that's because they're not sitting on black gold...
-
I think the problem is that Irans uranium enrichment is taking place well underground.
Not even our conventional bunker buster bombs can penetrate deep enough to take out the area in question.Its going to be a big problem in the near future.
-
I think the problem is that Irans uranium enrichment is taking place well underground.
Not even our conventional bunker buster bombs can penetrate deep enough to take out the area in question.Its going to be a big problem in the near future.
Israel's men could do the digging then.
We're barely keeping our head above water in the other conflicts, and we wanna take on a beast that bigger than the other 2 combined? Yikes.
Plus, the only info I hear on Iran comes from my govt, which has told some serious lies over the last 5 years. At the very least, 911 didn't happen as they said. At the very least, the man on the Osama videotape was not the same osama we've seen for the 10 years before. If I was a parent, I'd like to see some solid proof before sending my sons to die over there.
So when the UN comes out with something tangible about iran's efforts, i'll listen. But right now, we have the WH beating the war drums, Iran begging for a public discussion/debate that we won't accept.
Imagine if there was a guy holding your family hostage, and he wanted to talk, and you said "No, I'd just prefer a messy gunfight". I mean, no need for diplomacy here?
-
if Bush is honestly considering this he should be impeached but congress would never agree to go to war with Iran anyway.
I agree..
All bush did was put a defict on all of our taxes dollars..
Man i miss clinton >:(
-
Man i miss clinton >:(
Clinton was, as a person, garbage. A liar, a phony, and a scumbag. I think even most dems will agree that personally, the man had a lot of flaws. IMO his worst moment was holding the bible facing outward after being caught getting a BJ by the nation. Just to show off that he found God.
However, Bush I's legacy was giving Iraq permission to invade Kuwait, then starting a war with them. The peace was formed by forming a nice relationship with the saudis, which grew from 92 to 2001, when Bush II took the oath and lo and behold... we start war in Iraq right back up.
Three times I've given my vote to a bush, so it's hard to face these facts. Clinton was a pussy and definitely sold us short on some things, but there were no large scale wars with 3000 deaths like we have here.
We are going to be in a middle eastern war for AT LEAST through the end of 2008. Then the new guy will have to take over. Will it be Condi/Rudy/Jeb, meaning 4 more years of war? Or will it be McCain/Clinton/Biden to just maybe get us out?
-
Or will it be McCain/Clinton/Biden to just maybe get us out?
What about if (read: when) they don't "get us out"?
What will you say then Mr. 240 or Conspiracy?
-
What about if (read: when) they don't "get us out"?
What will you say then Mr. 240 or Conspiracy?
Hey, they might not. But I KNOW that Jeb, Condi, and Rudy, all in bed with the 911 stink, will keep things as they are, without a doubt.
I believe that most people in power try to do the right thing for the people they represent. hell, for the next 100 years of US economic strength, a 10-year war might be better for us in the long run. But that's the utilitarian standpoint. And one whose effects are a certain texas family getting rich as hell, oil staying God, and more men dying.
-
All the EU does is "threaten" Iran with more deadlines:
"oohh... you're not playing nice? In that case we'll give you ANOTHER DEADLINE! Hahaha you hate deadlines bitches!" ::)
Time to take action, the jigs up.
Nordic,... Have you served or are you just another chickenhawk?
-
You don't see us begging for war with Venezuela, Cuba, or N Korea. Of course, that's because they're not sitting on black gold...
More words of wisdom from the well-informed passionate researcher and student, 240.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
-
.
-
Venez only holds 6.8 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and their govt and countrymen ideology doesn't give us a welcome mat in. And they are stable trading partners. Plus Israel isn't nearby to benefit.
On the other hand, iran exports 10% of the world's oil and Iraq owns 1/4 of the world's oil resources and is operating at 1/3 capacity. They are unstable and there are sanctions or threats of sactions in place. Their religious iiedology and the false flag attacks give us a red carpet to come in and liberate them and set up shop. And, since both countries are mortal enemies to isr, which pulls the strings of our govt.
Please, before you use google and wet yourself with giddiness, look at more than the numbers. Look at cultural and political factors. venez is a stable partner, even tho they spew rhetoric. Mid east is just dying to be taken over.
-
Venez only holds 6.8 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and their govt and countrymen ideology doesn't give us a welcome mat in. And they are stable trading partners. Plus Israel isn't nearby to benefit.
On the other hand, iran exports 10% of the world's oil and Iraq owns 1/4 of the world's oil resources and is operating at 1/3 capacity. They are unstable and there are sanctions or threats of sactions in place. Their religious iiedology and the false flag attacks give us a red carpet to come in and liberate them and set up shop. And, since both countries are mortal enemies to isr, which pulls the strings of our govt.
Please, before you use google and wet yourself with giddiness, look at more than the numbers. Look at cultural and political factors. venez is a stable partner, even tho they spew rhetoric. Mid east is just dying to be taken over.
1. I thought it was sitting on black gold that mattered.
2. I thought google was how the teeming masses were to be educated ???
3. AGAIN, YOU'RE A BROWN-EYED BOY . . . do a little bit more research on what proven reserves Iran and Venezuela have instead of making up figures as you go along. using google might help you
4. I wet myself . . .
-
1. I thought it was sitting on black gold that mattered.
2. I thought google was how the teeming masses were to be educated ???
3. AGAIN, YOU'RE A BROWN-EYED BOY . . . do a little bit more research on what proven reserves Iran and Venezuela have instead of making up figures as you go along. using google might help you
4. I wet myself . . .
many countries sit on black gold. And 10 more years of neocons in office, we'll get round to taking Venezuela's lunch money. I knew venez had slightly less oil than I&I, and was a lot less inviting to the neocons. looked up the data.
-
BTW, al, you're doing exactly what the govt shills do when trying to refocus an important argument,
you're scouring % of oil share in google searches. I am pointing out that the US has its war plans ready to take out Iran. please do not discount the importance of the impact of this news.
-
many countries sit on black gold. And 10 more years of neocons in office, we'll get round to taking Venezuela's lunch money. I knew venez had slightly less oil than I&I, and was a lot less inviting to the neocons. looked up the data.
240, I have to give you props for some of the brassiest backpedaling I have ever seen.
It doesn't matter if the rug is completely taken out from under you, you just shrug it off like it was nothing and keep on trucking. I have a major assignment due for work tomorrow, and yet here I sit, transfixed.
-
BTW, al, you're doing exactly what the govt shills do when trying to refocus an important argument,
you're scouring % of oil share in google searches. I am pointing out that the US has its war plans ready to take out Iran. please do not discount the importance of the impact of this news.
oh, i'm not wasting time on google searches . . . I'm just going with my gut ;D if your premises are faulty, dear 240, then you really don't have credibility.
so, now, is Iran about ideology or oil? You should have read the pdf I posted instead of watching those google videos.
-
Iran is about both, just like the others.
The neocon element in our govt wants a foothold in the region, access to the country's resources, and ability manage the population of that nation.
See: Afghanistan.
See: Iraq.
No doubt when we need it we'll find a reason to blame chavez for somethine. but right now, since the US pop is trained to recognize bin laden (dead in 2001 and faked in both videos) as the boogeyman, that region is wearing the bullseye
-
ah, yes, that resource-rich nation Afghanistan . . .
240, you really should pay me a consultant's fee . . .
-
ah, yes, that resource-rich nation Afghanistan . . .
240, you really should pay me a consultant's fee . . .
Do your research, hotshot.
Aside from being a likely place for a US friendly oil pipeline, controlled by our puppet Karzai, Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's opium. I know in your little fantasy world, the CIA doesn't use laundered drug money as the free cash flow to allow both sides of every Wall Street transaction to function. But in the real world, it is what keeps our economy afloat- drug money being laundered. It's interest free cash which floats both sides.
The taliban, being the religious zealots that they are, shut down the country's opium output in spring of 2001. Check H prices for that period. The US price jumped, the economy took a continued hit from the jan 01 tech bubble bust. The US and our new friend karzai have quietly allowed the farmers to grow anything they wished. Freedoms! Of course, the only thing worth growing there is well...
-
Do your research, hotshot.
Aside from being a likely place for a US friendly oil pipeline, controlled by our puppet Karzai, Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's opium. I know in your little fantasy world, the CIA doesn't use laundered drug money as the free cash flow to allow both sides of every Wall Street transaction to function. But in the real world, it is what keeps our economy afloat- drug money being laundered. It's interest free cash which floats both sides.
The taliban, being the religious zealots that they are, shut down the country's opium output in spring of 2001. Check H prices for that period. The US price jumped, the economy took a continued hit from the jan 01 tech bubble bust. The US and our new friend karzai have quietly allowed the farmers to grow anything they wished. Freedoms! Of course, the only thing worth growing there is well...
240, if you'll answer my question about the stripper on G&O, I'll help you out with this.
1. demand for heroin/opium (not crack, after all) is highly inelastic (one would assume an "MBA" would know this). . . so the amount of money in the market is going to remain pretty stable regardless of how much is produced . . . so the next time you trot out the CIA funding Wall street transactions story and bailing us out of recessions, just keep that in mind.
2. the oil pipeline has nothing to do with our presence there (we might help design some parts of it, but we don't need to be there for that) . . . afghanistan's location has everything to do with our presence there.
-
1. demand for heroin/opium (not crack, after all) is highly inelastic (one would assume an "MBA" would know this). . . so the amount of money in the market is going to remain pretty stable regardless of how much is produced . . . so the next time you trot out the CIA funding Wall street transactions story and bailing us out of recessions, just keep that in mind.
You took Econ 1. No, it is not an inelastic good. Not if we want to keep wall street standing. You're assuming a free market where supply and demand dictate. This is anything but.
We both allow and require a certain range of amounts to come into this country. We control supply and we control demand. When influx is greater, there are busts on H, or less of a substitue good comes in. Demand is easy- even cutting funding in certain areas have some nice ripple effects (cut $x from war on drugs) The high price hurt supply however, and this was unacceptable.
The CIA was established as Isr was established. They are brothers. They helped us establish a financial system which didn't require war to be successful, and we gave them a piece of someone else's land to move into. The CIA depends on a very static drug inflow to give us just enough money to float, but not enough that there are crack whores in Bev hills.
I can give you a link to a video clip in which a former narc and whistleblower details the components, the corporations, and even the series of individuals (by name!) who have facilitated and managed this process. It's very real.
2. the oil pipeline has nothing to do with our presence there (we might help design some parts of it, but we don't need to be there for that) . . . afghanistan's location has everything to do with our presence there.
You questioned their resources... well, the pipeline will be up inside ten years ... and all that N. Iranian Oil can be scooted right over the border or keep on going thru to our good paki friends. Another exit to the sea as well. Afghan's location was a great boon to kicking off I&I, but the pipeline is of equal importance. When we negotiated with the Taliban in Spring 2001, they declined our offer to put one in, and declined our request to let their farmers have "freedom" lol... a few months later we stamped them with the T-tag and kicked them out of their country.
-
i think i might have taken a little bit more than econ 1, but that is neither here nor there . . . after reading your treatise, I'm under the impression that the "course" I should have taken is not taught at any university I attended . . . I wonder why?
-
i think i might have taken a little bit more than econ 1, but that is neither here nor there . . . after reading your treatise, I'm under the impression that the "course" I should have taken is not taught at any university I attended . . . I wonder why?
There are many resources out there on the involvement of the CIA in permitting and managing the flow of drugs into this country, and their importance in our economy maintaining function.
Do you seriously doubt this claim?
-
on a different note . . . don't you sometimes wish you had a job that gave you some practical insight into all these things you read about on websites? You're still young enough to change directions . . .
-
on a different note . . . don't you sometimes wish you had a job that gave you some practical insight into all these things you read about on websites? You're still young enough to change directions . . .
I'll go where the opportunities lead me. I was a schoolteacher and network admin before this. I could never work in politics, as everyone has to turn into Bob Chic in order to get anywhere.
-
on a different note . . . don't you sometimes wish you had a job that gave you some practical insight into all these things you read about on websites? You're still young enough to change directions . . .
Allow me to test your courage.
Do you believe the CIA allows drugs to enter the US?
-
1. People make their own opportunities . . .
2. You can get a job that will make you reevaluate your position on the word "allows."
3. Again with the language of fear/scary/courage . . . why? do i come off as someone scared of something?
-
No, but many people are often scared to use their First Amendment right to express their opinion.
For example, some people will agree the OBL tape is an obvious fake, but won't admit the govt lied. They'll say "maybe they were fooled!" or some other nonsense in order to avoid 1) admitting what they fear, and 2) getting on some list as a dissenter.
Ironic thing is that if their hands are clean, you have nothing to worry about.
-
being a politician is not bob chic's problem. his problem is being a half-wit.
don't worry, I don't have an unrealistic view of govt. and I'm not worried about being on a list.
-
i waited a bit until I saw that there are thousands who march every month. There are open discussions in many engineering departments about 911. So far, schools have been very good to NOT censor their staff, as the admins are shown the evidence and are convinced. More schools are teaching it (not including the many courses that will no doubt touch on it unofficially, as the topic is hot on campuses and in engineering programs).
-
hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha
January 31, 2003 - A war memo reveals the President Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq whether or not he had UN backing and is quoted discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation.
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says
"In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House." - NY Times (03/27/06)
Bush-Blair Iraq war memo revealed
"The New York Times says it has seen a memo which shows that the US president was firmly set on the path to war two months before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
From private talks between George Bush and UK PM Tony Blair, the memo makes it clear the US was determined to go to war whether or not he had UN backing.
He is quoted discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation.
The memo indicates both leaders acknowledged it was possible no unconventional weapons would be found in Iraq before the invasion, the New York Times says.
The note cites Mr Bush suggesting three ways in which Iraq could be provoked into confrontation.
The US "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours", Mr Bush said.
If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested.
He also indicated the US "might be able to bring out a defector" to talk about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and mentioned a proposal to assassinate the Iraqi leader." - BBC (03/27/06)