With No Evidence, The EU Kill Children!

1. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 11 years ago

   I'm sorry, but I have yet to find any evidence that Iran is building a nuke. Yet, the EU just condemned starvation and austerity to the people of Iran because it MIGHT be building a nuke.
   
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid … story.html
   
   Best quote of the article? "increase sanctions to discourage what they suspect is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons but emphasize at the same time the international community’s willingness to talk. Iran says its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."
   
   Sure, we don't KNOW if you're bad, but we'll punish you, kill your civilians, etc... BUT WE WANT TO TALK AND BE PEACEFUL!

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's just like Iraq and weapons of mass destruction...a ruse to have another war..Criminal!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Mark Ewbieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Same old game being played by the fading colonial powers.  It stinks.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            thumbs up Mark!

            replyreport
   2. 52

      Shinkickerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. Where is the dialogue, where are the channels of communication? How often do we see footage and interviews with Iranians on TV news? It seems like there is a complete blackout. There should be regular reports coming out of Iran but we hear nothing.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Vladimir Uhriposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Is it not enough that suicide bombers killed innocent? Are we waiting for evidence when Israel will be wipe out from the map? The threatens is enough evidence. They should expect reaction.
         General GeorgeSadda  seen mass destruction weapons. He was general of Saddam Hussein. Why BBC and CNN did not let him talk? By the way he became Christian.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Iranians killed some people? Cuz... I could've sworn that that was in Iraq and Afghanistan....
            
            ... places have names...

            replyreport
   3. 58

      calpol25posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      All these attacks over Iran are for one thing only - OIL!! So they are not bothered about a nuke more concerned in seizing the oil fields and reserves

      replyreport
   4. 86

      SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Iran has a simple way out of this - let UK, US, Europe, China, Russia all come in and inspect these alleged sites - invite Fox news, BBC, CNN etc along to film the high profile inspections and let everyone go anywhere they want, even to suspect sites.
      
      While I agree with what you say, there probably isn't enough evidence - Iran can stop this now - why don't they? Why is there all this brinkmanship? If they are not hiding anything why are they not more open?

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Um Iraq did that..and it didn't turn out too well for them!  How many times will the American fall for the same bulls**t?  This country has the brains of a box of rocks!

         replyreport
         1. 86

            SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No Iraq didn't. You find me the press coverage of open inspections of alleged WMD sites in Iraq and I'll admit I am wrong - but it didn't happen - Hussein's government denied having WMDs but did not bring in objective and open inspections.
            
            Again - if Iran brings in objective and open inspections Europe and the US cannot do anything - so again - why does Iran not have open and objective inspections with plenty of Western Press along?
            
            I'm actually against sanctions - they have been proven never to work - but I would also like to see open inspections.
            
            BTW I am doing my own objective research - there are lots of reports that inspections were continuing, but that Iraq "were not cooperating fully and did not allow any examination of scientists outside Iraq" - this doesn't justify war I agree - but I simply do not understand why Iraq (and now Iran) will not fully co-operate...
            
            Iran has the opportunity to make the Western World look very 'silly' by openly allowing their 'enemies' to come in and then by fully co-operating. When nothing is found, the US, UK and other EU nations will find it a lot harder to pull the same kind of sanctions again.....
            
            
            Here's an interesting article:
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 68296.html
            
            The problem is that both sides are pig-headed. Iran offers an olive branch but then doesn't reply to some requests - the US and EU use this as a weapon against Iran.
            
            Both are playing games - sadly it's a political game that will harm innocent people - and the Iran government must take a share of the blame.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               IRAQ denied WMD's BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T HAVE ANY!!!!!

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You are not answering my question. WHY DID IRAQ and WHY ARE IRAN not allow(ing) FULL INSPECTIONS?
                  
                  It's a simple question. No one has provided any viable answer.
                  
                  I've provided you with the relevant articles stating that IRAQ denied WMD - I'm not disputing this fact. I'm just asking a simple question....

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Iraq did allow full inspections.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Not according to the research I did - according to many reports they were "were not cooperating fully and did not allow any examination of scientists outside Iraq" - I can't find one report that indicates that there was full and open co-operation.
                        
                        And Iran certinaly aren't fully co-operating.
                        
                        I'm not saying that the EU, US etc are right to sanction - it just so easily could be cleared up if Iran fully co-operated and let Western Press and Western Governments full access - the more open it is, the less chance the US and EU have of making a case against Iran!
                        
                        It would be so easy for Iran to do this and there'd be a lot of egg on the US and EUs face....

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           U.N. weapons inspectors entered Iraq on November 27th, 2002.
                           
                           Source: PBS Newshour, citing Associated Press, quoting UN Weapons Inspector Dimitri Perricos
                           
                           Inspectors searched for illegal weapons, finding few and only minor violations, "no evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program," and "no mobile facilities for producing weapons."
                           
                           Source: Arms Control Today, the publication of the Arms Control Association, citing UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix
                           
                           Their work still incomplete but progressing, weapons inspectors fled Iraq in March 2003 when the U.S. advised them to leave, because an American attack was imminent.
                           
                           Source: USA Today, carrying an Associated Press article, citing Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
                           
                           After the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration would not allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.
                           
                           Source: Sydney Morning Herald, quoting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              awww, no response?

                              replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Let me put it to you this way, if the UN said it wanted to do a full inspection of US armories to see if they had any illegal weaponry would we allow them? Offcourse not especially if we knew the UN was specifically out to get us as Iran knows the US is (BTW in 2009 a civilian stumbled into a massive cache of illegal weaponry in an american arsenal including white phosphorous weaponisation and cluster bombs)No one wants to have their dirty lundry aired, if individuals have the right to privacy why not nations?

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Well - if the UN had sanctions against the US that was going to cause millions of children to die - then YES I would want full disclosure.

                        replyreport
                  3. 61

                     Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Hello, maybe they did and the disinformation machine served it's purpose by convincing the population that those countries were being deliberately obstructive, in order for the aggressors to gain popular support for a war. Only later to find, well not to find as the case might be, that there were no WMD's.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        The International Atomic Energy Agency is many things, including largely ineffectual, but I would not call them a disinformation machine.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           If they are "largely ineffectual"  than the information they publicise is unlikely, in most circumstances, to be considered reliable. How would you describe "ineffectual or unreliable" information?
                           
                           Certainly not cogent.

                           replyreport
      2. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Iraq let the UN inspectors in. Hans Blix said "nope, no nukes"...
         
         ... didn't stop us.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If you watch any TV coming out of Russia you will note that the  Russians have aired footage of Iranian diplomats stating that they are fully prepared for, and open to inspections. From any nation.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I actually linked to an article in the NYT where they have stated that - the problem is stating it is a long way from allowing it. (according to the US at least!!!)
            
            We could go around in circles on this argument - who do you beleive -the US, Iran, Russia etc - personally I feel they are all bending the truth for their own reasons - and we'll probably never know the truth whether we're US, Brisith, Chinese or Iranian!!!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               We could go around in circles on this argument - who do you beleive -the US, Iran, Russia etc - personally I feel they are all bending the truth for their own reasons - and we'll probably never know the truth whether we're US, Brisith, Chinese or Iranian!!!
               
               That's an interesting comment, why do you believe them? My voice is one of scepticism, not acceptance.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought I was being the ultimate sceptic! I don't beleive anyone is telling the full truth - there's a grain of truth from every side...

                  replyreport
         2. 81

            psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The inspectors disagree.  And you'd think they'd know.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Just like Iraq, ermm.  Blix anyone.

               replyreport
   5. 81

      Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      +!

      replyreport
2. 81

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Except, of course, that the Iranian leadership almost certainly is building a nuke--and might be crazy enough to use it.  Which would also not be great for some kiddies.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Please present evidence thay are building a nuke we cant sentence on suspicion of something, its ridicolous.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         awww, look! She didn't provide ANY evidence!

         replyreport
   2. 56

      Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Like we did in Japan?

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up your claim.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         They brought the raw material, the equipment and are enriching Uranium in quantities and of a type with no other plausible use.  e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/world … ergyagency
         
         I will put down $100 if you want to make a bet, specifically that Iran will be found with a viable nuclear warhead or bomb (non missile) within 5 years.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            For those of you unfamiliar with enriching uranium:
            
            Enriched uranium is necessary for all sorts of nuclear reactions. Uranium is naturally U-238, but you need a massive amount of U-235 to be able to reach a critical mass.
            
            In a bomb, this critical mass is left alone to explode. In a reactor, it is carefully managed to not explode.
            
            Translation?
            
            Enriched uranium proves nothing at all whatsoever.
            
            LOLOL - did you even read the article you posted? Read this:
            
            "A spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, Gill Tudor, said Monday that the agency could confirm that Iran has begun enriching uranium at the Fordo plant.
            
            “All nuclear material in the facility remains under the agency’s containment and surveillance,” she added in a statement. The agency’s inspectors have routinely monitored the plant’s construction since its unveiling.
            
            Ms. Tudor added that Iran was enriching uranium at the underground plant to 20 percent purity — a level that can make fuel for a research reactor in Tehran. But that concentration is also far easier to make into fuel for an atom bomb, compared to uranium enriched at Iran’s sprawling main plant in the desert at Natanz. New details of the Fordo plant’s operation will likely be contained in a technical report on Iran to the agency’s board, which is due out late next month. While Iran has often exaggerated its nuclear abilities, nuclear experts say the Fordo operation seems quite genuine."
            
            ROFL

            replyreport
            1. 81

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Uranium enriched to 20% is for making bombs.  And we know they are producing it.
               
               But I am just taking the work of independent nuclear experts here, not a regime whose head recently threatened to blow up ships in international waters.
               
               What am I thinking.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  THIS IS NOT TRUE
                  
                  YOU NEED 90% + U-235 TO GET BOMB-GRADE URANIUM
                  
                  I knew this OFF HAND because I researched it in High School, and ...
                  
                  YOU'RE OWN ARTICLE SAYS THIS:
                  
                  "... bomb-grade fuel, where the concentrations of uranium 235 are raised to around 90 percent."
                  
                  Sure, you can go from 20% to 90% easily, but it's still 70% away! NO WHERE in your citation do they claim that they are going from 20% to 90%.
                  
                  No where.
                  
                  Quit making up falsehoods, and realize that you're demanding we go to war over something that we have thousands of.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, because the writing is already on the wall.

            replyreport
   4. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Other than the hype and bullshit which is transmitted by US and UK media, what evidence do you have that the Iranian government are "Crazy" enough to use a nuke. History shows us that the US is the one that may be crazy enough to go the whole hog.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I read the underlying report from the inspectors and found it very convincing.  that being the closest thing to primary data any of us have.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I read the report, too. However, I did not find it convincing.  I also found that, no where in the report was AMDJ's mental stability a primary focus or indeed mentioned at all. We are all entitled to "opinions" though.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I was convinced and thought they showed very little bias. See also their report on Israel who almost certain already have 100s of nukes.  But they seem to be immune to censure.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It's very difficult to detect bias, when only one side of the story is depicted.  Yes, apparently Israel have hundreds of nukes. I have also read some months ago that the weapons inspectors (during the eighties) tried to monitor Israel and their ambitions. (I will find the link for you, you'll have to give me a few minutes though it was bookmarked on my old laptop) However, Israel would not allow the inspectors full access, which is apparently why we are unable to accurately state how may nukes Israel have, or indeed, confirm absolutely that they have them. Double standards??

                  replyreport
3. 60

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   Why hide something, if there is nothing to hide?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We said the same thing about Iraq.
      
      Hundreds of thousands of people died because you are presuming guilt instead of innocence.
      
      Kind of reminds me of the witch hunts.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I actually agree with this - but Iran is still not being open? why?
         
         Another question I asked on another forum entry.
         
         Iran say they need Nuclear power for electric. OK sounds good - but why? They have huge stock piles of oil that produces cheap electric - if they are investing billions to produce Electric, why Nuclear power - why not a safe power (solar, wind etc)?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I actually agree with this - but Iran is still not being open? why?
            
            Perhaps for the same reasons as Israel, but apparently they should be
            above any suspicion.
            
            They have huge stock piles of oil that produces cheap electric - Yes, they appear to sell quite a lot of it.
            
            why Nuclear power - why not a safe power (solar, wind etc)?
            
            Perhaps like the US and the UK, they'll only invest a "little" in clean energy.
            
            The double standards are staggering.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hollie, how many nukes are YOU hiding?
               
               Let me inside your home so that I can go through all of your documents and personal belongings!

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            SimeyC, how many nukes are YOU hiding?
            
            If you don't let me in to your house to look around all of your belongings - including everything you've ever done on your computer - I will kill your family.
            
            ... Why aren't they letting people in? Maybe because they shouldn't.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Perspycacious, How many nukes are in YOUR home.
      
      Let me into your house so I can search through all of your things.
      
      Or else I'll kill your family.
      
      Oh, by the way, If I find ANYTHING suspicious, I'll use it as MORE evidence to kill you later.
      
      ... see why they're a bit hesitant?

      replyreport
4. 81

   Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago

   One of the many things I don't understand is why shouldn't Iran have a bomb? Who appointed the US and their spineless hangers on, UK and France, as the world's policemen?
   
   Why is worse for Iran to have a bomb than say Israel, Pakistan or the US?
   
   IF my vote counted for anything I would say politicians should do their job.  Number one is to look after the economy.  It is NOT to go farting around the gulf in silly toy warships looking for trouble.
   
   The problem is... they can't fix the economy and they need to justify their military spend.
   
   The good thing is that the majority of people are too stupid, ignorant, or wilfully obtuse to understand. 
   
   Meanwhile in Iran there will be people like you and me, and children too, waiting and wondering when the US will start dropping it's apparently legal munitions of indiscriminate death and destruction.
   
   I am sick of the hypocrisy, the lies and the terror - and it largely comes from 'our' side, not the supposed enemy.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that no one should be able to tell a sovereign nation what to do - but the fact is that it happens, and most of it is due to global agreements - sadly some countries (US, UK etc.) use this as an excuse to create political change which is wrong.
      
      Sadly every nation is out for its own interests and the bottom line is that Iran feel that they should have the power to do what they want despite signing world treaties - the US decide that Iran shouldn't have this - and voila you have a huge political argument that involves a lot of brinkmanship.
      
      Both governments are wrong - the US happens to be more powerful so can get more of 'what they want' and therefore I guess you can say is 'more' wrong - the sad thing is that we all suffer....

      replyreport
5. 81

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Also, who is telling a sovereign nation what to do?
   
   A group of sovereign nations is deciding not to buy Iranian oil.  That is their right.
   
   Bombs aside, the money goes not so much to feed children as to a regime with a horrendous record on human rights.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If it were that simple, we supply and maintain dictators all around the world. i sincerely hope that Iran does have a nuke and a method of delivery, butt hat they will use it wisely (I think they will as they know otherwsie their country will be wiped off the map) they can use to ensure that no foreign power intervenes in its affairs.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You hope they will use a nuclear warhead "wisely"?
         
         I wouldn't even trust my own nation to do that. I didn't trust our allies to and voted for the guys that made NZ nuke-free.
         
         An action we have been economically punished for every since--but them's the breaks.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            WAit your a Kiwi? huh now I have to treat you better cos your close eneough to my current location to kill me . Wellington. Well I figure if it will avoid a war then it would be positive.

            replyreport
6. 59

   dadibobsposted 11 years ago

   It stands to reason Hollie Thomas, if they can stone their women without a trial, and execute enyone for basically anything, what regard would they hold our children in?
   
   I don't think it's right for our nations to dictate terms to others, but if you were stood in a school yard, and you saw a bully picking up a weapon, surely you would intervene? maybe even only to hide the weapon?
   
   To me it's all about risk assessment.
   
   A country who kills their own people, will not hesitate to kill ours.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Dadibobs, my first name is Hollie You appear to take everything you read in our media as "fact" Although I'm not disputing that our media do have the ability to do a great job when it comes to reporting events, they are heavily politicised. I think you should be more discerning when it comes to the British media and their " reporting" of Iran. (sometimes there's an agenda, you know!)
      
      You also appear blissfully unaware of what is happening in our own country. Young men and women have been shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan, given their lives and limbs for wars that nobody can make any real sense of. (unless you think about it) and you suggest that Iran doesn't care about our citizens. Look a bit closer to home.
      
      Also think about the way the US can "arrange" to have UK citizens deported for trial in that country, when they haven't even committed an offence in this country. Yep, the British Government is fighting really hard to protect "our" citizens.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      fpherj48posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      WE (the U.S.) kill OUR OWN PEOPLE.  Never heard of Capital Punishment?  We merely precede it all with Trials by Monkeys and we don't use stoning.  Same thing with a different twist.

      replyreport
7. 59

   dadibobsposted 11 years ago

   The double standards are amazing, i cannot come up with a solution for it all.
   
   The main defence against a nuclear attack, is the ability to retaliate.
   
   I hope this is all they want, maybe our governments aren't prepared to take that chance though.

   replyreport
8. 59

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   Has nothing to do with nukes or nuke power. Think they can say it is about oil, gas about the fact that Iran is the only country in the middle east that the US does not control, that it is about the US dollar
   as the only currency anyone can buy oil with accept Iran, about depriving China of oil and gas?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Vladimir Uhriposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think all you who are promoting socialistic hate propaganda should move out of US.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What an original line that is, did you come up with it by yourself? I understand you dont like socialism having ecaped the Union (one of my parents did too) but there is nothing hatefull or socialist about this conversation except your random labelling.
         I think if you have a problem with my right to free speech you should leave the US.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Vladimir, you make not like what another has to say, but that does not make it hate speech. This is not Israel, you cannot get away with the "you are a self hating..."

         replyreport
9. 59

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   Israel calls for war on Iran everyday. They want the US to do it like Iraq. Iran and Syria are the only two countries left that can stop their plans to expand Israel to a 'greater Israel'.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Knol, do the Rothchilds have major holdings, so to speak, in Iran and Syria. Just wondering.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         'As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank:
         
         Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran
         
         Then along came the convenient terror of 9-11 and soon Iraq and Afghanistan had been added to the list, leaving only five countries without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family:
         
         Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran
         
         We all know how fast the Central Bank of Benghazi was set up.
         
         The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:
         
         Cuba, North Korea, Iran.
         
         
         
         
         http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/5580 … s-in-2011-
         
         There is a pattern!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            +1

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Not to be a jerk, but this is what that guy cited as his source:
            
            http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum … 680855/pg1

            replyreport
10. 59

    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    "Vladimir Uhri escaped from communistic Czechoslovakia by swimming across the Adriatic sea"
    "I think all you who are promoting socialistic hate propaganda should move out of US."
    Welcome to the US. Been here how long and already kicking me out of my own country. You will make a good American.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Vladimir Uhriposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       knolyourself. I am not sure you understood my comment. I am very concern about this country.

       replyreport
11. 76

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    North Korea has Nukes!  No doubt about it!  They do not have oil!  South Korea is a good ally of the U.S.!  We are not worried that North Korea that does posess Nuclear arms could not wipe South Korea off the map?

    replyreport
12. 59

    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    "BIS (Bank for International Settlements) is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds. [14]
    
    BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France."
    I don't take much in David Icke, but the Rothchilds are one of the eight banking families that run the western world.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Who wodda thunk it?

       replyreport
13. 66

    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    Some of the same neocons who got us into Iraq are beating the drums on Iran. And they are making the same mistake as in the case of Iraq-claiming that if Iran is working on nuclear weapons we have no choice but to attack. Then of course they lied, claiming that Iraq had WMD. There are options other than a Bush "preemptive strike" to deal with Iran, whether or not it has nuclear weapons. We survived USSR and China's nuclear weapons for 60 years or so without military action. It's not an open and shut case that we or Israel has to attack Iraq if we establish that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Evan is correct that at this point we don't know whether Iran has embarked on developing nuclear weapons or not.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       We don't know, Ralph. That's the gist. I don't really believe that the US want to go to war with Iran, it would be disastrous,  even more so than Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I believe that Israel do. I also think that Obama want's to avoid this catastrophe, and will heavily sanction Iran in order to do so, but also to appease Israel. I still believe that will be a massive error. More easily said than done, I know, but if I was Obama, I'd tell Israel to shove it. Without the US, Israel is a puppy, trying to be a lion and for all the wrong reasons.

       replyreport
14. 63

    maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

    America as well as Israel have enormous interests in entering into war with Iran. The examples given by their actions in Iraq and Libya speak loudly about their motivation.

    replyreport