David Hawkins Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I have know this for a couple of Years now, where the Hell has HE been? Looks like we will be going to War with NK now. Buckle up Boys and Girls........it's going to get a little bumpy real soon........................ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_...wh/us_us_skorea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I doubt that'll ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hawkins Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I doubt that'll ever happen. I hope you are right.........but don't count on it............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007GT Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 He'll send Hillary over to "chat" with them. They're reasonable people and will come to some sort of an understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So why is Obama ok with a nuclear Iran but not a nuclear Korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyDude Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 All countries of the world prepare for war http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/12-0...09/107764-war-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 He'll send Hillary over to "chat" with them. They're reasonable people and will come to some sort of an understanding. And then, hopefully, they'll throw her ass into a concentration camp for being too annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So why is Obama ok with a nuclear Iran but not a nuclear Korea? Becasue Iran is a Muslim nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Will Obama pay them off too? then in a few years they'll be at the door again begging for food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejrail Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Has Obama considered that maybe he's a "grave threat" to this country as we have grown to know it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCobra666 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So why is Obama ok with a nuclear Iran but not a nuclear Korea? He's not OK with either of them being nuclear. You know how they got the ability to make nukes? Richard Nixon. Another GOP stroke of stupidity! KC666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroDan Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 He's not OK with either of them being nuclear. You know how they got the ability to make nukes? Richard Nixon. Another GOP stroke of stupidity! KC666 This is not Richard Nixon's problem... God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 He's not OK with either of them being nuclear. You know how they got the ability to make nukes? Richard Nixon. Another GOP stroke of stupidity! KC666 Just curious. How did nixon give nuclear secrets away? I am aware the commander-in-shame allowed the sale of technology to china that allowed them to develop weapons and guidance systems. And it was commander-in -another world jimmy carter that allowed the ayatollah to take over Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Please, tell us, what's wrong with that? Turkey and Indonesia are "Muslim" countries and US allies. Maybe you can try to separate the religion from the politics? Where in my remark did I say there was anything wrong with being a Muslim nation? Paranoid much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ati Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Oh? Then you meant that as a positive, because it didn't seem that way, sorry! Can you please tell us all then what you meant by the comment: "Becasue Iran is a Muslim nation." I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts! Umm, sure you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odgreen001 Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Please, tell us, what's wrong with that? Turkey and Indonesia are "Muslim" countries and US allies. Maybe you can try to separate the religion from the politics? OMG - Separate religion from politics? My friend, in many of the muslim countries, religion IS the politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odgreen001 Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Not in the two I listed, and that was my point in mentioning them, they each have secular governments. According to Wikipedia there are 50 "Muslim majority" countries....here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Muslim_countries Tell me how many of those countries are truly our allies or even like us. My personal opinion is that fewer than 5 of them actually really like us, but I don't see any of them being our allies in the sense of Britian, Israel, Canada, or even Germany and France. I feel that the ones that one might consider an ally, really just tolerate us because we offer them money or maybe buy oil from a few of them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the koran basically state that if you can't convert the infadel, it is ok to enslave or kill him? I think people of the muslim faith follow their religion much greater then those of the christian faith. And again, many of the muslim countries politics is their religion. I can't think of any christian based faith that thinks we should go out and kill or enslave the non-believers if they don't repent....at least not since the crusades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_quik_pony Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 According to Wikipedia there are 50 "Muslim majority" countries....here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Muslim_countries Tell me how many of those countries are truly our allies or even like us. My personal opinion is that fewer than 5 of them actually really like us, but I don't see any of them being our allies in the sense of Britian, Israel, Canada, or even Germany and France. I feel that the ones that one might consider an ally, really just tolerate us because we offer them money or maybe buy oil from a few of them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the koran basically state that if you can't convert the infadel, it is ok to enslave or kill him? I think people of the muslim faith follow their religion much greater then those of the christian faith. And again, many of the muslim countries politics is their religion. I can't think of any christian based faith that thinks we should go out and kill or enslave the non-believers if they don't repent....at least not since the crusades. Malaysia MUST be an ally of the United States... Honeywell just sent TWO THOUSAND more American jobs their way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLOWN Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 So what. they have a secular goverments. Jeff what is so good about having a secular Goverment in Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Not in the two I listed, and that was my point in mentioning them, they each have secular governments. If Iran is a secular government, why does Ali Khamenei bear the title of "Supreme Leader of Iran"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLOWN Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Hello Jeff. Sorry but you will not be able to find the Info on moveon.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCobra666 Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Just curious. How did nixon give nuclear secrets away? I am aware the commander-in-shame allowed the sale of technology to china that allowed them to develop weapons and guidance systems. And it was commander-in -another world jimmy carter that allowed the ayatollah to take over Iran. Nixon built Iran a reactor and gave them uranium thats how. Look it up. Oh and then Ronnie Regan sold them weapons and channeled the money to the contras...strangely after the hostage crisis when they released the hostages the day he was inaugurated. Jimmie Carter, now thats interesting. IM SURE the CIA had NOTHING to do with the hostage crisis. No way they would try to throw the election by embarassing a siting president. Let see who was head of the CIA then....George Bush Senior 1975_1977...starting to see a pattern? Iran and Iraq have been pawns in a larger political game for a long long time. They know America will never figure it out because most people are too brainwashed to realize the fix is in. They are counting on you to respond the way I know you will. KC666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007GT Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 No way they would try to throw the election by embarassing a siting president. Jimmy Carter embarrassed himself and continues to do so to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odgreen001 Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Nixon built Iran a reactor and gave them uranium thats how. Look it up. Oh and then Ronnie Regan sold them weapons and channeled the money to the contras...strangely after the hostage crisis when they released the hostages the day he was inaugurated. Jimmie Carter, now thats interesting. IM SURE the CIA had NOTHING to do with the hostage crisis. No way they would try to throw the election by embarassing a siting president. Let see who was head of the CIA then....George Bush Senior 1975_1977...starting to see a pattern? Iran and Iraq have been pawns in a larger political game for a long long time. They know America will never figure it out because most people are too brainwashed to realize the fix is in. They are counting on you to respond the way I know you will. KC666 I'm not so sure about your facts on Nixon building Iran a nuclear reactor. From what i've researched, Nixon, Ford and Carter were trying to work out a nuclear program for Iran while the Shah was in power, but never built a nuclear reactor for them. From what I've read, Iran doesn't even have a nuclear reactor yet..here's a link to one of the sites I visited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran So you might want to do a little more research on your own before making a statement on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCobra666 Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I'm not so sure about your facts on Nixon building Iran a nuclear reactor. From what i've researched, Nixon, Ford and Carter were trying to work out a nuclear program for Iran while the Shah was in power, but never built a nuclear reactor for them. From what I've read, Iran doesn't even have a nuclear reactor yet..here's a link to one of the sites I visited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran So you might want to do a little more research on your own before making a statement on that. Click on the Atoms for Peace link on that Wikpedia page. We built Irans first reactor along with Pakistans. Nixon was the guy who put the Shah back on the throne and pushed their nuke program. This was while he was VP. They have had a reactor, albeit a small one, for a long time. We gave it to them and the Uranium to run it. Ike is to blame as well, but Nixon was more involved in various coups and pushing Iran to be included in the program. When he became president, Nixon continued to aide Irans develoupment: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N11/iranwire.html In March 1974, the shah announced plans to build more than 20 reactors — beginning with two at a site called Bushehr — arguing that they would cover domestic energy needs and free up oil for export. The Nixon administration was so eager to help that it sent Dixy Lee Ray, the chairwoman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, to Tehran in May 1974 to offer up her agency as a “clearinghouse” for Iranian investments, according to a recently declassified State Department memo. Ray’s team “urged the Iranian side to get on with the job of site selection [for the reactors] as soon as possible,” the memo said. A few months later, MIT got a request from the shah for a large number of Iranian students to be accepted into the next year’s nuclear engineering class — nearly doubling the size of the graduate program — recalled Edward Mason, then the head of the nuclear engineering department. A bit off topic, but From Salon Magazine: In fact, for every Richard Nixon in U.S. history, there has been a George McGovern who dared to speak truth to power. A highly decorated combat pilot in World War II, McGovern took on Nixon before Watergate, with a bold stand against the Vietnam War that allowed demagogues to spit on a true hero's patriotism. Although well ahead in the polls, Nixon was so intent on destroying his opponent in the 1972 presidential race -- in the tapes, he refers to McGovern as a "damn socialist with a blind spot for communists" Sound familiar? The times have changed the rhetoric has not. KC666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odgreen001 Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Click on the Atoms for Peace link on that Wikpedia page. We built Irans first reactor along with Pakistans. Nixon was the guy who put the Shah back on the throne and pushed their nuke program. This was while he was VP. They have had a reactor, albeit a small one, for a long time. We gave it to them and the Uranium to run it. Ike is to blame as well, but Nixon was more involved in various coups and pushing Iran to be included in the program. When he became president, Nixon continued to aide Irans develoupment: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N11/iranwire.html In March 1974, the shah announced plans to build more than 20 reactors — beginning with two at a site called Bushehr — arguing that they would cover domestic energy needs and free up oil for export. The Nixon administration was so eager to help that it sent Dixy Lee Ray, the chairwoman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, to Tehran in May 1974 to offer up her agency as a “clearinghouse” for Iranian investments, according to a recently declassified State Department memo. Ray’s team “urged the Iranian side to get on with the job of site selection [for the reactors] as soon as possible,” the memo said. A few months later, MIT got a request from the shah for a large number of Iranian students to be accepted into the next year’s nuclear engineering class — nearly doubling the size of the graduate program — recalled Edward Mason, then the head of the nuclear engineering department. A bit off topic, but From Salon Magazine: In fact, for every Richard Nixon in U.S. history, there has been a George McGovern who dared to speak truth to power. A highly decorated combat pilot in World War II, McGovern took on Nixon before Watergate, with a bold stand against the Vietnam War that allowed demagogues to spit on a true hero's patriotism. Although well ahead in the polls, Nixon was so intent on destroying his opponent in the 1972 presidential race -- in the tapes, he refers to McGovern as a "damn socialist with a blind spot for communists" Sound familiar? The times have changed the rhetoric has not. KC666 I see. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Hello Jeff. Sorry but you will not be able to find the Info on moveon.org Sorry I have a life outside of here so I haven't been around I also do not "cut and paste" but write my own views based upon what my understanding of the facts. If I'm wrong about some fact...feel free to point that out and I will be happy to re-evaluate my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyDude Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Sorry I have a life outside of here so I haven't been around I also do not "cut and paste" but write my own views based upon what my understanding of the facts. If I'm wrong about some fact...feel free to point that out and I will be happy to re-evaluate my position. Well alrighty then! That explains a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odgreen001 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 What about all the similar sorts of things in the Bible? There is nothing in the new testament that says to kill or enslave anyone. Even when they came to get Jesus out of the garden and one of his deciples tried to defend him, Jesus made him stand down. The new testament is pretty much Jesus's teachings, none of which talk about killing, hurting or enslaving anyone. In the old testament (Christians follow the new testament) God struck down many peoples...all of which tried to basically harm his chosen people...the Jews. He even killed Jews if they strayed from his word. God did have the Jews slaughter other peoples and keep some for slaves, but again, Christians follow the New Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.