congratulations...

...you just nailed the two reasons we are in Iraq.

The amusment on PP is what make's this forum so great

Rory said something that most need to take to hart on this board "just agree to disagree" but then agin what fun would that be on this board if we all did that

From: "Zepp"
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:29:10 -0700
Subject: [Zepps_News] Guardian Unlimited Politics | Bush is the real
threat


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1559617,00.html

Bush is the real threat

Tony Benn
Wednesday August 31, 2005
The Guardian

Now that the US president has announced that he has not ruled out an
attack on Iran, if it does not abandon its nuclear programme, the Middle
East faces a crisis that could dwarf even the dangers arising from the
war in Iraq.

Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research centre - whether
or not a bomb was being made there - would almost certainly release
radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as a
mini-Hiroshima.

Article continues
We would be told that it had been done to uphold the principles of the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - an argument that does not stand
up to a moment's examination.

The moral and legal basis of the NPT convention, which the International
Atomic Energy Agency is there to uphold, was based on the agreement of
non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if nuclear powers
undertook not to extend nuclear arsenals and negotiate to secure their
abolition.

Since then, the Americans have launched a programme that would allow
them to use nuclear weapons in space, nuclear bunker-busting bombs are
being developed, and depleted uranium has been used in Iraq - all of
which are clear breaches of the NPT. Israel, which has a massive nuclear
weapons programme, is accepted as a close ally of the US, which still
arms and funds it.

Even those who are opposed, as I am, to nuclear weapons in every country
including Iran, North Korea, Britain and the US, accept that nuclear
power for electricity generation need not necessarily lead to the
acquisition of the bomb.

Indeed, many years ago, when the shah - who had been put on the throne
by the US - was in power in Iran, enormous pressure was put on me, as
secretary of state for energy, to agree to sell nuclear power stations
to him. That pressure came from the Atomic Energy Authority, in
conjunction with Westinghouse, who were anxious to promote their own
design of reactor.

It is easy to understand why president Bush might see the bombing of
Iran as a way to regain some of the political credibility he has lost as
a result of the growing hostility in America to the Iraq war due to the
heavy casualties suffered by US forces there .

It is inconceivable that the White House can be contemplating an
invasion of Iran, and what must be intended is a US airstrike, or
airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's
bombing of Iraq in 1981. Israel has publicly hinted that it might do the
same again to prevent Iran developing nuclear nuclear weapons.

Such an attack, whether by the US or Israel, would be in breach of the
UN Charter, as was the invasion of Iraq. But neither Bush, Sharon nor
Blair would take any notice of that.

Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will
attack Iran. Whether they are right or not, the build-up to a new war is
taking exactly the same form as it did in 2002. First we are being told
that Iran poses a military threat, because it may be developing nuclear
weapons. We are assured that the President is hoping that diplomacy
might succeed through the European negotiations which have been in
progress for some months.

This is just what we were told when Hans Blix was in Baghdad talking to
Saddam on behalf of the UN, but we now know, from a Downing Street
memorandum leaked some months ago, that the decision to invade had been
taken long before that.

That may be the position now, and I fear that if a US attack does take
place, the prime minister will give it his full support. And one of his
reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq: namely the fear that,
if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be
taken away. For, as I also learned when I was energy secretary, Britain
is entirely dependent on the US for the supply of our Trident warheads
and associated technology. They cannot even be targeted unless the US
switches on its global satellite system.

Therefore Britain could be assisting America to commit an act of
aggression under the UN Charter, which could risk a major nuclear
disaster, and doing so supposedly to prevent nuclear proliferation, with
the real motive of making it possible for us to continue to break the
NPT in alliance with America.

The irony is that we might be told that Britain must support Bush, yet
again, because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, thus
allowing him to kill even more innocent civilians.

· Tony Benn will be talking about War; Religion and politics; and
Democracy, at the Shaw Theatre in London on September 7, 8 and 9

Tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk

I think we should let the Israelies hit Iran's nuke facilities for us. They have experience.

Don't hold your breath. They let us do all the heavy lifting as well as write the checks. Sure they feel it's better our blood than their's, since we are such willing cannon fadder for protecting their interest. Sad that so many are completely blind to that fact.

Haven't you noticed that we take better care of them than we do our own U. S. citizens. The neocon complain when Veteran's, the elderly and poor in this country, ask for health care and economic assitance, but are always there with the check book and a welfare check, paid to the order of Isreal, amounting to billions annualy.

Fishy!

When the Israelis blew up the Osiraq nuclear plant in Iraq, we gave them a hard time about it.

Newsmax has linked the US to the WTC attacks based on this evidence.

Okay, I guess I'll jump into the fray and offer my own slanted opinion as to why the world is so F***ed up... The answer is RELIGION!!!It all began with the holy wars, or crusades as they have been called, pitting Christianity against the Muslim faith. Not to say that christians are more righteous in their beliefs than muslims , but had the christians bested the muslims in the crusades, there would not be any of this crap happening now. So , in my humble opinion, had the christians prevailed and wiped out islam years ago, none of the problems we are facing now would exist. If the muslim world wants to hang on to ancient notions about how to live in the modern world, (camel dung fires and veiled, stifeled women).. OK!! If they want to hang on to old world ideals, so be it! The rest of the world will progress and leave them in the backwater of humanity.. OK I've said it, so I await the flames and wrath of any and all of those who disagree with my post.

" If the muslim world wants to hang on to ancient notions about how to live in the modern world, (camel dung fires and veiled, stifeled women).. OK!! If they want to hang on to old world ideals, so be it! The rest of the world will progress and leave them in the backwater of humanity.. "

Substitute Evangelical Christian for Muslim and it still rings true. Women without choice, psuedo-science, anti-freedom, anti-democracy, etc.

Thanks Stlhead I needed a reminder of what an idiot you are.

Nookie Dreamin,

The flip side of the coin is probably equally valid. If the Muslims had only wiped out Christians and Christianity during the crusades, then Islam would be the dominant world religion today, and none of these present-day problems would be happening either?

Not flaming you, or even disagreeing, just suggesting that rational thought examines all sides of issues.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"Thanks Stlhead I needed a reminder of what an idiot you are."

You are reminded of an idiot every morning when you look in the mirror. I know, I know....hard to see yourself with your head in the sand.

TK, you need a bigger soap box cause nobody can see you standing on that one.

Good response, by the way. Keep that brain cell working over time.

Stlhd, I only need one reminder you can stop now , really!

Is today your day off from Christianity?

Maybe if stlhead and Salmo used the "right" interpretation of history, you know the only one true way to interpret history then you could understand our friend with the sparkly helmet!

"Is today your day off from Christianity?"

Why you feeling froggy?

Oh yeah I forgot that you like to dwell on gay issues from the closet.

STlhead, I am not by definition an" Evangelical christian" as a matter of fact, i guess the term used to describe someone like me would be "agnostic", but I still believe that had the "Christians" prevailed, we would not be seeing the senless slaughter of innocents all over the globe in the name of Islam...My humble opinion..

Salmo, I agree with you that , had the coin been flipped, we would all be muslims... but the point was, historically , islam is a dying religion, and the more modern way of thinking is going to inherit the earth. While I personally do not embrace a lot of the "Christian" ideals, I do have morals and know right from wrong. However, "Christian " ideals reflect a more modern way of thinking, in comparison to the Islam faith' which dictates subjugation of the masses and blind faith in Allah, who may or may not grant them life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That being said, I would much rather live as an agnostic in a "Christian" world, where I can disagree with the popular opinion, than live in the world of Islam, where the mere thought of individualism can result in DEATH!

Quote:
I still believe that had the "Christians" prevailed, we would not be seeing the senless slaughter of innocents all over the globe in the name of Islam...My humble opinion..

Nookie Dreamin,
It many not be for the name of Islam, but man has always found a reason to kill another. The Indians didn't believe in the Islam faith and look how many we killed for land, Hitler wasent either. I'm just saying to think for a second that the world would be peaceful without that religon on earth is just a dream. But ofcourse that's just my point of view.

Yeah, people are just dieing to be a part of it.