> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> all establishments to inspection.
Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
bullying war rhetoric escalated.
The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
> Let them prove it.
Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
> This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
;-)
>> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
That's not reasonable.
>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid,
Wrong, but never mind.
> and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
Nope, but unlike you I try to apply the same level of moral judgment
for both sides.
>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>> all establishments to inspection.
>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I know, I was corrected earlier.
>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this
case. The US and USA even allow the inspection of very sensitive
intelligence facilities
>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
>> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>> all establishments to inspection.
>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>> Let them prove it.
>Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
>nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
>can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
>> This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
>;-)
Very effective point by point on this issue Doc. What I find a mystery
is where you find the energy...redvet
> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons,
No, America has decided that only mass weapons are a threat to us.
There's no reason we should have to wait for them to attack, they've
made their intentions clear with their words and actions. Between
the long running Iranian Hate campaigns, and their massive support of
international terrorism, we have every right to assume they'll use
a nuke the minute they get one, or give it to someone that will.
And it's their fault the west believes that, they've gone out of
their way to make us believe that.
> IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
That's an unbelievable statement.
>>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear >>> weapons.
> Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must > consider self defense.
So I guess the Iranians are building deep underground facilities for what?
Baby-milk?
The Iranians are making the same mistakes Saddam made.
A closed society will always cause the west to assume the worst case.
It would be irresponsible not to. And they think mass weapons will keep
us at bay, when i n f a c t it does exactly the opposite.
They think the N Korean example will work for them too.
But that example only makes sure the west acts ...before
another N Korea is created.
Let me just remind you that ...in the end, America will always win.
It's simple math, the nation that's closest to freedom and democracy
will rise to the top. And the ones farthest away, like Iran, are destined
to go out in a horrific blaze of glory. And soon!
For the next generation or two, America will remain
more dominant militarily than ever before, and its going
to be America's ...Golden Age!
Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>Bill wrote:
>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...Amadenijad (sp?)
has *never* indicated that he desires war with Israel but he does
respond that he would like to see, as do I, Jewish Israel off the maps (as
in no longer exist as either a nation that was foisted on their region by
Europeans or as a religion government nation)...but the war mongers *always*
report it as "Iran calls for wiping Israel off the map!"...and you pick
your language interpreters to ensure you get your desired result.
> That's not reasonable.
Correct, son, what you describe is not reasonable and it is in fact you lying.
>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
;-)
red...@lava.net wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>Bill wrote:
>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
>>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
>>>Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>>>all establishments to inspection.
>>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>>>>there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>>>Let them prove it.
>>Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
>>nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
>>can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
>>>This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>>No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
>>;-)
> Very effective point by point on this issue Doc. What I find a mystery
> is where you find the energy...redvet
>>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons,
> No, America has decided that only mass weapons are a threat to us.
> There's no reason we should have to wait for them to attack, they've
> made their intentions clear with their words and actions. Between
> the long running Iranian Hate campaigns, and their massive support of
> international terrorism, we have every right to assume they'll use
> a nuke the minute they get one, or give it to someone that will.
> And it's their fault the west believes that, they've gone out of
> their way to make us believe that.
>>IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
> That's an unbelievable statement.
>>>>there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear >>>>weapons.
>>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must >>consider self defense.
> So I guess the Iranians are building deep underground facilities for what?
> Baby-milk?
> The Iranians are making the same mistakes Saddam made.
> A closed society will always cause the west to assume the worst case.
> It would be irresponsible not to. And they think mass weapons will keep
> us at bay, when i n f a c t it does exactly the opposite.
> They think the N Korean example will work for them too.
> But that example only makes sure the west acts ...before
> another N Korea is created.
> Let me just remind you that ...in the end, America will always win.
> It's simple math, the nation that's closest to freedom and democracy
> will rise to the top. And the ones farthest away, like Iran, are destined
> to go out in a horrific blaze of glory. And soon!
> For the next generation or two, America will remain
> more dominant militarily than ever before, and its going
> to be America's ...Golden Age!
>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
.. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
>>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
>Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
>to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
>was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
>the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
>related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
>posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
>merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
>;-)
There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:10:37 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>Il 06/10/2012 02:31, Bill ha scritto:
>>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
>> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
>.. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their >non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major >Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
If people start sinking the big US carriers they'd better be ready to
be attacked with nuclear weapons.
>> he he he...sorry I can't respond to you today, son. Today
>> is "Respond
> to Liars" day...but tomorrow is "Respond to 10th Grader
> Mentality" day.
> So today & tomorrow you can answer yourself
Jeepers, Peter, now that's what you call a "vicious circle".
> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?
Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and snake oil.
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:10:37 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Il 06/10/2012 02:31, Bill ha scritto:
>>>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>>>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>>>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>>> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
>>> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
>> .. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their
>> non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major
>> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
> If people start sinking the big US carriers they'd better be ready to
> be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Depend on who fired the first shot and on the previous coalition-building phase....
If US CVN is sunk in a counterattack (that is, US of A start the shootout) and other, esp. major, allies and neutrals perceive the US initiative as really questionable, (as *will* be in the case of a republican administration....) I'm sure that the nuclear release isn't so automatic...
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:49:48 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >Bill wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> >> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >>>Bill wrote:
> >>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
> >>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
> >>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
> >> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
> >No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...
> No.
> Their head of government makes speeches.
> >>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
> >>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
> >>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
> >>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
> >>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
> >>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
> >>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
> >>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
> >>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
> >>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
> >>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
> >> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
> >Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
> >to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
> >was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
> >the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
> >related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
> >posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
> >merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
> >;-)
> There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.
Of course there is proof. You're just making it up as you go along.
Again.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
-- My people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both.
They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.
- Frederick the Great, c. 1770
Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 10:10, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
> And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?
> Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for > some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and > snake oil.
Wonder if the age of electronics, computer software, and autonomous
weaponry will change that history?
Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier with
missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:53:28 -0400, smharding <smhard...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 10:10, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>> Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
>> And have been for, what, seventy-plus years?
>> Carriers aren't invincible but they're tough targets, and the quest for >> some "magic bullet" against them seems to mostly produce hyperbole and >> snake oil.
>Wonder if the age of electronics, computer software, and autonomous
>weaponry will change that history?
Almost certainly not.
In the end every weapon system has been superceded.
>Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
>to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier with
>missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
>capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?
Ah, well if we knew what it was we wouldn't be here, we'd be out
getting paid a fortune...
> Battleships became obsolete when aircraft and aircraft carriers came
> to the fleet. Might it not be the same for the aircraft carrier > with
> missles (large numbers of them; and longer ranged and plentiful) and
> capable UAVs are part of everyone's aresenal?
> SMH
The flip side is to ask if nuclear subs, RORSATs and IRBMs made carriers obsolete long ago, but we never had the opportunity to find out. They have been a fine tool to keep small conflicts from becoming big ones.
> Il 06/10/2012 11:42, Bill ha scritto:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:10:37 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>> <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Il 06/10/2012 02:31, Bill ha scritto:
>> If people start sinking the big US carriers they'd better be ready to
>> be attacked with nuclear weapons.
> Depend on who fired the first shot and on the previous coalition-building
> phase....
> If US CVN is sunk in a counterattack (that is, US of A start the shootout)
> and other, esp. major, allies and neutrals perceive the US initiative as
> really questionable, (as *will* be in the case of a republican
> administration....) I'm sure that the nuclear release isn't so
> automatic...
Fortunately we don't rely on nuclear weapons. Besides, since 9/11 the
entire posture of the US military is turned away from mass weapons and
towards long range precision strike. And soon solid state lasers
will be small enough to be in everything. From planes, ships, UAV's
and finally from orbit.
I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
things will become ten or twenty years from now.
The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
is barely able to afford what it has.
There's really only Iran and China left. Once they go, the rest
will fall soon enough. And China is going to be conquered
by ...our capitalism, Iran too by the looks of things.
Like that old song,.....
..."our future's so bright, we gotta wear shades!"
"The Firestrike laser, announced in 2008, forms the backbone
near-term laser weapon systems from Northrop Grumman.
Combined with advanced electro optical and/or infrared sensors,
Firestrike line replaceable units and their subsystems can provide
military services with active defense, offensive precision strike
and enhanced situational awareness capabilities, all in the
same weapon system."
http://www.gizmag.com/northrop-grumman-laser/22472/
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 11:14:46 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I just don't think most people appreciate just how one-sided
>things will become ten or twenty years from now.
>The US is charging ahead while the rest of the world's military
>is barely able to afford what it has.
And their high tech, well equipped and highly trained and motivated
army is being slaughtered on the ground in Afghanistan by a bunch of
mountain men armed with AKMs and a few donkeys and who own a tea pot,
a kettle and a handful of rice per section...
Killing someone to order is easy, killing the right person requires
good intelligence as well as precise targeting.
The main problem at the moment in Pakistan is that the US drones are
slaughtering elderly ladies and their grandchildren who happen to be
next door to the Taliban 'O Group' in the next house...
Now the death of poor old Aunt Fatima is a tragedy that affects me not
one jot. I rather like the idea of the USA bombing the NWF to make
the local Pathans keep their collective heads down, and I don't pay US
taxes anyway.
But it isn't a strategy that'll lead to victory, nor will it lead to
peace...
Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:49:48 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>Bill wrote:
>>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>>><d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>>>'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>>No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...
> No.
> Their head of government makes speeches.
>>>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>>>There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
>>Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
>>to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
>>was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
>>the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
>>related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
>>posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
>>merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
>>;-)
> There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.
oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".
Uncle Steve wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Bill wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:49:48 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>><d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>>>><d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>>>>Bill wrote:
>>>>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>>>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>>>>'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
>>>No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...
>>No.
>>Their head of government makes speeches.
>>>>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>>>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>>>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>>>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>>>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>>>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>>>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>>>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>>>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>>>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>>>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>>>>There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
>>>Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
>>>to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
>>>was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
>>>the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
>>>related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
>>>posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
>>>merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
>>>;-)
>>There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.
> Of course there is proof. You're just making it up as you go along.
> Again.
Of course he is...he is a liar...habitually...on *most* of his posts.
I'd bet that *every* country that has inspections by outsiders has
denied access to facilities that inspectors wanted to inspect. Bill wants
war with Iran, and "truth is the first casualty", so he lies at every
opportunity to demonize his enemy.
;-)
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:26:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>oh sure, son...Jewish Israel will not let anyone inspect to determine
>what nuclear programs they have. Jewish Israel is not in any treaty
>limiting nuclear arms because they don't want any inspections at
>all...none...as either intrusive or "over intrusive".
And they pay the appropriate penalty.
Much the same as India...
Iran has signed the treaty and refuse to abide by the terms of it.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:28:51 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>Of course he is...he is a liar...habitually...on *most* of his posts.
>I'd bet that *every* country that has inspections by outsiders has
>denied access to facilities that inspectors wanted to inspect.
Give us a cite boy.
Because, boy, everyone who has signed lets the inspectors in.
