Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL
http://tinyurl.com/iransanctionsactofwar
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/23/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of-war/
Additional via http://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
Honest truth
Let the Iranians declare war.
--
“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any
other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I
should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most
essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most
glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire
were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to
three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more
and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”
- John Adams, Second President of the United States
last_per...@yahoo.com
> > Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
>
> Let the Iranians declare war.
Israel will be target #1.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Why should the Iranians declare war on Israel? They are deterred by
the certainty of an immediate conventional *and* at least potential
nuclear counter-attack, the former justified. At present wouldn't the
Israelis even welcome an Iranian attack? Iran has no capacity to
invade israel. Its attacks would be limited to rockets and a few
aircraft with conventional warheads on which Israel and the US have
been gathering intelligence on for years. They would be the first
targets for the IAF and anti-missile systems are in place. Israel's
best chance at dragging the US into an attack on Iran is if Iran makes
the first strike. Yes, the government at least would be as happy as
the Mossad men dancing on the roof watching the twin towers inferno to
be given such opportunities to shut down it's greatest strategic
opponent in the region.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:> http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/23/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of...
>
> Additional viahttp://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
Read this, ladies and gentlemen:
Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
April 23rd, 2010 | Author: Patriot
Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/04/22/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of-war/
Posted By Rep. Ron Paul On April 22, 2010
Before the US House of Representatives, April 22, 2010, Statement on
Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability and Divestment Act.
I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR
2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment
Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and
to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on
Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on
this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002
all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the
United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one-trillion-dollar
war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely
be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are
astonishing.
We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports
that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United
States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the
claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and
attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda – the UN
chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence
that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on
enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their
war so the truth did not matter much.
We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford
to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where
have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice’s oft-repeated quip about Iraq, that we cannot wait
for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud?
We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war
against Iran for the benefit of special interests.
Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary
level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US
Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear
weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make
one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on
Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though,
so it is important and necessary to point them out.
Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for
sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on
Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those
pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-
stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for
war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to “work” – to
change the regime – war became the only remaining regime-change
option.
This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to
war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran
necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war
according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote
for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to
turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.
Count 1
***
Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
that treaty.
Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf
Here's something from the American public network, PBS, you might have
something similar in Australia....
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/background.html
(...)
the dissidents' claim that Iran had a covert nuclear program proved to be
true. The hidden sites -- a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a
heavy-water plant in Arak -- were later confirmed by a U.N. monitoring group
and the Iranian government,
(...)
The U.N. group that watches over the world's nuclear programs to make sure
they don't become nuclear weapons programs is the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Countries, like Iran, who have signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are required to notify the IAEA about their
nuclear facilities.
***
For roughly 18 years Iran conducted nuclear research from facilities it was
supposed to declare, and Iran admitted to these violations in 2002, after
which Iran signed the 'Additional Protocols' to the NPT, these protocols
were crafted in response to Iran's violations.
America's crazy Uncle, Ron Paul, is wrong again.
Uncle Toad
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f440b29f-8812-4494...@w32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 9:48 am, NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL <NOWARS_FORISR...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> > Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/iransanctionsactofwar
>
> >http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/23/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of...
>
> > Additional viahttp://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
>
> Read this, ladies and gentlemen:
>
> Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
> April 23rd, 2010 | Author: Patriot
> Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
>
> URL to
I voted for Ron Paul as a write-in in the past presidential elections. He's
a good man who says it like it truly is.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I still have a big RP for President sticker on one of my cars. It
will stay there.
Still looks great.
Uncle Toad
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38c7f18-c9ea-44c2...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
The Sec of State here tried pulling a fast one by diassociating Ron Paul's
name as a "qualified" write-in candidate. By popular demand (several
petitions) his name was allowed at the last minute, just about 7 or 8 days
before the election. Without spending a second's worth of time he still got
around 1% of the popular vote in this state. Imagine if people got behind
him, and truly worked his campaign, like the Democrats and the Republicans
do.
The U.S. would be pulling out of a lot of places by this time. All the money
saved in defending out "ally" Israel would go for real American domestic
causes, and large excessive gov would be getting whittled down as we speak.
coaste...@yahoo.com
He's a fine man. The Republicans ought to run him six years from now.
They won't because he's a loose cannon in their eyes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> ***
> Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
> that treaty.
> ***
>
> Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
Do you think you know that from the information before us, Ratner?
What does "found in violation of that treaty" mean to you? Anything at
all? Do "findings" mean anything to you? Does it mean only that the
IAEA has been wringing its hands? Or that third parties have been
writing condemnatory articles?
Or does it mean that the Iranians have somehow been hauled before some
sort of a treaty enforcement tribunal, found liable for breach of the
contract and thus formally punishable by the UN? I don't know the
answer but I surely wouldn't bet on you over Rep. Ron Paul. He's a
disciplined and systematic thinker. No one has ever accused you of
that.
last_per...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Unfortunately, he's also getting up in age. Encouraging to see he
attracts
a lot of youth.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He's the victim of an uneducated public. It takes the great herd a
long time
to come around to new ways.
coaste...@yahoo.com
It's saddening to have to admit it but the vast American lower middle
to middle class have little to no understanding of what happens
outside of personal circumstance. Ignorance and lack of life
experience are the problems make them vulnerable. I don't know how it
can be changed without attacking the interests which mislead them. Can
you imagine the difficulties of actually educating them? They're so
easily manipulated as to be fair game for snake oil purveyors from
fire and brimstone preachers to the gun and Israel Lobbies. Maybe if
only their women were permitted to participate in politics we'd get
better performance from them as democratic electors, but I tend to
like women and am thus probably not objective.
Uncle Toad
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2cb0672-9c80-4b56...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
----------
>He's the victim of an uneducated public. It takes the great herd a
>long time
>to come around to new ways.
No argument there. The great masses are for the large part made up of idiots
and morons -- look at how they follow the collective Judaic drivel and
blather about Israel and Zionism. Duh!
Count 1
On Apr 24, 7:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***
> Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
> that treaty.
> ***
>
> Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
Do you think you know that from the information before us, Count 1?
***
Yes.
It's not a debatable point, benjie. The whole point of the 'additional
protocols', which Iran signed, was to respond to Iran admitting they were
inviolation of their NPT obligations. This isn't 'news', these violations
were exposed in 2002. Ron Paul is totally incorrect.
He is, like a lot of Americans, merely confused. Iran has not been found to
be in non-compliance since then, even though the IAEA hasn't given them a
clean bill of health, and there is no evidence of an active weapons program.
Many people think that means Iran hasn't done anything wrong, but that is
erroneous, and that is why they signed the Additional Protocols to the NPT.
For 18 years Iran conducted nuclear research and development they were
obligated to disclose to the IAEA and they didn't. Simple fact.
docremington
Uncle Toad wrote:
> The U.S. would be pulling out of a lot of places by this time. All the money
> saved in defending out "ally" Israel would go for real American domestic
> causes,
>
Like servicing mexican "palestinians", who costs to California alone
some $10 billion yearly, compared to $3 bln. of US military aid to
Israel. Work harder, gents, Mexico won't forget your effort, hopefully.
Uncle Toad
"docremington" <docrem...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:26001a8b-61b8-4146...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Ron Paul, the subject of the thread, wouldn't do that; he's against such
unneeded monitory hand-outs. If you could follow a thread you'd know that,
but your a fucking idiot!
We were discussing Ron Paul as a political leader, and his policies,
somewhere in translation you lost the plot. What else is new? You're stupid!
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae475245-695e-4e0c...@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 7:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> > Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
> > that treaty.
> > ***
>
> > Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
Here I replace my analysis which you clipped for the sole reason that
you can't reply:
Do you think you know that from the information before us, Ratner?
What does "found in violation of that treaty" mean to you? Anything
at
all? Do "findings" mean anything to you? Does it mean only that the
IAEA has been wringing its hands? Or that third parties have been
writing condemnatory articles?
Or does it mean that the Iranians have somehow been hauled before
some
sort of a treaty enforcement tribunal, found liable for breach of the
contract and thus formally punishable by the UN? I don't know the
answer but I surely wouldn't bet on you over Rep. Ron Paul. He's a
disciplined and systematic thinker. No one has ever accused you of
that.
>
> Do you think you know that from the information before us, Count 1?
> ***
>
> Yes.
Yes, but you can't respond specifically to what I wrote above?
>
> It's not a debatable point, benjie. The whole point of the 'additional
> protocols', which Iran signed, was to respond to Iran admitting they were
> inviolation of their NPT obligations. This isn't 'news', these violations
> were exposed in 2002. Ron Paul is totally incorrect.
Not responsive. Paul is very likely correct. Unless you can answer the
questions I've raised the issue remains open. Additional protocols
aren't findings. They are, I suppose, an amendment to the Treaty.
>
> He is, like a lot of Americans, merely confused. Iran has not been found to
> be in non-compliance since then,
I could be wrong but I don't think Iran has ever been declared to have
been in violation by any body equipped to make a judicial finding and
to punish the violation. I don't think you do either as you clipped my
argument in a fashion which for you indicates embarrassment.
even though the IAEA hasn't given them a
> clean bill of health, and there is no evidence of an active weapons program.
Does the IAEA have a court division?
> Many people think that means Iran hasn't done anything wrong, but that is
> erroneous, and that is why they signed the Additional Protocols to the NPT.
As a matter of logic, the signing of new protocols doesn't mean a
wrong was done. You get to that in a tribunal with the jurisdiction to
try and punish wrongs.
> For 18 years Iran conducted nuclear research and development they were
> obligated to disclose to the IAEA and they didn't. Simple fact.
If true, that's no finding. Paul is correct. No court of equivalent of
a court has ruled on guilt and punishment. Go back and look at what I
wrote and see if you can think like a lawyer for a minute or two.
coaste...@yahoo.com
So your logic is that we should raise the Zionist dole to above $10
billion? Or can we expect you to vote for cutting both to zero?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "docremington" <docreming...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
What's really wonderful about Congressman Paul is his sterling
character. Were he in the oval office his record would be one of
intelligence and candor. I differ with some of his political theory,
but I could probably live with that for a term or two if we could put
him there to get things sorted out. The perfect time for that would be
what will probably Obama's second term. By then we will have turned to
the incredible task of cutting the deficit without a default or a vast
loss in value of the dollar.
Count 1
On Apr 30, 9:52 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae475245-695e-4e0c...@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 7:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> > Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
> > that treaty.
> > ***
>
> > Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
Here I replace my analysis which you clipped for the sole reason that
you can't reply:
***
And here I replace my original text which answered your questions before you
asked them, which you'd have known if you had read them rather than clip
them for the sole reason that they prove Ron Paul - and by extension you -
wrong.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf
Here's something from the American public network, PBS, you might have
something similar in Australia....
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/background.html
(...)
the dissidents' claim that Iran had a covert nuclear program proved to be
true. The hidden sites -- a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a
heavy-water plant in Arak -- were later confirmed by a U.N. monitoring group
and the Iranian government,
(...)
The U.N. group that watches over the world's nuclear programs to make sure
they don't become nuclear weapons programs is the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Countries, like Iran, who have signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are required to notify the IAEA about their
nuclear facilities.
****
> It's not a debatable point, benjie. The whole point of the 'additional
> protocols', which Iran signed, was to respond to Iran admitting they were
> inviolation of their NPT obligations. This isn't 'news', these violations
> were exposed in 2002. Ron Paul is totally incorrect.
Not responsive. Paul is very likely correct. Unless you can answer the
questions I've raised the issue remains open. Additional protocols
aren't findings. They are, I suppose, an amendment to the Treaty.
****
Are you retarded? "The dissidents claim that Iran had a COVERT nuclear
program PROVED to be true."
How much simpler do you need it to be?
> He is, like a lot of Americans, merely confused. Iran has not been found
> to
> be in non-compliance since then,
I could be wrong but I don't think Iran has ever been declared to have
been in violation by any body equipped to make a judicial finding and
to punish the violation. I don't think you do either as you clipped my
argument in a fashion which for you indicates embarrassment.
***
You are wrong, in 2002 the IAEA described Iran to be in **violation** of
it's safeguard agreements.
You can actually **read** and **learn** all about it here. When you're done
forward a copy to Ron Paul so he doesn't look like just another misinformed
American politician.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf
(...)
"In 2002, the agency began investigating allegations that Iran had conducted
clandestine nuclear activities; the IAEA ultimately reported that some of
these activities had violated Tehran's safeguards agreement." (Page 1,
Introduction)
(...)
***
And I know what high regard you hold UN resolutions....
(...)
The most recent Security Council resolution (1835), adopted September 27,
2008, requires Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA's investigation of its
nuclear activities, suspend its uranium enrichment program, suspend its
construction of a heavy-water reactor and related projects, and ratify the
Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement.
(...)
***
Iran continues to be in violation of this resolution. For shame, eh?
Uncle Toad
On May 1, 8:21 am, "Uncle Toad" <unC_T...@nogmail.com> wrote:
> "docremington" <docreming...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:26001a8b-61b8-4146...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Uncle Toad wrote:
> >> The U.S. would be pulling out of a lot of places by this time. All the
> >> money
> >> saved in defending out "ally" Israel would go for real American
> >> domestic
> >> causes,
>
> > Like servicing mexican "palestinians", who costs to California alone
> > some $10 billion yearly, compared to $3 bln. of US military aid to
> > Israel. Work harder, gents, Mexico won't forget your effort, hopefully.
>
> Ron Paul, the subject of the thread, wouldn't do that; he's against such
> unneeded monitory hand-outs. If you could follow a thread you'd know that,
> but your a fucking idiot!
>
> We were discussing Ron Paul as a political leader, and his policies,
> somewhere in translation you lost the plot. What else is new? You're
> stupid!
*_*_*_*
soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.palestine
>What's really wonderful about Congressman Paul is his sterling
>character. Were he in the oval office his record would be one of
>intelligence and candor. I differ with some of his political theory,
>but I could probably live with that for a term or two if we could put
>him there to get things sorted out. The perfect time for that would be
>what will probably Obama's second term. By then we will have turned to
>the incredible task of cutting the deficit without a default or a vast
>loss in value of the dollar.
I voted for him for many reasons but first and foremost was his stellar
character. I hated how my state's political leaders (from both parties)
treated his candidacy, as if it were some kind of a joke.
I did not support Obama, and I thought McCain's running-mate (a heartbeat
from the highest office) was obviously a very loose cannon; given McCain's
age she was too iffy for my vote.
It hurts me to see that she is climbing on the "tea party" bandwagon now --
what a travesty -- and she may even get elected as some kind of federal
dog-catcher in 2004.
For some time I have lost confidence in both parties, even before the 'tea
party' movements came into being. I still often vote for the Democratic
candidate but usually for high-standing morality issues -- hating the ways
the conservative Republicans lie through their collective teeth more often
than not. Obama is doing okay but I don't see him for more than one term.
Ron Paul as an honest person would be a great president in 2014. Let's hope
that the bowel movement known as Sarah Pallen is proven to be the idiot she
truly is before the 2014 campaigning starts. I fear that most voters can't
see her foibles and only hear her espousing the views of so many
disenfranchised voters -- and these people will vote her into an office she
is unqualified to hold (gasp). I fear what she can and probably will do more
harm than what I saw George Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney did quite effectively
in the last admin.
Our best presidents have been Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts,
Eisenhower, and possibly Jimmy Carter.
Good lord... we need someone of that caliber now. Ron Paul is right there,
but most people won't or can't see it.
coaste...@yahoo.com
This comes from:
http://www.allbusiness.com/sector-92-public-administration/national/1187444-1.html
Problems of enforcement: Iran, North Korea, and the NPT.
By Choe, Julia
Publication: Harvard International Review
Date: Jun 22 2006 12:00AM 2006
At first glance, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) seems to
offer a concrete solution to the problem posed by nuclear weaponry. As
the most widely accepted arms-control agreement, the NPT attempts to
codify the prevention of arms proliferation among states. However, a
major weakness of the NPT lies
in the enforcement of its policies. This weakness has been highlighted
by the current defiance of two states and has brought into question
the overall effectiveness of the treaty. Iran's continuing non-
cooperation emphasizes the problems of measuring compliance and of
determining the course of action to take toward uncooperative states.
North Korea's past actions and withdrawal from the NPT question the
treaty's usefulness as a means of coping with states that no longer
find abiding by the agreement worthwhile.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Both cases represent the NPT's ineffectiveness in establishing a
consistent and forceful system for preventing nuclear proliferation.
Surely future efforts should promote stronger consensus among
participating states and uniform mechanisms for addressing
illegitimate state action, but it is still uncertain how these goals
should be incorporated into a working treaty.
Difficulties in NPT enforcement are not necessarily the fault of the
treaty itself. Rather, they are intrinsic to the nature of arms
control. The NPT would be best served by clearer mechanisms of
enforcement
---------------------
And this comes from:
http://www.ieer.org/latest/nptarj2.html
NPT Enforcement
The last issue is perhaps most difficult. There is no real enforcement
mechanism for the nuclear weapons states in terms of verification and
there is no equality before the law in terms of punishment. The IAEA
serves as the verification mechanism for non-nuclear weapons states,
but there are no mechanisms for verification within the NPT of nuclear
weapons states and there are no enforcement mechanisms within the NPT.
I will give you some examples about verification, but enforcement was
discussed in our session yesterday, so I will not go into that again.
I want to give you some examples of current outstanding problems. It
has been mentioned in the official conference that the Democratic
Republic of Korea (DPRK) is out of compliance with the NPT because it
is not allowing full IAEA inspections and it may have had a nuclear
weapons program, and so on. The U.S. is engaged in bilateral
negotiations with North Korea and has arrived at a bilateral
agreement. North Korea is to get 50,000 tons of fuel oil, two nuclear
reactors, and so on. One does not know the utility of these nuclear
reactors if they actually ever get built, but nonetheless the path of
resolution of this noncompliance has been to negotiate with North
Korea and give North Korea good things so that it will behave itself.
This is a kind of giving carrots approach to compliance in this
specific case.
In the case of Iraq, it is also out of compliance with IAEA
inspections. It is being punished with extreme sanctions. We all know
that the real main effect of these sanctions is on the people,
especially the children and older people in Iraq. Iran, by contrast,
is in compliance with IAEA safeguards. That is, it has been certified
by IAEA as not having a weapons program that IAEA can detect. IAEA
inspections are not perfect. Indeed, everybody agrees there is no such
thing as perfect verification. To insist on perfect verification means
you do not want verification.
I think each one of these universality issues presents its own
challenges. The NGO community should come up with some coherent
positions that would make us the champions of universality of the NPT,
not by insisting on signatures to the NPT by non-parties, because
clearly it is not going to happen that way, but in relation to
universality of the purpose of the NPT, which is to achieve a world
free of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons threats for all states.
That is the only way in which all countries, all governments, can
become actual and effective participants in an equal way. That also
seems to me to be the only way to achieve universality.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It's hard to think of Nader's campaigns as jokes. They were spoiling
expeditions.
> I did not support Obama, and I thought McCain's running-mate (a heartbeat
> from the highest office) was obviously a very loose cannon; given McCain's
> age she was too iffy for my vote.
Damned good reason.
> It hurts me to see that she is climbing on the "tea party" bandwagon now --
> what a travesty -- and she may even get elected as some kind of federal
> dog-catcher in 2004.
>
> For some time I have lost confidence in both parties, even before the 'tea
> party' movements came into being. I still often vote for the Democratic
> candidate but usually for high-standing morality issues -- hating the ways
> the conservative Republicans lie through their collective teeth more often
> than not.
You are pretty even handed.
Obama is doing okay but I don't see him for more than one term.
Really? He's gotten a lot done. He's respected except for lunatics
like "Doc". I see him being re-elected.
> Ron Paul as an honest person would be a great president in 2014. Let's hope
> that the bowel movement known as Sarah Pallen is proven to be the idiot she
> truly is before the 2014 campaigning starts. I fear that most voters can't
> see her foibles and only hear her espousing the views of so many
> disenfranchised voters -- and these people will vote her into an office she
> is unqualified to hold (gasp). I fear what she can and probably will do more
> harm than what I saw George Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney did quite effectively
> in the last admin.
I'm not worried about her actually winning the Presidency. If the
Republicans nominate her to run against Obama they'll do it having
recognized the fact that no Republican has a shot at it. She'll be the
throw-away sacrificial ewe.
> Our best presidents have been Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts,
> Eisenhower, and possibly Jimmy Carter.
Washington was indispensable, but that's a good selection. When I was
young I was taught to disrespect Eisenhower. I no longer feel that
way. The historians don't either. They've upgraded him to near great
status.
> Good lord... we need someone of that caliber now. Ron Paul is right there,
> but most people won't or can't see it.
He can't get either nomination so I guess we simply have move on. And
I do think he's too old.
I'm satisfied with Obama. I'm confident that Palestine will get to the
head of the line and he'll somehow make it happen. I read something
yesterday to the effect that it's already game planned. If the
indirect negotiations fail he'll call for direct negotiations somehow
involving the UN and if that fails he'll introduce THE OBAMA PLAN.
Imagine the triumphal coronation if he can get that accomplished.
Count 1
up to utopian ideals.
Focus, Hunter, try to remain focused.
Ron Paul said Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT.
The IAEA has said it found Iran in violation of that treaty.
Ron Paul was wrong.
It's not a big deal, just a crazy extremist politician saying something
incorrect. Politicians say things which are incorrect all the time. However
for yourself you should know that Iran was found to be in violation of the
NPT, this is why Iran is under such scrutiny and international pressure at
this time.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Totally non responsive. The issue before us is not how the NPT fails to live
> up to utopian ideals.
>
> Focus, Hunter, try to remain focused.
>
> Ron Paul said Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT.
>
>
> Ron Paul was wrong.
>
> It's not a big deal, just a crazy extremist politician saying something
> incorrect. Politicians say things which are incorrect all the time. However
> for yourself you should know that Iran was found to be in violation of the
> NPT, this is why Iran is under such scrutiny and international pressure at
> this time.
The NPT has no enforcement mechanism. It has no court or other
capacity for even quasi-judicial proceedings. Findings are made in
such environments. You don't understand the terminology. The IAEA has
issued some opinions as to violations. I have no reason to doubt their
accuracy but so far the IAEA and the NPT are concerned they are
failed systems. because there is no international enforcement system
for them. Paul is correct and it is a meaningful distinction. You
will not have what you apparently want until the systems are amended.
I provided you with material which explains it. There is nothing more
I can do to help you. You might try to master more personal discipline.
Uncle Toad
> On May 1, 9:05 pm, "Uncle Toad" <unC_T...@nogmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7338ea22-7871-4019...@s13g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 1, 8:21 am, "Uncle Toad" <unC_T...@nogmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "docremington" <docreming...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:26001a8b-61b8-4146...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Uncle Toad wrote:
> > > >> The U.S. would be pulling out of a lot of places by this time. All
> > > >> the
> > > >> money
> > > >> saved in defending out "ally" Israel would go for real American
> > > >> domestic
> > > >> causes,
>
> > > > Like servicing mexican "palestinians", who costs to California alone
> > > > some $10 billion yearly, compared to $3 bln. of US military aid to
> > > > Israel. Work harder, gents, Mexico won't forget your effort,
> > > > hopefully.
>
> > > unneeded monitory hand-outs. If you could follow a thread you'd know
> > > that,
> > > but your a fucking idiot!
>
> > > somewhere in translation you lost the plot. What else is new? You're
> > > stupid!
>
> > *_*_*_*
> > soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.usa
> > ,soc.culture.palestine
>
> > that the bowel movement known as Sarah Pallen is proven to be the idiot
> > she
> > truly is before the 2014 campaigning starts. I fear that most voters
> > can't
> > see her foibles and only hear her espousing the views of so many
> > disenfranchised voters -- and these people will vote her into an office
> > she
> > is unqualified to hold (gasp). I fear what she can and probably will do
> > more
> > harm than what I saw George Dubya Bush and Dick Cheney did quite
> > effectively
> > in the last admin.
>
> I'm not worried about her actually winning the Presidency. If the
> Republicans nominate her to run against Obama they'll do it having
> recognized the fact that no Republican has a shot at it. She'll be the
> throw-away sacrificial ewe.
>
I think Ron Paul could serve a term or two, but will never get elected.
> > Our best presidents have been Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts,
> > Eisenhower, and possibly Jimmy Carter.
>
> Washington was indispensable, but that's a good selection. When I was
> young I was taught to disrespect Eisenhower. I no longer feel that
> way. The historians don't either. They've upgraded him to near great
> status.
>
Washington was a badly needed national father figure. His leadership in the
army was I suppose as good as it could be, but still wanting.
More of the other generals did the real fundamental and creative grunt work,
while Washington stewed and fumed. He held the army together, with high
marks, in the early years, but later the French are the ones who really put
away the British.
His handling of the feuds between Hamilton and others, including Jefferson,
was also not well handled. Hamilton made America what it became eventually,
yes, but Washington could have done better reigning him in a little.
Washington also seemed ill equipped in the political landscape that followed
after his first few years in office. I believe his retirement was a forced
one, though never publicly acknowledged.
He might have utilized John Adams a bit more to set a precedent for an
active and useful VP. He created a precedent that made the VP's office an
unused governmental appendage and only the Senate's tie-breaking presiding
office, but that's all.
> > Good lord... we need someone of that caliber now.RonPaulis right there,
> > but most people won't or can't see it.
>
> He can't get either nomination so I guess we simply have move on. And
> I do think he's too old.
>
> I'm satisfied with Obama. I'm confident that Palestine will get to the
> head of the line and he'll somehow make it happen. I read something
> yesterday to the effect that it's already game planned. If the
> indirect negotiations fail he'll call for direct negotiations somehow
> involving the UN and if that fails he'll introduce THE OBAMA PLAN.
> Imagine the triumphal coronation if he can get that accomplished.
I think Obama is doing fine, but some of his actions seem a lot more like
cheerleading then political leadership. He could be more substantive, in my
view.
The thing in Mass. with Prof. Gates was the first big public blunder that I
caught. If a cop was responding to a neighbor's call to a possible break-in
at my home (it's happened to me once) I'd want that cop to check my ID
first, just to make sure I was who I said I am. What you have there is a
smart assed Prof at Harvard being too 'uppity' for his own damn good. The
cop was right to lure him into a situation outside his home and in public,
to difuse the situation going on inside Gates's home. Obama's statement
after the fact about "the police acting stupidly" was uncalled for and
reeked of racial prejudice. It was a case of the President acting stupidly;
he should never have taken the reporter's initial question.
We may need heathcare for all, given the fact that it's clearly spiraling
out of control, I agree there. But Obama attacked a bit too soon and created
another Congressional boondoggle. I believe the healthcare package passed is
too weak and will be picked apart by subsequent conservative admins.
I think his coming choice to replace the next Supreme Court retiree will be
a weak one. I hope I'm wrong but going on his record...
He's doing okay otherwise, but I doubt he'll be reelected.
Count 1
***
Exactly how is Mr. Paul correct when the one body capable of determining
violations states Iran has violated it?
You can dance around with non issues like 'courts' and 'enforcement
mechanisms' until you're blue in the face. The fact remains Iran has been
found in violation of it's NPT obligations, and Paul was incorrect when he
claimed otherwise.
coaste...@yahoo.com
You don't address my arguments so there's more for me to say. Let me
know if you change your mind. Until they I say Paul wins and you lose.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Totally non responsive. The issue before us is not how the NPT fails to live
> up to utopian ideals.
>
> Focus, Hunter, try to remain focused.
>
> Ron Paul said Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT.
>
> The IAEA has said it found Iran in violation of that treaty.
>
> Ron Paul was wrong.
I'm sorry, "findings of fact and conclusions of law" are made by
juries and judges, respectively. Or both by judges depending on
circumstance.
>
> It's not a big deal, just a crazy extremist politician saying something
> incorrect.
Don''t defame Representative Ron Paul. Especially if you're a
Canadian. As a whole we are very careful not to bad mouth anything
Canadian. It's neighborly. I recommend it to you.
Politicians say things which are incorrect all the time.
So do Canadians.
However
> for yourself you should know that Iran was found to be in violation of the
> NPT, this is why Iran is under such scrutiny and international pressure at
> this time.
See above. Based on what you've presented I believe Paul to be
correct.
Count 1
So do Canadians.
***
But since you've presented nothing to support your case you have nothing to
base your beliefs on. The IAEA is the body which determines if countries are
in violation of their NPT obligations, and that is exactly what they found
with regards to Iran. Like I said earlier, this isn't a debatable point,
it's simple fact.
Count 1
***
You didn't put forward an argument, you only waved your hands around. Read
the FAS.org article and absorb its knowledge. 'The IAEA reported that some
of these activities had VIOLATED Tehran's safeguards agreement'. Its' simple
fact Hunter, you and Paul are wrong, Iran has been found in violation of its
NPT obligations, and that is why Iran is under such heavy international
pressure now. Game, set, match. The only thing you can do now is accept the
fact that you and Paul are wrong and move forward. You have no recourse
left.
coaste...@yahoo.com
I haven't read much about the Federal period for something like 45
years. You appear to be up to snuff with good revisionist stuff!
> > > Good lord... we need someone of that caliber now.RonPaulis right there,
> > > but most people won't or can't see it.
>
> > He can't get either nomination so I guess we simply have move on. And
> > I do think he's too old.
>
> > I'm satisfied with Obama. I'm confident that Palestine will get to the
> > head of the line and he'll somehow make it happen. I read something
> > yesterday to the effect that it's already game planned. If the
> > indirect negotiations fail he'll call for direct negotiations somehow
> > involving the UN and if that fails he'll introduce THE OBAMA PLAN.
> > Imagine the triumphal coronation if he can get that accomplished.
>
> I think Obama is doing fine, but some of his actions seem a lot more like
> cheerleading then political leadership. He could be more substantive, in my
> view.
When he says something he's candid. But there's a lot going on in that
Administration which seldom is talked about publicly, such as the
plans for handling the Middle East negotiations. One thing's for sure,
he's not going to ad lib it. It will be planned and sequenced
carefully. I really do have confidence in him, both the man's basic
honor and his intelligence.
>
> The thing in Mass. with Prof. Gates was the first big public blunder that I
> caught. If a cop was responding to a neighbor's call to a possible break-in
> at my home (it's happened to me once) I'd want that cop to check my ID
> first, just to make sure I was who I said I am. What you have there is a
> smart assed Prof at Harvard being too 'uppity' for his own damn good. The
> cop was right to lure him into a situation outside his home and in public,
> to difuse the situation going on inside Gates's home. Obama's statement
> after the fact about "the police acting stupidly" was uncalled for and
> reeked of racial prejudice. It was a case of the President acting stupidly;
> he should never have taken the reporter's initial question.
I didn't like that much either. He should have slept on it. But it's
minor. No one will remember it if he's successful, except you, eh"
Haha.
> We may need heathcare for all, given the fact that it's clearly spiraling
> out of control, I agree there. But Obama attacked a bit too soon and created
> another Congressional boondoggle. I believe the healthcare package passed is
> too weak and will be picked apart by subsequent conservative admins.
His congresses should be amending it as they go along. They already
began the process by passing amendments immediately after the bills
passage. That thing is so huge it will always be a work in process.
Once the people get used to it it will become a cow just as sacred as
social security.
>
> I think his coming choice to replace the next Supreme Court retiree will be
> a weak one. I hope I'm wrong but going on his record...
I've never heard of the either the Judge from Montana or the one on
the Appellate bench in Washington. The court needs someone who can
stand up to Chief Justice Roberts. Neither Sotomayer nor the next pick
will change the balance on the Court. One of the troglodytes will have
to croak. I'd like to see Thomas replaced. He's not only terminally
right wing but also the least competent of all.
>
> He's doing okay otherwise, but I doubt he'll be reelected.
We'll have a cyber-wake or fiesta one way or the other.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> know if you change your mind. Until they I say Paul wins and you lose.
Reposted with a dropped word supplied.
drahcir
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Oh, sure, just like the "simple fact" that you are not me, eh? So
that's your game, eh? Well, we'll see about that!
NEMO
Toady are in a bitch slapping, knock 'em down & drag 'em out bitch cat
fight over another loser Ron Paul
...............................& the winner is the Teabags in The Tea
Party!
Uncle Toad
[...]
>
> > > I'm satisfied with Obama. I'm confident that Palestine will get to the
> > > head of the line and he'll somehow make it happen. I read something
> > > yesterday to the effect that it's already game planned. If the
> > > indirect negotiations fail he'll call for direct negotiations somehow
> > > involving the UN and if that fails he'll introduce THE OBAMA PLAN.
> > > Imagine the triumphal coronation if he can get that accomplished.
>
> > I think Obama is doing fine, but some of his actions seem a lot more
> > like
> > cheerleading then political leadership. He could be more substantive, in
> > my
> > view.
>
> When he says something he's candid. But there's a lot going on in that
> Administration which seldom is talked about publicly, such as the
> plans for handling the Middle East negotiations. One thing's for sure,
> he's not going to ad lib it. It will be planned and sequenced
> carefully. I really do have confidence in him, both the man's basic
> honor and his intelligence.
>
I suppose that's correct -- being candid. And it's a bit of fresh air from
the last admin.
>
>
> > The thing in Mass. with Prof. Gates was the first big public blunder
> > that I
> > caught. If a cop was responding to a neighbor's call to a possible
> > break-in
> > at my home (it's happened to me once) I'd want that cop to check my ID
> > first, just to make sure I was who I said I am. What you have there is a
> > smart assed Prof at Harvard being too 'uppity' for his own damn good.
> > The
> > cop was right to lure him into a situation outside his home and in
> > public,
> > to difuse the situation going on inside Gates's home. Obama's statement
> > after the fact about "the police acting stupidly" was uncalled for and
> > reeked of racial prejudice. It was a case of the President acting
> > stupidly;
> > he should never have taken the reporter's initial question.
>
> I didn't like that much either. He should have slept on it. But it's
> minor. No one will remember it if he's successful, except you, eh"
> Haha.
>
I'll give him high marks for his integrity -- something we've forgotten to
look for in our presidents. The most recent presidents I've seen with that
kind of integrity were one-termers, George W.H. Bush and Jimmy Carter. It
has a way of making them look like bumpkins -- though that is not really the
case. Either one of those guys, or both, could have done a lot for our well
being if they had gotten reelected. Americans, as voters, are lazy and they
like to feel the guy in the white house has the reigns well in hand --
honesty and candor are not high on the list. I don't have a lot of faith in
the American voters (intelligence-wise) or the elitist rules that determines
who get the party nominations.
That said... I don't think being overtly PC from the presidential bully
pulpit is very effective, and many former presidents have fallen into that
trap. This president done that, but he could use a little more selection in
the fights he picks. I'm a big fan of TR who was never afraid to speak his
mind, but in today's media-heavy sensationalized world the Prez needs to be
careful what he says about mundane things like black Harvard professors.
I see the planning you suggest, but I also see inordinate amounts of
cheerleading and a proclivity to remain on the presidential campaign trail.
He gets stuck a lot on that.
> > We may need heathcare for all, given the fact that it's clearly
> > spiraling
> > out of control, I agree there. But Obama attacked a bit too soon and
> > created
> > another Congressional boondoggle. I believe the healthcare package
> > passed is
> > too weak and will be picked apart by subsequent conservative admins.
>
> His congresses should be amending it as they go along. They already
> began the process by passing amendments immediately after the bills
> passage. That thing is so huge it will always be a work in process.
> Once the people get used to it it will become a cow just as sacred as
> social security.
>
>
>
> > I think his coming choice to replace the next Supreme Court retiree will
> > be
> > a weak one. I hope I'm wrong but going on his record...
>
> I've never heard of the either the Judge from Montana or the one on
> the Appellate bench in Washington. The court needs someone who can
> stand up to Chief Justice Roberts. Neither Sotomayer nor the next pick
> will change the balance on the Court. One of the troglodytes will have
> to croak. I'd like to see Thomas replaced. He's not only terminally
> right wing but also the least competent of all.
>
I've always disliked Prof. Anita Hill for dragging all that crap up about
Clarence Thomas. It was sour grapes and bad form on her part, considering
just how most people sent sexual signals at the time. It was a time of
sexual ambiguity and uncertainty. Today, thankfully, a passing comment about
pubic hairs on a can of Coca Cola would not put some grad student into an
emotional tailspin, nor should it -- then or now. Hill was being overly
dramatic his her tear driven histronics. She single-handedly created a phase
in American business where it was almost impossible to have a nomal gender
relationship and/or a sexual thought while in the office. Unfortunately, I'm
not sure of the net effect it all had on Thomas -- after the fact. He has
been really good at being fairly invisable on the Court. He might have been
more than this, and he might have swung more to the liberal side, given his
color I think. At any rate, he would do well to retire now and let the
current Prez pick another person of color. But I don't see him doing that.
He seems a lot like the colored janitor in a a large corporation, glad to be
there, and glad to make very few waves.
Sotomayor did not impress me during the hearings, but I suppose that was her
just doing her job, getting the ultimate nod from the congress.
The thing that troubles me now is the Court's tendency to become a quiet
political arm of government. Something it was not intended to be.... The
conservative court appointments have created this atmosphere, and someone
should nip it in the bud, and very soon. I'm hoping you are right about the
extent of planning that Obama's people put into all of this stuff. Maybe
he'll make a difference here too. I'm rather impressed with the Herculean
task of turning the economy -- I doubted it was possible, given the level of
bankruptcy the last admin left us in.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> know if you change your mind. Until they I say Paul wins and you lose.
Reposted with a correction
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Gross ignorance or a flat out lie. I've explained my position with
great precision. You keep repeating yours without addressing my
points.
The IAEA is the body which determines if countries are
> in violation of their NPT obligations, and that is exactly what they found
> with regards to Iran. Like I said earlier, this isn't a debatable point,
> it's simple fact.
The IAEA is like a Prosecutor. It files charges, indictments. It does
not make findings or conclusions. For that you need something akin to
a court. Go ahead, point to the court, point out the Court's
enforcement mechanism. If it's supposed to be the ICJ, the
International Court of Justice at the Hague, then point to the
relevant decision.
Ron Paul is correct.
Until you are prepared to respond to what I say I suggest that we
leave this subject. It's wasting our time.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Bullshit. I've explained it to you procedurally. You don't listen or
haven't the wit and experience to understand. I'll do it once more. As
I understand it, The IAEA is an investigatory agency. The analogy is
to the police and the prosecutor combined. As you say, in essence it
only makes "reports". Reports are not convictions just as an
indictment is not a conviction. It takes a judicial or at least quasi-
judicial process to do that. That's what the articles I gave you say
doesn't exist.
Read
> the FAS.org article and absorb its knowledge. 'The IAEA reported that some
> of these activities had VIOLATED Tehran's safeguards agreement'.
That's exactly what Prosecutors say about a defendant in the charges
they file with a court: John Doe did X. Therefore John Doe violated
the law. But it's only the court/jury which can FIND that the facts
alleged are true and then move to concusions of law based on those
facts which are FOUND during the trial. If Prosecutors were enabled to
get a conviction and send someone to prison just based on the charges
filed we'd be back with Stalin's NKVD. The defendant has to have a
right to defend himself in an objective tribunal. If you can point to
such a TRIAL having occured let us know. You want Iran convicted just
on charges alone without an opportunity to defend itself. I understand
that. You're an "Anglo Saxon" Zionist. Zionism does away with such
niceties as real trials and due process. Once you get used to that
such concepts become foreign to you.
Its' simple
> fact Hunter, you and Paul are wrong, Iran has been found in violation of its
> NPT obligations, and that is why Iran is under such heavy international
> pressure now. Game, set, match. The only thing you can do now is accept the
> fact that you and Paul are wrong and move forward. You have no recourse
> left.
You can't make it a simple fact by an act of will. Reality doesn't do
your bidding. Do you now understand the difference between a
Prosecutor''s Office and a Court? That's the analogy you have to
somehow absorb.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Bizarre.
Count 1
Read
> the FAS.org article and absorb its knowledge. 'The IAEA reported that some
> of these activities had VIOLATED Tehran's safeguards agreement'.
That's exactly what Prosecutors say about a defendant in the charges
they file with a court: John Doe did X. Therefore John Doe violated
the law. But it's only the court/jury which can FIND that the facts
alleged are true and then move to concusions of law based on those
facts which are FOUND during the trial.
***
The one body tasked with determining wether or not the a signatory nation to
the NPT is in violation is the IAEA. In this case the 'prosecutor' MEK gave
evidence which was then confirmed by the 'court', the IAEA.
Do even know what the IAEA is? It is set up by the UN with the task
verifying NPT signatories are living up to their obligations.
Count 1
Bizarre.
***
Finally!
Count 1
***
You don't have any points. You're under the impression a nation has to go
before a court (you never discuss the jurisdiction) to be found in violation
of their NPT obligations. This is simply erroneous.
The IAEA is the body which determines if countries are
> in violation of their NPT obligations, and that is exactly what they found
> with regards to Iran. Like I said earlier, this isn't a debatable point,
> it's simple fact.
The IAEA is like a Prosecutor. It files charges, indictments. It does
not make findings or conclusions.
***
Exactly wrong. In your analogy the IAEA is the court. However I'm not
dealing with analogies, I'm dealing in facts. You have nothing more than a
smoke screen you're desperately trying to hide behind.
***
Ron Paul is correct.
Until you are prepared to respond to what I say I suggest that we
leave this subject. It's wasting our time.
***
Im not surprised you want to run. Read the articles and material I have
provided for you, learn about the IAEA and it's mandate, and then admit you
are wrong. Iran has been found to be in violation of its NPT obligations.
Simple fact.
Count 1
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aaeb39a7-45a8-48a3...@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
****
I sure will see... oops, I mean 'we' sure will! eh - eh, just a little slip
there...
Count 1
You can't make it a simple fact by an act of will. Reality doesn't do
your bidding. Do you now understand the difference between a
Prosecutor''s Office and a Court? That's the analogy you have to
somehow absorb.
***
I'm not interested in your analogies, I'm only interested in facts. Crazy
Ron Paul, another misinformed American politician, apparently doesn't care
for facts. I can see why you like him so much.
Even Iran has admitted to 18 years of NPT violations. Time to give up the
chase Hunter, similar to suggesting I'm drahcir, this one will also lead you
nowhere.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/npt_chrono.html
(...)
26 November 2003: Following a report of 10 November, the IAEA Board of
Governors adopts a resolution condemning Iran�s pursuit of clandestine
nuclear activities in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement
(GOV/2003/81).
(...)
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n017.html
(...)
All of these lessons are applicable today in the case of Iran, whose nuclear
programme remains an issue before both the Agency and the Security Council.
Six years have passed since Iran was reported to the IAEA Board of Governors
for failing to declare material and activities to the Agency, in violation
of its safeguards agreement.
(...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/806268.stm
(...)
2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its
Isfahan plant and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds
Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(...)
http://www.blackpower.com/politics/iran-admits-existence-of-second-uranium-enrichment-plant/
(...)
The public exposure led to demands that IAEA inspect the facilities, which
it did in 2003, and ultimately to Iran's admission that it had kept its
nuclear program hidden for 18 years in violation of an international treaty.
(...)
http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21495.html
(...)
After a year of mounting international alarm that Iran's interest in nuclear
power concealed an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, the regime has
admitted that it has gone to great lengths over 18 years to hide its
research.
(...)
http://w3.stu.ca/stu/sites/jphmun/documents/Security_Council_Background_Guide.pdf
(...)
2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its
Isfahan plant and insists the program is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds
Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(...)
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Excerpt/Daley_7.pdf
The NPT and Iran As indicated above, Article 3 of the NPT imposes specific
obligations on the non-nuclear signatories: they must disclose their
peaceful nuclear activities to the international community and open
themselves to IAEA inspections and verification. There is no question that
Iran, soon after the 1979 inception of the Islamic Republic, began pursuing
many of the basic technologies involved in enriching uranium, and that it
failed to disclose those activities to the international community and the
IAEA. Tehran has openly admitted as much.
http://intelligentessays.blogspot.com/2008/03/iran-nuclear-issue-october-26-2006.html
(...)
Iran is similar to both Iraq and North Korea, both of which developed a
military nuclear program without the knowledge of the IAEA. Iran admits to
having hidden evidence of its nuclear program from the UN and seeks to
enrich its own uranium
(...)
(...)
Before her meetings in Brazil, Clinton had said she would explain to Silva
the U.S. position that Iran has the right to atomic energy, but not to
weapons. Its refusal to come clean on its nuclear intentions violates
Security Council resolutions and must be punished, she said.
"It has been found to be in violation by the International Atomic Energy
Agency and by the United Nations Security Council," Clinton told reporters.
"These are not findings by the United States. These are findings by the
international community."
(...)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/usa/2004/usa-040430-32290pf.htm
(...)
Iran grudgingly admits to facets of its sprawling secret nuclear program
only when confronted with evidence that disproves its previous denials. In
at least one instance, it delayed an inspection until it could "sanitize"
the facility in order to conceal evidence of its unsafeguarded enrichment
activities from the IAEA
(...)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/iran_deadly_ambitions_1L8zoVDkaF6GWvR2HAphzK
(...)
The report to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's Board of Governors in
Vienna March 1-5 is likely to report the Islamic Republic to the United
Nations' Security Council
(...)
4. Iran is in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and five Security Council resolutions.
(...)
*****
Like I said... Game. Set. Match.
drahcir
I suppose I was a bit too subtle for you. I was mocking you.
tdny
"drahcir" <sg...@sgscc.com> wrote in message
news:2293u5dphma6f3ccn...@4ax.com...
Oh yes, dazzle us, with your wit, drachir.
You're so amazing.
You're also so blind.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> (...)
> The public exposure led to demands that IAEA inspect the facilities, which
> it did in 2003, and ultimately to Iran's admission that it had kept its
> nuclear program hidden for 18 years in violation of an international treaty.
> (...)
>
> http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21495.html
> (...)
> After a year of mounting international alarm that Iran's interest in nuclear
> power concealed an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, the regime has
> admitted that it has gone to great lengths over 18 years to hide its
> research.
> (...)
>
> (...)
> 2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its
> Isfahan plant and insists the program is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds
> Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
> (...)
>
> http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Excerpt/Daley_7.pdf
> The NPT and Iran As indicated above, Article 3 of the NPT imposes specific
> obligations on the non-nuclear signatories: they must disclose their
> peaceful nuclear activities to the international community and open
> themselves to IAEA inspections and verification. There is no question that
> Iran, soon after the 1979 inception of the Islamic Republic, began pursuing
> many of the basic technologies involved in enriching uranium, and that it
> failed to disclose those activities to the international community and the
> IAEA. Tehran has openly admitted as much.
>
>
> (...)
>
> Iran is similar to both Iraq and North Korea, both of which developed a
> military nuclear program without the knowledge of the IAEA. Iran admits to
> having hidden evidence of its nuclear program from the UN and seeks to
> enrich its own uranium
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> Before her meetings in Brazil, Clinton had said she would explain to Silva
> the U.S. position that Iran has the right to atomic energy, but not to
> weapons. Its refusal to come clean on its nuclear intentions violates
> Security Council resolutions and must be punished, she said.
>
> "It has been found to be in violation by the International Atomic Energy
> Agency and by the United Nations Security Council," Clinton told reporters.
> "These are not findings by the United States. These are findings by the
> international community."
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> Iran grudgingly admits to facets of its sprawling secret nuclear program
> only when confronted with evidence that disproves its previous denials. In
> at least one instance, it delayed an inspection until it could "sanitize"
> the facility in order to conceal evidence of its unsafeguarded enrichment
> activities from the IAEA
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> The report to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's Board of Governors in
> Vienna March 1-5 is likely to report the Islamic Republic to the United
> Nations' Security Council
>
> (...)
>
> 4. Iran is in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear
> Nonproliferation Treaty and five Security Council resolutions.
>
> (...)
> *****
>
> Like I said... Game. Set. Match.
>
> M1TE&.#EA"@`*`*('`$"+0.?PY[_8OX"R@ !D`*#%H/_______R'Y! $```<`
> M+ `````*``H```,F> (T<E"1$ IX$ 1C2AG1U'E$-'AH"2UI$2D#013-^\J@
> '#>'Z3B0`.P``
> `
> end
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misunderstood spam. Read the IAEA's organic, founding statute. The
reference below is to Paragraph 17:
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 4 May 2010 13:22:06 -0700 (PDT), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
Bizarre.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> (...)
> The public exposure led to demands that IAEA inspect the facilities, which
> it did in 2003, and ultimately to Iran's admission that it had kept its
> nuclear program hidden for 18 years in violation of an international treaty.
> (...)
>
> http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21495.html
> (...)
> After a year of mounting international alarm that Iran's interest in nuclear
> power concealed an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, the regime has
> admitted that it has gone to great lengths over 18 years to hide its
> research.
> (...)
>
> (...)
> 2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its
> Isfahan plant and insists the program is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds
> Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
> (...)
>
> http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Excerpt/Daley_7.pdf
> The NPT and Iran As indicated above, Article 3 of the NPT imposes specific
> obligations on the non-nuclear signatories: they must disclose their
> peaceful nuclear activities to the international community and open
> themselves to IAEA inspections and verification. There is no question that
> Iran, soon after the 1979 inception of the Islamic Republic, began pursuing
> many of the basic technologies involved in enriching uranium, and that it
> failed to disclose those activities to the international community and the
> IAEA. Tehran has openly admitted as much.
>
>
> (...)
>
> Iran is similar to both Iraq and North Korea, both of which developed a
> military nuclear program without the knowledge of the IAEA. Iran admits to
> having hidden evidence of its nuclear program from the UN and seeks to
> enrich its own uranium
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> Before her meetings in Brazil, Clinton had said she would explain to Silva
> the U.S. position that Iran has the right to atomic energy, but not to
> weapons. Its refusal to come clean on its nuclear intentions violates
> Security Council resolutions and must be punished, she said.
>
> "It has been found to be in violation by the International Atomic Energy
> Agency and by the United Nations Security Council," Clinton told reporters.
> "These are not findings by the United States. These are findings by the
> international community."
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> Iran grudgingly admits to facets of its sprawling secret nuclear program
> only when confronted with evidence that disproves its previous denials. In
> at least one instance, it delayed an inspection until it could "sanitize"
> the facility in order to conceal evidence of its unsafeguarded enrichment
> activities from the IAEA
>
> (...)
>
>
> (...)
>
> The report to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's Board of Governors in
> Vienna March 1-5 is likely to report the Islamic Republic to the United
> Nations' Security Council
>
> (...)
>
> 4. Iran is in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear
> Nonproliferation Treaty and five Security Council resolutions.
>
> (...)
> *****
>
> Like I said... Game. Set. Match.
This is Representative Paul's word:
finding [ˈfaɪndɪŋ]
n
1. a thing that is found or discovered
2. (Law) Law the conclusion reached after a judicial inquiry; verdict
3. (Engineering / Tools) (plural) US the tools and equipment of an
artisan
The IAEA does not make "judicial inquiries". It investigates and
"reports". It doesn't have a judicial branch. In fact, it is required
by its statute to refer disputes over application of the IAEA statute
to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice. That IS a court. It
makes 'findings'. Now, if you can find a decision of the ICJ in which
findings are made under the IAEA statute against Iran, you will have
been correct about the EXISTENCE of findings, but you will still have
been wrong in thinking that the IAEA has issued "findings". Look at
the definition again. This whole thing takes place in a legal context,
hence the need for the legal definition of the word.
I think this thread is finished. How about you?
VOTE FOR RON PAUL! Especially when it comes to common sense about our
Middle East policies.
plainolamerican
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On Apr 24, 9:48 am, NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL <NOWARS_FORISR...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/iransanctionsactofwar
>
> > >http://america-hijacked.com/2010/04/23/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-act-of...
>
> > > Additional viahttp://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
>
> > Read this, ladies and gentlemen:
>
> > Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
> > April 23rd, 2010 | Author: Patriot
> > Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
>
> > URL to
> > article:http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/04/22/sanctions-on-iran-is-an-a...
> > Posted By Rep. Ron Paul On April 22, 2010
>
> > Before the US House of Representatives, April 22, 2010, Statement on
> > Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
> > Accountability and Divestment Act.
>
> > I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR
> > 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment
> > Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and
> > to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on
> > Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on
> > this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002
> > all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the
> > United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one-trillion-dollar
> > war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely
> > be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are
> > astonishing.
>
> > We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports
> > that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United
> > States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the
> > claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and
> > attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda – the UN
> > chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence
> > that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on
> > enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their
> > war so the truth did not matter much.
>
> > We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford
> > to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where
> > have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State
> > Condoleeza Rice’s oft-repeated quip about Iraq, that we cannot wait
> > for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud?
>
> > We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war
> > against Iran for the benefit of special interests.
>
> > Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> > that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary
> > level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US
> > Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear
> > weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make
> > one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on
> > Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though,
> > so it is important and necessary to point them out.
>
> > Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for
> > sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on
> > Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those
> > pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-
> > stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for
> > war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to “work” – to
> > change the regime – war became the only remaining regime-change
> > option.
>
> > This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to
> > war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran
> > necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war
> > according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote
> > for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to
> > turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.
>
> I voted for Ron Paul as a write-in in the past presidential elections. He's
> a good man who says it like it truly is.
I voted for Ron Paul as a write-in in the past presidential elections
---
ditto
drahcir
> "drahcir" <s...@sgscc.com> wrote in message
Feeling better now that you got that out of your system, cretin-bigot?
drahcir
So says the blockhead that insists Count and I are one and the same.
CUNTICA
Paul as a write-in in the past presidential elections"
........................oh, there's a big suprise & were you wearing
your tinfoil hat at the time?
dsharavi
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ha. That's easy for you -- yous? -- to say. According to HHW, I'm
Rosen, Buchwater, AND me. Howzat again?
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> VOTE FOR RON PAUL!
A super-conservative Republican from Texas? Assuming one could -- that
is, assuming one is registered Texas voter and not a jackass lawyer
from some buttplug berg on the Midwestern border -- whyever for?
Deborah
Tell it like it is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell it like it is.
Deborah
"a jackass lawyer from some butt plug berg" as in Roe v. Wade
Tell it like it is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Buckwalter, not Buckwater, and she is too kind and sensitive and
Jewish to be you a rabid, atheist, Zionist named Sharavi.
Count 1
reference below is to Paragraph 17:
http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html#A1.17
***
LOL
"...which is not settled by negotiation..."
"...request the ICJ to give an advisor opinion..."
Apparently you can read, it's the ability to comprehend you lack.
Count 1
This is Representative Paul's word:
finding ['fa?nd??]
n
1. a thing that is found or discovered
2. (Law) Law the conclusion reached after a judicial inquiry; verdict
3. (Engineering / Tools) (plural) US the tools and equipment of an
artisan
The IAEA does not make "judicial inquiries". It investigates and
"reports".
***
That's true. It investigated allegations of violations of Iran's NPT
obligations and found Iran to be in violation of it's NPT obligations. Like
I said, this isn't a debatable point, it's simple fact.
And - unfortunately for both you and Ron Paul - Iran has admitted they were
in violation of their NPT obligations.
These *facts* are why Iran is under such a huge amount of international
scrutiny right now. They admitted they lied to the world for 18 years.
Uncle Toad
"plainolamerican" <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82c1e3cc-f4a5-4af6...@j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
*_*_*_*_*
>I voted for Ron Paul as a write-in in the past presidential elections
>---
>ditto
ok
CUNTICA
voting the same as arsehole plainolamerican - it must've looked like a
goofball convention with all you moops wearing your tinfoil hats!
coaste...@yahoo.com
To get a man with a good, sound view on our most important foreign
policy problem, obviously.
coaste...@yahoo.com
You still do not understand what Paul was saying. He was correct. Iran
has never been found guilty by a court. That IAEA issued
investigative reports showing grave suspicion of NPT violations and
even that Iran later admitted violations doesn't derogate from the
fact that Paul remains correct to this day. Iran hasn't been
convicted, hasn't been FOUND guilty in a court. Neither an individual
nor a country can defend against an investigation. It can defend in a
court of law. That's the very important distinction made by Paul. You
fail to recognize such things at your peril. Or should I say, we
fail.... Procedure is critically important.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Feeling worse now that this has been introduced into your system?
coaste...@yahoo.com
For less than a thousand dollars I can find you in less than a week.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Deborah Sharavi the racist needs to read this corrective to her lying
propaganda about Muslims:
coaste...@yahoo.com
<DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 7:41 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 1:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > VOTE FOR RON PAUL!
>
> A super-conservative Republican from Texas? Assuming one could -- that
> is, assuming one is registered Texas voter and not a jackass lawyer
> from some buttplug berg on the Midwestern border -- whyever for?
>
> Deborah
>
Haha. You chose a good "conservative" cause. Have you yet seen this?
It's a game changer regarding Muslim terrorism.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Misunderstood spam. Read the IAEA's organic, founding statute. The
> reference below is to Paragraph 17:
>
> http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html#A1.17
>
> ***
>
> LOL
>
> "...which is not settled by negotiation..."
Idiot. Anything can be settled by negotiation among the actual parties
in interest.
>
> "...request the ICJ to give an advisor opinion..."
They can do that too. Do you have a problem with that?
> Apparently you can read, it's the ability to comprehend you lack.
You're a brilliant Canadian because your Jewish?
Read this if you might possibly be a man with some shred of honor
left:
Count 1
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e731168b-10a7-4c36...@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 9:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Misunderstood spam. Read the IAEA's organic, founding statute. The
> reference below is to Paragraph 17:
>
> http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html#A1.17
>
> ***
>
> LOL
>
> "...which is not settled by negotiation..."
Idiot. Anything can be settled by negotiation among the actual parties
in interest.
***
Which doesn't address or deny the fact that the IAEA doesn't require a third
judicial body to determine a nation is in violation of it's NPT obligations.
>
> "...request the ICJ to give an advisor opinion..."
They can do that too. Do you have a problem with that?
***
In this thread I only have a problem with your denial of reality. A denial
you can present no good reason to have.
> Apparently you can read, it's the ability to comprehend you lack.
You're a brilliant Canadian because your Jewish?
***
You're an idiot because you're an anti-semite?
Read this if you might possibly be a man with some shred of honor
left:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
***
I read it 6 years ago. It doesn't address the FACT that Iran has been found
in violation of their NPT obligations, it doesn't address the FACT that Iran
has all but admitted to these violations, and it doesn't serve one word to
support Ron Paul's delusional rants about Iran.
Count 1
I liked the way he justifies Israel's security barrier...
From page 2
Finally, the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce
terrorists' confidence in their ability to carry out such attacks on the
target society. States that face persistent suicide terrorism should
recognize that neither offensive military action nor concessions alone are
likely to do much good and should invest significant resources in border
defenses and other means of homeland security.
I wonder if Hunter is posting this article (even in threads where it serves
no purpose) to show us he's beginning to have empathy with Israel?
Count 1
You still do not understand what Paul was saying. He was correct. Iran
has never been found guilty by a court.
No Hunter, you are wrong. That is not what 'was saying'. What he said was
"Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty."
And I have shown you how he was wrong.
***
That IAEA issued
investigative reports showing grave suspicion of NPT violations and
even that Iran later admitted violations doesn't derogate from the
fact that Paul remains correct to this day. Iran hasn't been
convicted, hasn't been FOUND guilty in a court.
***
There is no need for this process to go to a court. The IAEA didn't issue
reports showing suspicions, they issued reports proving violations. The IAEA
is the sole body capable of doing that, and even Iran recognizes this fact.
Therefore when Ron Paul says...
"Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been
found in violation of that treaty."
....he is wrong.
***
Neither an individual
nor a country can defend against an investigation. It can defend in a
court of law. That's the very important distinction made by Paul. You
fail to recognize such things at your peril. Or should I say, we
fail.... Procedure is critically important.
***
Paul's statement makes no mention of the need for a judicial process. This
is fantasia you've invented to avoid doing the honorable thing, admitting
you - and he - were wrong. Don't worry, your inability to take
responsibility for your errors doesn't diminish my opinion of you.
dsharavi
> http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
>
> I liked the way he justifies Israel's security barrier...
>
> From page 2
> Finally, the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce
> terrorists' confidence in their ability to carry out such attacks on the
> target society. States that face persistent suicide terrorism should
> recognize that neither offensive military action nor concessions alone are
> likely to do much good and should invest significant resources in border
> defenses and other means of homeland security.
lol
> I wonder if Hunter is posting this article (even in threads where it serves
> no purpose) to show us he's beginning to have empathy with Israel?
What, are you crazy? H thinks only he can SAVE Israel. H and
Beersheimer (whom H has taken to calling "MeirSCHeimer", for some
reason). I kid you not. See H's assertions:
"Israel needs my help, Deb. Without people like me and John
Mearsheimer, she has little chance to survive as a Jewish State."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/7f7dbadf904c29fa
"No Jewish society and culture here any more. Not for the
duration anyway. They are peacetime luxuries. Israel is in an
existential crisis. SCJ and SCI have been requisitioned as platforms
for the struggle to save her. We goyim appear to be the only ones who
might be able to accomplish it."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/b9eeed5a48207816
Has H gone off the deep end, or has the deep end risen to engulf H?
Maybe he's just having another of his senior moments.
Here's another good one -- after ten days, yet:
> > On May 4, 5:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, sure, just like the "simple fact" that you are not me, eh? So
> > > that's your game, eh? Well, we'll see about that!
> > > ****
> > > I sure will see... oops, I mean 'we' sure will! eh - eh, just a little slip
> > > there...
On May 15, 2:39 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> For less than a thousand dollars I can find you in less than a week.
- http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/8e614e1743402fff
lol
H could "find" me, for "less than a thousand dollars"??? sH has shown
time and again that he couldn't find his own backside with two hands
and a flashlight at high noon.
Deborah
Count 1
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd8df9f3-bf27-4945...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 6:26 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
>>
>> I liked the way he justifies Israel's security barrier...
>>
>> From page 2
>> Finally, the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce
>> terrorists' confidence in their ability to carry out such attacks on the
>> target society. States that face persistent suicide terrorism should
>> recognize that neither offensive military action nor concessions alone
>> are
>> likely to do much good and should invest significant resources in border
>> defenses and other means of homeland security.
>
> lol
I thought you'd like that. You'll notice the chickenhawk Palestinian
propagandist hasn't responded for a while.
dsharavi
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Nope. You'll have noticed, I hope, his latest silly accusation: I
posted, he claimed, my assertion that "Islamic terrorism is due to
Muslim genes."
H has lost it. He is now one with the minions who drool over him.
Deborah
Bert Hyman
news:7e538965-27ce-422a...@u31g2000pra.googlegroups.com
NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL <NOWARS_F...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is an Act of War
The UN has declared war on Iran?
That seems unlikely.
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Lazarus Cain
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On Apr 24, 7:50 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the
> > Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of
> > that treaty.
>
> > Whoa. Ron Paul is very incorrect here, Benjie.
>
> Do you think you know that from the information before us, Count 1?
> ***
>
> Yes.
>
> It's not a debatable point, benjie. The whole point of the 'additional
> protocols', which Iran signed, was to respond to Iran admitting they were
> inviolation of their NPT obligations. This isn't 'news', these violations
> were exposed in 2002. Ron Paul is totally incorrect.
>
> He is, like a lot of Americans, merely confused. Iran has not been found to
> be in non-compliance since then, even though the IAEA hasn't given them a
> clean bill of health, and there is no evidence of an active weapons program.
> Many people think that means Iran hasn't done anything wrong, but that is
> erroneous, and that is why they signed the Additional Protocols to the NPT.
> For 18 years Iran conducted nuclear research and development they were
> obligated to disclose to the IAEA and they didn't. Simple fact.
Meaningless rhetoric.
Proponents for sanctioning Iran over the nuclear allegations ignore th
elephant in the room which is their support for a nation, which is not
signatory to the nuclear weopons treaty,.to possess nuclear weapons
and to gain the benefits of such a nuclear defense.
This hypocrisy makes invalid US sincerity to promote proper
international and national nuclear policy.
In short, as long as US defends the right of Israel to threaten use of
nukes by having possession of nuclear weapons, then US objection to
Iranian nuclear policy is invalid and provocative.
Lazarus Cain
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e731168b-10a7-4c36...@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 9:11 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Misunderstood spam. Read the IAEA's organic, founding statute. The
> > reference below is to Paragraph 17:
>
> >http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html#A1.17
>
> > ***
>
> > LOL
>
> > "...which is not settled by negotiation..."
>
> Idiot. Anything can be settled by negotiation among the actual parties
> in interest.
> ***
>
> Which doesn't address or deny the fact that the IAEA doesn't require a third
> judicial body to determine a nation is in violation of it's NPT obligations.
>
>
>
> > "...request the ICJ to give an advisor opinion..."
>
> They can do that too. Do you have a problem with that?
> ***
>
> In this thread I only have a problem with your denial of reality. A denial
> you can present no good reason to have.
>
> > Apparently you can read, it's the ability to comprehend you lack.
>
> You're a brilliant Canadian because your Jewish?
> ***
>
> You're an idiot because you're an anti-semite?
I tell the truth about not being an anti-Semite. You lied about being
an "Anglo-Saxon". Hence the reference to your "honor". You might have
a chance to redeem yourself were you not so slavishly devoted to
Ratner and sharavi.
>
> Read this if you might possibly be a man with some shred of honor
> left:
>
> http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
> ***
>
> I read it 6 years ago. It doesn't address the FACT that Iran has been found
> in violation of their NPT obligations,
That has NEVER happened. It can only be done in a judicial process.
You can't locate such a finding by a court.
I've given you the Pape article because it relates to your failed
honor.
it doesn't address the FACT that Iran
> has all but admitted to these violations,
Irrelevant. Do you want to understand Paul or not? Do you want to know
the meaning of what he said or not? Even a formal written confession
given to investigative agencies must be processed through a court
before it can be given effect.
and it doesn't serve one word to
> support Ron Paul's delusional rants about Iran.
What delusional rants, Zionist pipsqueak?
Count 1
> ***
>
> You're an idiot because you're an anti-semite?
I tell the truth about not being an anti-Semite. You lied about being
an "Anglo-Saxon".
***
Two sentences, two errors. You are an anti-semite and I am Anglo-Saxon.
***
Hence the reference to your "honor". You might have
a chance to redeem yourself were you not so slavishly devoted to
Ratner and sharavi.
***
Redemption from you, a well known anti-semite? Try again.
>
> Read this if you might possibly be a man with some shred of honor
> left:
>
> http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
> ***
>
> I read it 6 years ago. It doesn't address the FACT that Iran has been
> found
> in violation of their NPT obligations,
That has NEVER happened. It can only be done in a judicial process.
You can't locate such a finding by a court.
***
Yes it has happened, and further to the piles of proof I have provided your
secretary of state recently confirmed it. I mentioned this in a new thread
you didn't have the balls to read.
***
I've given you the Pape article because it relates to your failed
honor.
***
Since I have no 'failed honor' it can't relate to it. And in reading it I
didn't notice once where my name was mentioned.
it doesn't address the FACT that Iran
> has all but admitted to these violations,
Irrelevant.
***
Ohhhh, I dunno. I'm thinking Iran admitting to violations of their NPT
obligations kinda shows they are in violation of their NPT obligations.
Hardly 'irrelevant'. Try 'totally pertinent'.
and it doesn't serve one word to
> support Ron Paul's delusional rants about Iran.
What delusional rants, Zionist pipsqueak?
***
I'm not surprised you need to be reminded, but to take a page from your
book, do your own research. (and you can lay off the insults, a worm like
you is incapable of offending me).
Count 1
"Lazarus Cain" <rspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c51529ed-81fb-42df...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Lazarus Cain
****
Wrong on several fronts. For one, Israel is a liberal democracy, not
comparable to the theocratic totalitarianism Iran labours under. We simply
cannot judge what country is allowed to do based on what the other is doing
when the differences between them are so profound. For two, it is well
established fact that Iran is only under international scrutiny because they
are signatories to the NPT. If they weren't then no one would be able to do
anything about their probable pursuit of nuclear weapons. Even John Bolton
has admitted to this. The fact that Israel, and indeed many other nations,
are not signatories is irrelevant.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> You still do not understand what Paul was saying. He was correct. Iran
> has never been found guilty by a court.
> ***
>
> No Hunter, you are wrong. That is not what 'was saying'. What he said was
> "Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear
> Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty."
>
> And I have shown you how he was wrong.
Clip.
We've been through it carefully. You follow what I say by repeating
your assertion. You don't respond. Time to move on.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On May 15, 6:26 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf
>
> > I liked the way he justifies Israel's security barrier...
>
> > From page 2
> > Finally, the most promising way to contain suicide terrorism is to reduce
> > terrorists' confidence in their ability to carry out such attacks on the
> > target society. States that face persistent suicide terrorism should
> > recognize that neither offensive military action nor concessions alone are
> > likely to do much good and should invest significant resources in border
> > defenses and other means of homeland security.
>
> lol
Lol, indeed. See my most recent post.
> > I wonder if Hunter is posting this article (even in threads where it serves
> > no purpose) to show us he's beginning to have empathy with Israel?
>
> What, are you crazy? H thinks only he can SAVE Israel.
Only me? No, but you certainly can not even contribute to her
salvation.
H and
> Beersheimer (whom H has taken to calling "MeirSCHeimer", for some
> reason). I kid you not. See H's assertions:
>
> "Israel needs my help, Deb. Without people like me and John
> Mearsheimer, she has little chance to survive as a Jewish State.
I keep forgetting your Teutonic side. They have no sense of humor
either.
"http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/
7f7dbadf904c29fa
>
> "No Jewish society and culture here any more. Not for the
> duration anyway. They are peacetime luxuries. Israel is in an
> existential crisis. SCJ and SCI have been requisitioned as platforms
> for the struggle to save her. We goyim appear to be the only ones who
> might be able to accomplish it.
Too dour again by far, sharavi. Try smiling once in a while. It might
melt the hearts of a Fundamentalist or two. Your form of arrogance is
a mental illness akin to narcissism. And don't worry, we "goyim" will
save Israel. But don't take too much pride in it as we'll have to do
it to save ourselves.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Which "chickenhawk" is that? The chickenhawks I see here are Zionist
draft dodgers talking tough about why the goyim should conquer the
entire Muslim World.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Drooling minions. What is that, Shakespearean?
"In Muslim genes" is good enough for government work. It sums up the
gist of Ratner and Staten's arguments as to why we must go on the
offensive against the entire Muslim World, or at least cave in to
Israeli demands for uncritical support in their Greater Israel effort.
Count 1
Clip.
***
Not quite. I respond to your assertions with verifiable facts. You provide
nothing but misquotes and confusion regarding the IAEA's mandate. I'm more
than happy to move on, but I am also perfectly comfortable staying right
here.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Well said, Cain. And Rep. Paul is correct in his claim that the new
sanctions will constitute an "act of war" against Iran in accord the
history of the doctrine of cassus belli in International Law:
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Innews:7e538965-27ce-422a...@u31g2000pra.googlegroups.com
>
> NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL <NOWARS_FORISR...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran Is anActofWar
>
See my response to Lazarus Cain.
drahcir
wrote:
You've lost whatever touch with reality you had. If I ask you to cite
these "argumennts [of mine] as to why we must go o the offensive
against the entire Muslim world", everyone here knows what will
happen. You're nothing but a laughingstock.
drahcir
wrote:
No one asked you about your alzheimic hallucinations, buffoon. Hush up.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Lazarus Cain" <rspeak...@aol.com> wrote in message
Israel is a liberal democracy for Jews only. Others are systematically
discriminated against. That includes Christians and Muslims.
We simply
> cannot judge what country is allowed to do based on what the other is doing
> when the differences between them are so profound.
What's the difficulty? Development of a nuclear power program and
maybe nuclear weapons while being a member of the NPT is a pretty
narrow issue. Development of nuclear weapons without being willing to
admit it and without signing the NPT and with American assistance are
less narrow issues. Frankly, I see the latter as worse and ultimately
more dangerous if only because they've been successful. I also see no
reason in the long run to regard Iran as any more dangerous than
Israel, probably less so. So what "differences between them" are so
profound as to treat them differently? The fact that Iran has
participated in the Palestinian Resistance? Hey, we've participated in
Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people. That's nothing?
> For two, it is well established fact that Iran is only under international scrutiny because they are signatories to the NPT. If they weren't then no one would be able to do anything about their probable pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Israels nukes are under close scrutiny as we speak whether she is a
member of the NPT or not. If, for example, Israel badgers the United
States into attacking Iran, a project its agents of influence here
have been working on for several years now, and you no doubt would be
happy to see, or if with full knowledge the U.S. supported an Israeli
attack on Iran, the results for us would probably be pretty much the
same. It would add another generation to our absolutely unnecessary
military embroilment in the Middle East including continued wars, and
very likely would lead to our national bankruptcy. A way to de-
escalate the situation is Plan B, to decommission Israel's bombs and
to prohibit them in the entire region. It's the Israeli threat that
drives the Iranian program.
>Even John Bolton has admitted to this. The fact that Israel, and indeed many other nations, are not signatories is irrelevant.
Bolton doesn't "admit" it. He crows about it. "Irrelevant," he says.
"Haha, look what follows: THEREFORE, Israel gets a free pass with
between two hundred and four hundred nuclear weapons including the
hydrogen bomb, despite having creating the nuclear arms race in the
region, and we should all jump on her band wagon because she had the
mens rea to refuse to sign the NPT *while* planning and developing
nuclear weapons."
It's a transparent pretense to pretend that Israeli WMDs are
irrelevant. There is far more at stake than some nicety of contract
law. Israel's WMDs are under intense scrutiny. They are a primary
strategic destabilizing factor in the Middle East. You, as a Zionist
partisan, are no more credible than Bolton on this issue. And he's
never credible. Do you think that the Russian/American announcement
about a nuclear free zone in the Middle East was the result of the
"irrelevance" of Israeli nuclear weapons?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Whatever.
coaste...@yahoo.com
All they have to do is combine your arguments on alt.religion.Islam
and you clone Staten's. The conclusion is inescapable.
Alistair
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d73f0e5a-d504-4d3d...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
It's exactly because of people such as yourself, that anti-Semitism has a
worthwhile place in society.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Yes, draft dodgers demanding more American military into the Middle
East. Have you read the Sniegoski article yet?
Count 1
***
LOL - what nonsense.
We simply
> cannot judge what country is allowed to do based on what the other is
> doing
> when the differences between them are so profound.
What's the difficulty? Development of a nuclear power program and
maybe nuclear weapons while being a member of the NPT is a pretty
narrow issue. Development of nuclear weapons without being willing to
admit it and without signing the NPT and with American assistance are
less narrow issues. Frankly, I see the latter as worse and ultimately
more dangerous if only because they've been successful. I also see no
reason in the long run to regard Iran as any more dangerous than
Israel, probably less so. So what "differences between them" are so
profound as to treat them differently? The fact that Iran has
participated in the Palestinian Resistance? Hey, we've participated in
Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people. That's nothing?
****
The difference I outlined above. Iran is a world pariah, Israel is a world
leader, not allowing yourself to be convinced by Palestinian propaganda
would give you a clearer view.
> For two, it is well established fact that Iran is only under international
> scrutiny because they are signatories to the NPT. If they weren't then no
> one would be able to do anything about their probable pursuit of nuclear
> weapons.
Israels nukes are under close scrutiny as we speak whether she is a
member of the NPT or not. If, for example, Israel badgers the United
States into attacking Iran, a project its agents of influence here
have been working on for several years now, and you no doubt would be
happy to see, or if with full knowledge the U.S. supported an Israeli
attack on Iran, the results for us would probably be pretty much the
same. It would add another generation to our absolutely unnecessary
military embroilment in the Middle East including continued wars, and
very likely would lead to our national bankruptcy. A way to de-
escalate the situation is Plan B, to decommission Israel's bombs and
to prohibit them in the entire region. It's the Israeli threat that
drives the Iranian program.
***
There is no Israeli threat, and if there is an Iranian nuclear program it is
driven by their fear of Pakistan possession of nuclear weapons and their
overall desire to be a military superpower in their region. This constant
focus on Israel as a threat to Iran is laughable, Israel simply poses no
threat to Iran.
>Even John Bolton has admitted to this. The fact that Israel, and indeed
>many other nations, are not signatories is irrelevant.
Bolton doesn't "admit" it. He crows about it. "Irrelevant," he says.
"Haha, look what follows: THEREFORE, Israel gets a free pass with
between two hundred and four hundred nuclear weapons including the
hydrogen bomb, despite having creating the nuclear arms race in the
region, and we should all jump on her band wagon because she had the
mens rea to refuse to sign the NPT *while* planning and developing
nuclear weapons."
***
Got a cite?
It's a transparent pretense to pretend that Israeli WMDs are
irrelevant.
***
It's a transparent pretense to pretend they are relevant to Iran, it's a lie
you engage in for an totalitarian theocratic regime, and you should be
ashamed of yourself.
Count 1
> nothing but misquotes and confusion regarding the IAEA's mandate. I'm more
> than happy to move on, but I am also perfectly comfortable staying right
> here.
Whatever.
***
Loser's lament.
someone-who-knows
Alistair <amcl...@home.net> wrote:
> It's exactly because of people such as yourself, that anti-
> Semitism has a worthwhile place in society.
No. Anti-Semitism exists because sad, old degenerates
like yourself have to blame someone for the fact that
their lives were an utter and complete failure.
RJ.