BS: American aggression - the big bully

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:16 PM

They ARE starting to breathe heavy, thanks to Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 06:13 PM

Do they say the Yanks are coming (or hope and pray that we are) or do they say the big bully is coming? mg

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 06:48 PM

Unfortunately that is only second rate survival among humans, who seem to do much better in affinity with their kind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 05:50 PM

Darwinism and the Ontological Argument.

Copious copulation ensures your genes endure, but killing rivals adds a soupcon of insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 05:39 PM

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

Same guy.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 05:09 PM

"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best."
-- Voltaire, Notebooks, vol. 2, "The Piccini Notebooks" (1968 ed.)

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 03:01 PM

the only reason Iran or North Korea would want them
is to prevent any US invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 01:08 PM

Theoretically the large number of nukes the the U.S. has was a guarantee of peace ala the tenet of mutually assured destruction. MAD however does not take into account smaller regimes aquiring nukes.
I don't know why any country would want them. Joining the big boy club is pretty stupid and why would we (the world) want any other mad men to have them (aside from those that already do).

And then again when this administration starts talking about "pocket nukes"...

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 09:12 AM

Not true, Amos. The US ratted on the deal with Britain to share nuclear weapons technology. Fortunately for Attlee and Aldermaston, and unfortunately for the British people and the rest of the world, British scientists had been involved in the Manahattan project, and using their know-how an independently developed device was ready by 1952.

Russia got them because once the Americans had them, it was known that it was possible, politically imperative, and technically possible with the armies of Soviet physicists available. Spying was unimportant technically. Read Zhores Medvedev's "Soviet Science" (1978) for details of how the Gulag system was used in this.

Israel probably didn't get nuclear technology from the USA directly, again it being a home- brewed development (involving apartheid South Africa). Similarly, the Chinese and North Koreans made their own up. There's enough information out there for a team of competent physicists to recreate quite sophisticated devices at fairly short notice, given the materials.


Who's next?

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:41 AM

.... er, do you mean the US or the UN... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST,Freddy
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:24 PM

I think the US would gladly hand the job over to the UN if it were functional.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 07:38 PM

Oh, that's easy! Just keeps going up!

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:51 PM

Or your tax bill !

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 07:24 PM

Now that we've had to rush into East Timor (again), what with the Solomon Islands, Afghanistan and Iraq, our military is feeling the strain, so much so that we can't even keep track of the coffins coming back home...

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 03:32 PM

SussexCarol - I'm sorry to inform you that Canada, under the new leadership of Harper, does not mind its own business.

In fact, Canada's new leader is another American lapdog. A Conservative, Fundamentalist who seeks to 'improve' Canada's relationship with the U.S.

According to the new administration, we have enough troops for Afghanistan but not enough troops for Darfur.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 01:05 PM

The US has them because they invented them.

Israel and Britain have them because they derived them from the U.S., an ally.

Russia has them because the USSR stole the design.

India and Pakistan have them because they were educated by the British.

North Korea has them and Iran will have them because they can't bear seeing such a huge discrepancy in might especially not in their favor, and have worked very hard to develop them using information that was either borrowed, stolen or published on the Internet.

A

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 12:33 PM

The nuclear double standard has been an American policy for some time now. There is no reason to assume America under Bush wouldn't use nuclear weapons again.

Here's how I define "terrorism". Nagasaki and Hirsoshima. Iran is not the real threat.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: SussexCarole
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:55 AM

Kendall here.

I still think we should stay at home and mind our own business like Canada does.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:45 PM

Let's see:

Britain
France
US
China
India
Pakistan
Russia
Israel is 98% certain
North Korea, too

I think that's all right now.

Of these,

Britain, France, the US, China and Russia have vetoes in the UN Security Council.

Of those five, the US is waaaaaaaaaaay overextended militarily, and both North Korea and Iran know it.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:02 PM

Because God is on the side of the big battalions.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Big Tim
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:45 AM

Why are some countries "allowed" to have WMD and not others?

Why do they want them in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 08:53 PM

HOw many Friday, the 13ths are there in 2006? I know there is one in October. Now, there is a widespread phobia.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 07:47 PM

its because the US is an 'empire'.

'Avoid foreign entanglements' was George Washingtons advice.

The road to empire and to hell, is paved with good intentions.
Woodrow Wilson whose campaign theme was 'he kept us out of the war'
got the US into WWI to 'keep the world safe for Democracy'
(never mind what the British colonials in India and Egypt must have thought of that)

Kennedy said 'if the South Vietnamese want a revolution they should do it themselves like we did'
Johnson who opposed sending American boys to Southeast Asia to do a job that the Asians should be doing themselves - turned right around
and sent them in .
Somehow 'fighting for democracy' and 'we'll bomb them to the stone age ' seem to be contradictory values.

Bush 'the decider' who didnt believe in nation building, and went ahead did it anyway.

with regard to the question:
Why is it such a big deal that Iran might develop nuclear weapons.
Mainly because they (like Korea) have realized that this would prevent the US from trying to topple their regime.
The main threat is really to Americas superpower status.
Its due for a decline anyway as all empires do.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:55 PM

Freda, thank you, that's exactly what we need, the world view, many can't see what's in front of their nose, but can get a better view from a distance.
My only disagreement is that Bush was not elected but rather imposed upon us & there for impeachment is to good for him, he should get a 21 gun salute, to his head.
We are by far the most disliked travelers in foriegn parts, he's a yank or she's an American is heard world wide with disgust while no other traveler gets hit with that expression more than US & as an American I can't blame them either.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:20 PM

Freda, we do not need any "down under" bullshit - we have enough right here, thank you very much!

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:20 PM

From Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency...


"MONTEREY, California (Reuters) - Iran does not pose an immediate nuclear threat and the world must act cautiously to avoid repeating mistakes made with Iraq and North Korea, the head of the U.N, nuclear watchdog agency said on Tuesday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the world shouldn't "jump the gun" with erroneous information as he said the U.S.-led coalition did in Iraq in 2003, nor should it push the country into retaliation as international sanctions did in North Korea.

"Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat," the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize told a forum organized by the Monterey Institute of International Studies south of San Francisco. "We still have lots of time to investigate."

"You look around in the Middle East right now and it's a total mess," he said. "You can not add oil to that fire."

The recent violent history in Iraq bears an important lesson for diplomacy with neighboring Iran, the diplomat said. "We should not jump the gun. We should be very careful about assessing the information available to us," he said.

The Bush administration led a coalition into Iraq in 2003 saying President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were found.

"I ask myself every day if that's the way we want to go in getting rid of every single dictator," ElBaradei said.

While it was unclear whether Iran ultimately intended to redirect its development of nuclear power into a weapons system, it was clear there was no danger of that right now, he said.

The five U.N. Security Council permanent powers and Germany, trying to curb Tehran's nuclear program, are planning to meet in Vienna on Thursday to try to finalize a package of incentives for Iran to halt uranium enrichment along with penalties if it keeps defying international pressure.

ElBaradei said he believed a majority in the Iranian leadership was still interested in a negotiated solution and normal relations with the world. The United States is pressing for tough U.N. sanctions if Iran does not comply.

"It would be terrible" to try to strengthen sanctions, which could force Iran to retaliate, he said.

"We have learned some lessons from North Korea," he said. "When you push a country into a corner, you are giving the driver's seat to the hard-liners there.""

Reuters

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:18 PM

I think I wouldn't discount the numerological connection here. If you have tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of Americans with numerological hangups, you can get them into a good panic by making bad things happen on numerologically significant dates.
I can imagine that getting lots of Americans in a panic would be very satisfying to some people.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:08 PM

I don't buy into that stuff. But maybe a terrorist organization would. (911 is the North American phone number for emergencies. Who's to say someone out there won't think that June 6 wouldn't be a neat day to cause trouble?)

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 12:54 PM

Anchoring one's real ambitions to pissant numerological significances is kinda dumb, in my opinion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 12:51 PM

Superstition is one thing- people's willingness to utilize superstitions is another thing. Things like 9/11 - I suppose we'll never know if the numeral had anything to do with the chosen date. So now 666? Possible, of course, but not likely. Unless you actually buy into it as being of cosmic significance. Like Apollo 13.

"We'll understand it all by and by". I wish.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:56 AM

Piss on the USA and its bullshit intelligence organizations. If anyone with the money wants a nuclear device, all they have to do is buy one. Has it stuck anyone that June 6, 2006 is coming? What a time for stuff to happen.

666

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 11:49 AM

So the "Big Bully" in this thread is W?

Seems right.

In reality.

But we all know reality has a strong liberal bias.


A

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:38 AM

This article was spot on..

Phillip Adams: 'The President is bonkers: Lock Bush away to stop the next war' Phillip Adams, The Australian April 06

WE cannot wait any longer for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Far more efficient to have Bush certified. There is no need for further debate on his mental state. The US President is bonkers. Having turned the White House into a madhouse, having taken more lunatic positions on more issues than any head of state since GeorgeIII (are they, perchance, related?). GWB needs a long rest and a change of medication. And it shouldn't be too hard to guide him into a padded cell. Just tell him it's the presidential bomb shelter.

Let's examine the symptoms of his mental decline. First, Bush convinced Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. This is something the poor fool might have believed, given a tenuous grasp of geography, history and political reality. He then began to hallucinate about weapons of mass destruction, despite the evidence of Hans Blix and a multitude of others that there weren't any. And he finally organised a tatty little alliance to join him in the silliest war since Vietnam, one guaranteed to recruit terrorists in unprecedented numbers.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was launched with presidential lies. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war descended into a moral and military quagmire. And if Iraq seems to be less of a stuff-up, consider this fact: it's taken just three years in Iraq for US deaths to equal the body count after six years in Vietnam. Little wonder six retired senior generals have joined ranks with the American public in condemning the war, or that the guru of neo-conservatism, Francis Fukuyama, has broken ranks with the likes of Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol in denouncing it. Or that many in the Republican hierarchy have joined left-wing critics denouncing the invasion as a mistake and a failure, calling for immediate withdrawal.

When Bush was re-elected in 2004, this column suggested the President would go on to blast Iran or have the job done by Israeli surrogates. Both scenarios were dismissed as absurd and alarmist. Now journalist Seymour Hersh's revelations of a US plan to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps with nuclear bunker-blasters, are causing national and international dismay. They've also provoked anger among the Pentagon's highest-ranking officers already enraged by Donald Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Given Rumsfeld's clear contempt for their opinions, they might well feel mutinous should he and the Commander-in-Chief show further signs of strategic insanity. But would that prevent air strikes by the Israelis? Given the sabre-rattling by that ratbag in Tehran, what could hold Israel back?

Bush is attempting to hose things down, but the world recalls his endlessly repeated mantra before the invasion of Iraq. Military intervention wasn't inevitable, just an option. Now bleeding in the polls with mid-term elections looming, isn't it possible that Bush might go for broke? Double or nothing? A final, desperate throw of the dice?

Condoleezza Rice might join the Pentagon in trying to talk him down. So, one hopes, would Tony Blair and John Howard. But did Bush listen to reasoned argument last time? With a reckless, irrational President, you've the perfect set-up for the tail to wag the dog. As with 9/11, here's an opportunity for reality to follow a Hollywood script. Last week I discussed this scenario with Fukuyama. His initial response was that Bush's political situation is too perilous for such a tactic, that the US public and its media wouldn't tolerate another Iraq. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities could be characterised as surgical. It might not need troops on the ground and would certainly seem more relevant to the war on terror than the neo-con adventure in Iraq. Fukuyama conceded that such a strategy was possible.

And that possibility is more than enough. A lame-duck President with the eagle as his symbol once again takes the role of hawk. With his presidency a total mess, what's there to lose? So it's time to certify the President. Yes, you'd have to certify his equally deranged Vice-President as well. And toss in Rumsfeld to keep them company. Along with anyone else in the administration, the Congress, the Senate or the Australian parliament mad enough to think Iraq a sane decision.

Source: The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
0,20867,18843175-12272,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:19 AM

Now various Countries are offering to 'buy off' Iran. God Bless the United Nations!

How about telling Iran we will not beat them to the punch if they stop their developement program. Seems fair to me.

And Stig...., it matters not about the religion, it is about surviving.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:46 AM

plus or minus 5 years...

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: John O'L
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:41 AM

Four to ten years? I thought they were much closer.

That is a relief.

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:35 AM

Stigweard:

Because it is unstable and capable of being swept into extremes of bad temper -- not the sort to be trusted donche rknow...


A

Subject: RE: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:02 AM

...The package agreed on Thursday carries the threat of U.N. sanctions if Tehran remains defiant over what the West calls a rogue nuclear program that could produce a bomb. The United States, in a major policy shift, conditionally agreed this week to join those talks. It would be the first major public negotiations between the two countries in more than 25 years.

Rice met with the foreign ministers from the European nations that led talks with Iran, which stalled last year. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Russia's foreign minister and a deputy Chinese foreign minister also attended.

Russia and China might join in any future talks with Iran. Both hold vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, and the United States needs their cooperation to seek sanctions or other harsh measures.

The formal offer of talks are expected to be made by France, Britain and Germany - the three nations that previously negotiatiated with Tehran. A senior U.S. state department official said he expected Tehran would be invited to begin new negotiations "within a matter of days."

A short statement issued by foreign ministers from the six powers and the European Union did not mention economic sanctions, which the U.S. wants and Iran has tried hard to avoid.
        
The powers agreed privately, however, that Iran could face tough Security Council sanctions if it failed to give up unranium enrichment and other disputed nuclear activities, U.S. officials said.

Subject: BS: American aggression - the big bully
From: Stu
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 07:37 AM

Now the Americans are saying that their intelligence indicates Iran could have a nuclear bomb within four to ten years - are we to infere anything from this statement?

Now, we don't need to reiterate how accurate this intelligence has been in the past, so is this reliable this time? Who would take the responsibilty for the deaths of innocent people on the basis of this information? Would someone have the courage to take responsibility for the actions of their own servicemen?

More to the point, why shouldn't Iran be allowed nuclear weapons? The US has them, Israel has them - does this mean only people conforming to the US Judeo-Christian belief system can have weapons of mass destruction (unless you already have them, then you back off big style as bullies dowhen threatened with retaliation- think China and North Korea)?