Ahmadinejad speech to UNSC

[jamesmcd]

I just watched the speech live on CNN of Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations Security Council. To put it simply, I was pleased with what I saw, and genuinely believed that Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons (not that I every thought they did).

If his speech was serious, and he wasn't just 'having the world on' so-to-speak, then I think that he might be the first to make the middle-east take their first step into the right direction.

I come from NZ, and our country is not involved in Iraq at all. In fact, our Prime Minister has publicly criticized the war many times. I personally think the person that should be on trial in Iraq right now should be President Bush.

Anyway, just felt like saying that.

[KingYaba]

I find it sad that people believe what mahmoud ahmadinejad says more than what President Bush says. Mahmoud does not strike me as an honest person. For the record, President Bush appears to me more honest than Ahm-a-crazy-ding-dong-Ah-jad.

[lord patton]

I find it sad that people believe what mahmoud ahmadinejad says more than what President Bush says. Mahmoud does not strike me as an honest person. For the record, President Bush appears to me more honest than Ahm-a-crazy-ding-dong-Ah-jad.

KingYaba, only a crazed Texan neocon warmongering jingoist evangelical dips!ht moron of a Republican could believe that a fine democratic liberal tolerant secular well-dressed non-homosexual-executing seeking-nuclear-power-despite-GOBS-of-oil fairly-elected president of a peace-loving Persian civilization that chants DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! could be dishonest.

[benthewraith]

I find it slightly disturbing that people turn a blind eye to the fact that Ahmadinejad has said that they WOULD wipe Israel from the map and destroy the West, and people would rather believe him than a person (as incompetent as he may or may not be, time is the ultimate judge), who has always felt what he was doing was right for his country. I don't know what I'd do in his position.

[benthewraith]

KingYaba, only a crazed Texan neocon warmongering jingoist evangelical dips!ht moron of a Republican could believe that a fine democratic liberal tolerant secular well-dressed non-homosexual-executing seeking-nuclear-power-despite-GOBS-of-oil fairly-elected president of a peace-loving Persian civilization that chants DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! could be dishonest.

Are you being sarcastic? Please tell me you are?

[KingYaba]

I think it's safe to say he was being sarcastic. :D Funny post by the way.

[lord patton]

Are you being sarcastic? Please tell me you are?
Yeah, dude. Next time I'll beat you over the head a little more transparently:D

EDIT: although I'll admit, George W. has earned our distrust.

[beatsme]

I just watched the speech live on CNN of Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations Security Council. To put it simply, I was pleased with what I saw, and genuinely believed that Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons (not that I every thought they did).


couldn't help but notice that he was speaking to a rather sparse crowd. I wonder if that's because the assembly thinks he's a kook or if they're worried that attendance might be construed as a show of support. Never good to be a foreign person who's gotten on W's bad side...

[jamesmcd]

True, it was very sparse indeed. Israel wasn't even there :cool:

At the end, he recieved a good applause though. This speech seems to be a completely different tone than his previous ones. Perhaps he knows that he needs to be a good boy from now on... or at least act like one.

Put it this way. Iran has no nukes, US has heaps. Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of people due to his actions, Ahmad hasn't.

Remember the whole thing with Iraq and WMDs? Think people, here we are going crazy about Iran and Nukes. What next? Hell, maybe New Zealand will have nukes (despite our nuke-free policy).

[mdntcallr]

wow, you actually believe Iran has no designs on building nuclear weapons?

Iran is a fundamentalist islamic state which is anti all forms of individual rights. If someone believes differently and speaks up, they are murdered.

Iran also sponsors terrorism worldwide through proxies. such as via Syria and Terrorist organizations based in PLO territories. They are pushing overthrow of all "moderate" or western nations which have majority islamic people.

That and to mention Iran is basically evil. They have full of hatred for western civilization, christians, jews and anyone who isnt muslim.

We have alot to fear from Iran and all of their friends.

[zimv20]

We have alot to fear from Iran and all of their friends.
no, *you* have a lot to fear, because you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

reread your post -- it's like a talking points memo from a drunk karl rove.

[FFTT]

Arabs are just like them upitty Injuns standing in the way of progress.

[jamesmcd]

You know Iranians aren't Arabs right?

[skunk]

Just for the record:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5362208.stm
Iran president berates US and UK
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the US and UK of using the UN Security Council for their own ends.
In a speech to the UN General Assembly, he accused the two of being prosecutor, judge and jury whenever they have a difference with another country.

But they use their privileged position whenever the international body tries to hold them to account, he said.

The US and Britain are two of the five permanent members of the security council with the power of veto.

The others are France, China and Russia.

In his speech, Mr Ahmadinejad defended Iran's nuclear programme, which he again said was peaceful.

He contrasted this with the possession and past use of nuclear weapons by countries criticising Iran.

"Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends, including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity," he said.

He described his own country's nuclear activities as "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes" of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Turning to the US and Britain, he asked: "Which of the organs of the UN can hold them to account?

"Can a council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?"

Mr Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will not yield to international pressure to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.Somehow, he seems more reasonable, moderate and politically astute than little George. That expensive Harvard education didn't achieve much, did it?

[bousozoku]

Just for the record:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5362208.stm
[/indent]Somehow, he seems more reasonable, moderate and politically astute than little George. That expensive Harvard education didn't achieve much, did it?

You mean Yale, don't you or am I missing something again? I don't think the president could have done better if he had attended all of his classes and taken exams. He still comes off as a backwoods type every time he says "nucular."

[Dont Hurt Me]

If its a peaceful Nuclear program like he says then why cant he open it up 100% ? Because it isnt,never was. It was a underground weapons project. Stop ignoring the facts
Yes we have a Moron as president who has screwed up Iraq so bad now that he is confronted with the real deal in Iran he cant do much. America elected a clown and we are stuck with him.
Ahmadeinejad speech was interesting and I agreed with a lot of his points but that doesnt change the fact that Iran has a weapons program thats been going on for almost 2 decades. He can talk about everything in the world but the proliferation of nukes isnt something anyone should ignore... Europe you paying attention? He's in your backyard.

[dsnort]

Somehow, he seems more reasonable, moderate and politically astute than little George.

Evil snake oil salesman are usually very charming. Works like a charm on the gullible.

[skunk]

You mean Yale, don't youWhoops! :o

[beatsme]

Whoops! :o

actually, Bush did his undergrad at Yale and got an MBA at Harvard. I'm sure both institutions are extremely proud...

[it5five]

If its a peaceful Nuclear program like he says then why cant he open it up 100% ? Because it isnt,never was. It was a underground weapons project. Stop ignoring the facts
Yes we have a Moron as president who has screwed up Iraq so bad now that he is confronted with the real deal in Iran he cant do much. America elected a clown and we are stuck with him.
Ahmadeinejad speech was interesting and I agreed with a lot of his points but that doesnt change the fact that Iran has a weapons program thats been going on for almost 2 decades. He can talk about everything in the world but the proliferation of nukes isnt something anyone should ignore... Europe you paying attention? He's in your backyard.

Let's open up our nuclear program to Iran then, okay? I'm sure you'd have no problem doing that.

Even if Iran does have nukes, I'd rather this country do absolutely nothing about it until we get Bush out of office. I don't want a "war president" trying to solve any sort of problem like this. He's already shown he is incapable of solving probelms diplomatically since he chose not to talk to Ahmadinejad when he was here.

[Thomas Veil]

I don't trust either one of them. Both liars, as far as I'm concerned, although I think Ahmadinejad is even crazier than Bush, and a lot more politically canny.

actually, Bush did his undergrad at Yale and got an MBA at Harvard. I'm sure both institutions are extremely proud...Think about this:

Moron scores degrees from Harvard and Yale, with rich and powerful daddy's help. Fails in business, then becomes President of the United States.

In another world, this would have been the plot of some dumb teenage comedy directed by the Farrelly brothers or the Wayans.

In ours, it's a sad and frightening reality.

[mactastic]

Lol... some people believe what EITHER of those two said? I wouldn't trust either man as far as I could throw them. Although, speaking of which, that could be fun...

Of course Iran is after nukes, and of course Bush somehow thinks he has the wherewithal, or the moral high ground, to stop Iran.

The question isn't what do we do about Iran's weapons program, it's what kind of relationship will we have with a nuclear Iran? All the bloviating about how to stop them is useless -- unless we're willing to use a nuclear first-strike, or commit 10 times the number of troops we used in Iraq, we won't do much more than delay Iran's nuclear ambitions for a few more years while they rebuild hardened facilities that will allow their work to proceed.

And I see only a very few on the extreme right fringe willing to advocate either of those approaches.

[Sdashiki]

a nuke has not been dropped onto civilians for over 50 years.

why are countries so involved in trying to get a nuke for themselves?

I mean, we, the US, have like 20,000+ and it only takes one to end the world.

Why would anyone want to build a new nuke, the coldwar was one thing, today, wtf is the point.

ONE nuke equals worldwide destruction from not just nuclear, but social, political, and military fallout.


there is a huge difference between the US dropping 2 nukes thousands of miles from its people, and every single Middle Eastern country wants to use nukes to bomb Israel, which would pretty much DOOM the entire region to nuclear winter and all that.

so tell me, Iran, why do you want a nuke anyway? Get with the program and do some sorta space based Under Siege 2 type crap. Nukes are so last century.

[lord patton]

Lol... some people believe what EITHER of those two said?...

Of course Iran is after nukes, and of course Bush somehow thinks he has the wherewithal, or the moral high ground, to stop Iran.

The question isn't what do we do about Iran's weapons program, it's what kind of relationship will we have with a nuclear Iran?

I think that's exactly right.

Sometime after the Iraq invasion, Tony Blair said he felt if the "world community" had stood together, war wouldn't have been necessary. I agreed with that then, and think the same is true regarding Iran today.

If the world, including Russia, China, Taiwan, and Israel, along with Europe and the South American Marxists, demanded Iran stop, and were prepared to use force, well then we wouldn't have to use force. But that's not going to happen.

So either Iran goes nuclear, or the U.S. and/or Israel attacks (and Iran still probably goes nuclear). Both scenarios are dangerous, and the latter would mean the death of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and the likely marginalization of America's military and economy for a generation.

We just don't have the leadership to deal with this. Remember when C.O.B.R.A. combined the DNA of history's most brutal tyrants to create Serpentor? We need to do the same with the DNA of Reagan, Kennedy, and Eisenhower.

[mactastic]

so tell me, Iran, why do you want a nuke anyway? Get with the program and do some sorta space based Under Siege 2 type crap. Nukes are so last century.
Because members of the nuclear club rarely get invaded. Particularly of concern when you look at the fate of the members of the "axis of evil".

You don't suppose Iran has any reason to suspect the US might want to use their military against them, do you? No history of coups, supporting opposition groups secretly? No US troops in close proximity? Nothing like that, right?

[dsnort]

Remember when C.O.B.R.A. combined the DNA of history's most brutal tyrants to create Serpentor?

While I see the sense of most of your post, I just want to check to make sure you know that....um....C.O.B.R.A. wasn't......uhh...... real. :D

[Sdashiki]

well logistically, you cant drop a nuke on planet earth.

ever.

if you did, the world would end.

so, in the end, what did dropping it accomplish?

Because the reason it was dropped, because moot, once it explodes.

So, why have one you cant use, and if you did use, would DOOM your people.

Let Iran say they will Nuke Israel.

i could care less, seeing as how im like 4000 miles away, and Iran is less than 1000 from ground zero of a nuclear attack.

Arab countries call for Israel to go away, and of course they want to do it with panace (like with a nuke) and just forget about the fact its in their backyard.

Pakistan vs India, another set of geniuses posturing for bullcrap.

One nukes the other, BOTH die not just from retributional nukes, but from fallout. One nuke, and the WORLD is effected, especially when its your neighboring country you bombed.

idiots, all of em, idiots. please drop the bomb now and get it over with, the beaureaucratic crap, is getting to me.

[lord patton]

While I see the sense of most of your post, I just want to check to make sure you know that....um....C.O.B.R.A. wasn't......uhh...... real. :D

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mactastic]

One nuke won't end the world. A massive nuclear exchange might, but one won't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that it would be a good thing, just that the overheated rhetoric of "one nuke ends the world" is a good reason to dismiss anything else you might have to say.

[skunk]

We need to do the same with the DNA of Reagan, Kennedy, and Eisenhower.What a ghastly thought.

[dsnort]

One nuke won't end the world.

But it can ruin an otherwise lovely day!

My question is would anyone stupid enough to use a nuke against their neighbor have enough sense to stop with just one? :eek:

[zimv20]

One nuke won't end the world. A massive nuclear exchange might, but one won't.
i submit that a nuclear winter may be the only way to stop global warming.

[lord patton]

i submit that a nuclear winter may be the only way to stop global warming.

ha ha ha ha ha:D Nice.

But really, though. Global warming is so passe. It's climate change now. Any change (or lack thereof) in any direction.

[zimv20]

Global warming is so passe. It's climate change now.
my friends and i made t-shirts in the 80's that said, "I hate the greenhouse effect."

there's a term not much used anymore.

[lord patton]

my friends and i made t-shirts in the 80's that said, "I hate the greenhouse effect."

there's a term not much used anymore.

Sure. Same for acid rain.

[Sdashiki]

One nuke dropped destroys the world, in theory, not in some crackpot type thing i got in my head.

A nuke dropped anywhere pretty much gives free license to all Nuclear Powers to drop theirs wherever they see fit. Its a quick and dirty thing to think about happening, but I dont doubt it.

You cant expect a nuke to go off and the world to ignore it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

One nuke dropped destroys the world, in theory, not in some crackpot type thing i got in my head.

A nuke dropped anywhere pretty much gives free license to all Nuclear Powers to drop theirs wherever they see fit. Its a quick and dirty thing to think about happening, but I dont doubt it.

You cant expect a nuke to go off and the world to ignore it.And yet Iran wants to build Nukes and the world is ignoring that.

[XNine]

I believe both of them are liars. Iran's president is a snake in the grass bastard, and Bush is just an out-right bastard.

Iran is run by an intolerant government who wishes to wipe an entire people off the face of the earth. American is run by a careless government made up of oil execs and two-faced business men. Which is worse, which is worse?

Man, if my ass gets fried by a nuke before I can scratch all of the items off my list to do in life, I will be pissed. Dead, and pissed.

And, to 'Rat, we didn't really elect the president last time. He just happened to have a brother in Florida that covered up ballot-tampering to achieve his ultimate goal. Despite failing business, being caught doing coke in college, and being part of the oil empire, commiting war crimes, people still see him as a great guy.

I think him and Saddam should be allowed in a boxing ring, no-holds bar fight. My money is on Saddam...

[skunk]

Queensberry Rules?

[mactastic]

And yet Iran wants to build Nukes and the world is ignoring that.
The US wants to build nukes and wants the world to ignore it too...

[Dont Hurt Me]

The US wants to build nukes and wants the world to ignore it too...True, Bush & gang are setting the poorest example you could. Its almost like they want everyone on the planet to arm themselves to death with every kind of weapon they can. Bush has taken us & the world with him back 50 yrs. Stupid is as stupid does and Iraq was stupid.

[Sdashiki]

I am pretty sure the US hasnt created any new nuclear warheads.

though i could be way off, I just think 20,000+ is a good number.

[mactastic]

I am pretty sure the US hasnt created any new nuclear warheads.

though i could be way off, I just think 20,000+ is a good number.
But they WANT to. Which is all Iran is accused of at this point.

It's just a moral high-ground issue.

[Sdashiki]

If the past is a lesson to be learned, no one is in class.

Just because Russia and the US have tens of thousands of nukes, doesnt make it OK for anyone else to start making their own.

When Reagan was in office, I beleive Gorbachev said "Hey, we are broke, I dont like my nukes anymore, Ill dismantle EVERY SINGLE ONE, regardless if your country will do the same." Reagan said "No. I want my star wars".


So, I guess this is all Reagan's fault, otherwise there wouldnt be the huge proliferation of nukes across the world, to make the rest of the world "jealous", cuz they wouldnt exist anymore.

But, whatever, if someone thinks making and then keeping a nuke is a deterrent, then just SAY you have one dammit.

This isnt the cold war where we parade out our ICBMs for spy satellites.

[zimv20]

Just because Russia and the US have tens of thousands of nukes, doesnt make it OK for anyone else to start making their own.

pakistan made their own. they're led by a military dictatorship, have ties with the taleban and AQ, and are a strongly muslim country with a bitter rival right next door. and they haven't used theirs.

the world won't end when iran gets their nukes. literally and figuratively.

[Sdashiki]

i just fail to see the purpose of nukes.

other than to say :


"Look mommy, look what I made, arent you proud of me!?"

mommy being the world stage


A nuke in todays world, has no place.

[zimv20]

i just fail to see the purpose of nukes.
as mac mentioned, iran need look no further than the US involvement in iraq but not north korea to conclude nukes are a deterrent to US military activity.

and you can add pakistan to that list -- would they really be the US' "ally in terror" if they didn't have nukes? the US military knows that it could operate in northern pakistan if they desired and the pakistani military wouldn't be able to do much about it.

[Sdashiki]

i fail to see how N korea OR Iran having a nuke makes a difference to the US mainland.

They cant reach us, so what could they do? Blow up their own country if we invade?

I mean, yeah, hit our "interests abroad" and whatnot, but Americans only care about AMERICA. Its the Govt. PR dept's job to make it seem WE as a people care.

[benthewraith]

i fail to see how N korea OR Iran having a nuke makes a difference to the US mainland.

They cant reach us, so what could they do? Blow up their own country if we invade?

I mean, yeah, hit our "interests abroad" and whatnot, but Americans only care about AMERICA. Its the Govt. PR dept's job to make it seem WE as a people care.

They could hit Europe, Israel, Syria, Russia...resulting in massive loss of life. Really though, I do care about the people in other countries.

[Sdashiki]

I care too, but how does hurting people NOT in the US, hurt the US?

Sure, bomb the EU, I dont live there.

I know people who do.

But if thats what Iran or anyone would do to "get back at the US", they are truly worthless people.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i fail to see how N korea OR Iran having a nuke makes a difference to the US mainland.

They cant reach us, so what could they do? Blow up their own country if we invade?

I mean, yeah, hit our "interests abroad" and whatnot, but Americans only care about AMERICA. Its the Govt. PR dept's job to make it seem WE as a people care.I have to disagree, America's govt could care a less about anyone including Americans. Bush has shown it on Katrina,Iraq,Dubai Ports deal and with millions of illegals just walking in. Its clear that this congress & president could give a flip for the american worker. They are interested in corporations,little else. Greedy corporations is what they care about.

[Sdashiki]

Im talking about the people, not the Govt.


Terrorists dont see a difference between the two, but I do, and alot of Americans do.

your obviously anti-bush comment, is well received, but ill informed and not to the point.


yes, bush "does not care about the american people", but I am speaking in generalities about people believing that attacking "our allies" actually accomplishes anything they set to do.

[mactastic]

Terrorists dont see a difference between the two, but I do, and alot of Americans do.
Speaking of ill-informed comments...

As I recall, bin Laden has made remarks specifically directed at the American people, not their government.

[dsnort]

And, to 'Rat, we didn't really elect the president last time. He just happened to have a brother in Florida that covered up ballot-tampering to achieve his ultimate goal.

Wow, people still buy into that old, tired, and extremely poorly thought out argument? I quess tin foil hats will be coming back into fashion soon.......

[skunk]

Wow, people still buy into that old, tired, and extremely poorly thought out argument? I quess tin foil hats will be coming back into fashion soon.......I'd say it had more than a passing chance of being true, and if so it represents no less than the illegal takeover of the most powerful country on earth. Which is pretty serious.

[benthewraith]

I'd say it had more than a passing chance of being true, and if so it represents no less than the illegal takeover of the most powerful country on earth. Which is pretty serious.

They did several recounts, he won all of them. They should have done another election, really. :( I'm going to go on the benefit of the doubt he actually won Florida considering how the State swung in the 2004 election.

[zimv20]

They did several recounts, he won all of them.
if "they" refers to the recount analysis done by a consortium of several newspapers, then, yes, the headline said that bush won. but the article said pretty much the opposite.

we had threads and threads and threads about this.

[dsnort]

I'd say it had more than a passing chance of being true, and if so it represents no less than the illegal takeover of the most powerful country on earth. Which is pretty serious.

Passing chance? So thats what we base our political philosophies on now, a passing chance?

The 2000 election in Florida was a screwed up mess, ( especially in those district controlled by election boards who were democrats ). But to say that Jeb Bush somehow, behind the scenes, stole the election for his brother and left absolutely no evidence of it? That ascribes nearly mythical and superhuman powers to Jeb that frankly, I don't think he has.

C'mon people. We have GOT to use our brains as something more than organic recorders fit only for memorizing and then regurgitating the pablum and dogma of some ******** spinmaster who doesn't care about me or you, he just wants to win "the game".

And if we can't do that, then I say screw it, let's nuke ourselves. The result will be the same, we just won't have the decades of endless ******** to deal with.

[zimv20]

to say that Jeb Bush somehow, behind the scenes, stole the election for his brother and left absolutely no evidence of it?
strawman.

[dsnort]

strawman.

Would you care to explain that?

[zimv20]

Would you care to explain that?
you made a strawman argument. no one is asserting that what happened in florida is 1) the actions of jeb bush, or 2) that there is no evidence.

[dsnort]

you made a strawman argument. no one is asserting that what happened in florida is 1) the actions of jeb bush, or 2) that there is no evidence.

As to your first point, I guess you missed this:

And, to 'Rat, we didn't really elect the president last time. He just happened to have a brother in Florida that covered up ballot-tampering to achieve his ultimate goal.

Which was quoted in my post above and was the entire premise I disputed.

As to point two, I am really unaware of any evidence which would lead anyone to believe Jeb Bush covered up ballot tampering. If there is such evidence, then trot it out and lets throw the SOB under the prison.

[mactastic]

you made a strawman argument. no one is asserting that what happened in florida is 1) the actions of jeb bush, or 2) that there is no evidence.
He just happened to have a brother in Florida that covered up ballot-tampering to achieve his ultimate goal.

That's part one. I'd agree though that part two is something of a strawman. Not much of one though.

[XNine]

Funny, how the company that produced the voting machines for the Florida elections (Diebold) has been picked apart for it's lack of security features. Even one study by a university recently published a report (see this article (http://news.com.com/E-voting+machines+again+under+fire/2100-1028_3-6115873.html)) that it is entirely possible to code a virus that changes the vote, spread to other voting machines, and then completely eliminate itself from the system to leave no tracks or evidence of a virus was there at all. They've been able to do this.

I believe Florida was the only state to fully utilize these evoting machines rather than paper ballots. Hmmmm. Why would that be?

[Dont Hurt Me]

They did several recounts, he won all of them. They should have done another election, really. :( I'm going to go on the benefit of the doubt he actually won Florida considering how the State swung in the 2004 election.Whats the point of elections without a real paper trail? Every state should demand no more electronic voting without a paper trail and even a receipt for the voter.

[zimv20]

As to your first point, I guess you missed this:
sorry, i did indeed miss that bit.

I am really unaware of any evidence which would lead anyone to believe Jeb Bush covered up ballot tampering.
i'm not privy to any, but if we look further, there is a lot of evidence of election tampering in general. for example, the GOP flew in staffers to harass election judges examining punch-through ballots, people were illegally removed from voter rolls, some districts (dem, of course) were short of voting machines, voters were incorrectly told they had to report to another voting site, mailings were sent to homes incorrectly telling people they couldn't vote, et. al.

all these infractions were directed against those registered democrat or likely to vote democrat. it was widespread, dirty, and barely concealed. i'm less interested in what jeb had to do with anything than the concerted GOP effort at handing FL to bush.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Look at our Govt its ran 100% by republicans, and if it sucks change it. And it does.
Look at our govt 20 yrs ago ran by democrats and it sucked so we changed it.
:confused:

[dsnort]

Whats the point of elections without a real paper trail? Every state should demand no more electronic voting without a paper trail and even a receipt for the voter.

Now that I agree with. Mostly. Not sure about receipts.

I believe Florida was the only state to fully utilize these evoting machines rather than paper ballots. Hmmmm. Why would that be?

Ooooooooh, you do love a good conspiracy theory, don't ya!:D

And they were not fully utilized in the election, some districts used them, most did not. This same concern about the lack of a paper trail was brought up before the election, and elections in those districts were watched closely.

And just to clarify, I believe it is the local election boards that decide what equipment to use, as long as it is on a list of devices approved by the state. My own district uses the scan machines where you fill in the bubbles with a pencil. Leaves a paper trail, easy to determine the voters intent.

I gotta run for while. I have a sudden interest in starting up a tin foil hat company. ;)

[dsnort]

sorry, i did indeed miss that bit.

No problem, it happens

for example, the GOP flew in staffers to harass election judges examining punch-through ballots,

Both parties had operatives on the ground, at the recounts, arguing their position.

people were illegally removed from voter rolls,

I remember this, but I seem to remember it had something to do with election officials trying to remove convicted felons and illegal immigrants that were improperly registered by democratic operatives. Mistakes were made.

some districts (dem, of course) were short of voting machines,

Again, this is the responsibility of the local election board, which, in a heavily democratic district, would be democrats.

Here's a couple you forgot.

Retiree's to Florida who went to the polls in Florida, and also sent absentee ballots to their home state. ( Largely democrats )

A large number of absentee ballots from American service people serving overseas, that the democrats tried to get thrown out.

I would probably try to convince you that Rep are better than Dems, but actually I agree with:

Look at our Govt its ran 100% by republicans, and if it sucks change it. And it does.
Look at our govt 20 yrs ago ran by democrats and it sucked so we changed it.
:confused:

Both sides are just out for themselves. And it will NEVER change until we learn to think for ourselves, and quit believing a single damned word any of these lying bastards say.

[beatsme]

Whats the point of elections without a real paper trail? Every state should demand no more electronic voting without a paper trail and even a receipt for the voter.

that's a good idea, but if the machines can be rigged to flip votes you'd have to assume that they can also be rigged to generate a bogus receipt.

[XNine]

Ooooooooh, you do love a good conspiracy theory, don't ya!:D

My mother doesn't call me the "magnificent bastard" for no reason, ya know.

[dsnort]

My mother doesn't call me the "magnificent bastard" for no reason, ya know.

LOL, good one :D

[Music_Producer]

wow, you actually believe Iran has no designs on building nuclear weapons?

Iran is a fundamentalist islamic state which is anti all forms of individual rights. If someone believes differently and speaks up, they are murdered.

Iran also sponsors terrorism worldwide through proxies. such as via Syria and Terrorist organizations based in PLO territories. They are pushing overthrow of all "moderate" or western nations which have majority islamic people.

That and to mention Iran is basically evil. They have full of hatred for western civilization, christians, jews and anyone who isnt muslim.

We have alot to fear from Iran and all of their friends.

I feel sorry for you and your ignorant brain. Don't worry, Bush will protect your scared butt.

[Music_Producer]

I don't know what the fuss is all about Iran having nuclear weapons (or nookyoolar :p ) Every country needs to have nukes as a deterrent. Do I wish nobody on this planet had a nuke? Of course I do, but realistically.. a nuclear weapon simply acts as a deterrent.. a powerful one at that.

Lets look at India (where I'm from) .. we have had wars with China and Pakistan in the past. China has nukes, so does Pakistan.. so India needs to have nukes too.. to act as a deterrent. If Pakistan (which is a rogue state) wanted to attack India with a nuclear weapon.. they could have done so a long time ago. The only thing that stops them, besides common sense, is that India has an equal number or greater, nuclear weapons as well. Nobody wants an all-out nuke scenario where both countries will be totally destroyed (and most of the world too.. from the fallout and radioactive effects)

If I were the President of Iran, had a ton of oil in the country.. of course I would bloody want to manufacture nuclear weapons. To keep them as a deterrent. I have Iraq on one side, Israel on the other.. its not exactly a peaceful backyard is it? Combine that with a madman like Bush threatening to call every country in the world 'evil' and attack them.

If Iraq *really* had WMDs.. Bush wouldn't have had the balls to attack them in the first place.

[skunk]

I think every country should be given half a dozen nukes. End of problem.

[solvs]

I'm with the "I don't trust either of them" folks here. Far be it from me to defend Iran, but I don't trust GW to deal with them. Like Iraq, at this point I don't know what to do other than just be angry at those who put us into this catch-22.

Damned either way, but I'm guessing both men will try to do and say whatever they can to sustain their desire for power.

[Sdashiki]

I don't know what the fuss is all about Iran having nuclear weapons (or nookyoolar :p ) Every country needs to have nukes as a deterrent. Do I wish nobody on this planet had a nuke? Of course I do, but realistically.. a nuclear weapon simply acts as a deterrent.. a powerful one at that.

Lets look at India (where I'm from) .. we have had wars with China and Pakistan in the past. China has nukes, so does Pakistan.. so India needs to have nukes too.. to act as a deterrent. If Pakistan (which is a rogue state) wanted to attack India with a nuclear weapon.. they could have done so a long time ago. The only thing that stops them, besides common sense, is that India has an equal number or greater, nuclear weapons as well. Nobody wants an all-out nuke scenario where both countries will be totally destroyed (and most of the world too.. from the fallout and radioactive effects)



i think you are caught in a catch 22.

its a good deterrant, but useless as one.

meaning, you need one because your enemies have one.

but if your enemies used it on you, they too would feel its effects, from being neighbors n all.

meaing they wont ever drop one.

to me, unless the whole country is suicidal, a nuke is no deterrant to anything, especially in the region you speak of.

[KingYaba]

Iran is suicidal. And that scares the **** out of me.

[mactastic]

Iran is suicidal. And that scares the **** out of me.
First off, how can a nation be suicidal?

And if you speak of their leadership, I guarantee you that they are not suicidal.

Letting your fears dictate your international policy is a reciepe for disaster. Try not to be so afraid, and use your rational thought process to evaluate this situation.

[KingYaba]

I speak of their leadership.

[dsnort]

I think we are missing the main concern over Iran having nukes. It's not that they are going to build a missle or a bomber to carry that nuke to the US mainland, or to europe.
The concern is that Iran DOES sponsor terrorism against non islamic fundamentalist nations, so they conceivably could supply terrorists with a "briefcase nuke".

[Sdashiki]

i think you need the ability to even make nuclear fuel, before you can get as advanced as a suitcase bomb.

which I am actually kind of, pretty sure, never existed anyway.

regardless, Iran is in the infancy stages of making nukes (if they even are) and one would think you need to learn before you can move ahead.

[mactastic]

I speak of their leadership.
And what makes you think their leadership is suicidal?

[miloblithe]

And what makes you think their leadership is suicidal?

His lack of an understanding of populism in the context of the middle east.

[Sdashiki]

Iran is run like a mutant conglomerate, but without the flashy suits.

he is a PR man, the entirety of the Iranian govt, makes absolutely NO sense to me, and it seems the Pres, is a nobody, just someone who does what he is told.

by unelected people? gimme a break.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

[Dont Hurt Me]

Why dont we just say Theocracy because thats what Iran is. Religious nuts who arent elected telling everyone what to do and how to think.

[Thanatoast]

If Iran's leadership is suicidal then ours is murderous.

Not a good combination.

[hulugu]

wow, you actually believe Iran has no designs on building nuclear weapons?

Iran is a fundamentalist islamic state which is anti all forms of individual rights. If someone believes differently and speaks up, they are murdered.

Iran also sponsors terrorism worldwide through proxies. such as via Syria and Terrorist organizations based in PLO territories. They are pushing overthrow of all "moderate" or western nations which have majority islamic people.

That and to mention Iran is basically evil. They have full of hatred for western civilization, christians, jews and anyone who isnt muslim.

We have alot to fear from Iran and all of their friends.

Good to see you labeled all 68 Million people in Iran as evil.

[hulugu]

I think we are missing the main concern over Iran having nukes. It's not that they are going to build a missle or a bomber to carry that nuke to the US mainland, or to europe.
The concern is that Iran DOES sponsor terrorism against non islamic fundamentalist nations, so they conceivably could supply terrorists with a "briefcase nuke".

Making a nuclear weapon that's small enough to be carried by a person (in a package that weighs less than 200 pounds) is very, very difficult and requires a serious investment in technology that only the US and the Soviet Union have ever attempted. Furthermore, such a specific weapon would leave a trace that could be tracked back to the original designers, thus if a suitcase goes off in New York, we'll know who built it and we'll be able to retaliate.

Iran isn't interested in attacking the US, they're interested in regional power and they want to have a very big stick. The Iranians are dangerous, but the whole suitcase nuke is widely overstated and overwrought.

[mactastic]

Good to see you labeled all 68 Million people in Iran as evil.
But don't worry, those same evil people whose hearts are full of hatred for Jews, America, and the West in general, can be counted on to welcome the US military as liberators -- even though the US military is overwhelmingly non-Muslim.

It's stunning logic, I tell you.
:rolleyes:

[solvs]

But don't worry, those same evil people whose hearts are full of hatred for Jews, America, and the West in general, can be counted on to welcome the US military as liberators -- even though the US military is overwhelmingly non-Muslim.
My head would explode, but I'm actually getting kinda used to this logic. Try this one on. They're building a bomb to defend themselves from us because they're afraid we're going to attack them so they're going to attack us so we have to attack them. At the end of the day, lots more innocent dead people, lots more new terrorists created, and a lot more money lining the pockets of rich dudes while the rest of us watch helplessly as we become what we claim to be fighting against.

[coffey7]

I find it slightly disturbing that people turn a blind eye to the fact that Ahmadinejad has said that they WOULD wipe Israel from the map and destroy the West, and people would rather believe him than a person (as incompetent as he may or may not be, time is the ultimate judge), who has always felt what he was doing was right for his country. I don't know what I'd do in his position.


I agree. IF LIKE, AHMADINEJAD SAID THE WORLD WILL END IN 2 YEARS THEN WHY DOES HE NEED NUCLEAR POWER? Can't he just use oil for power? HE WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DESTROY THE WORLD. Instead of just reading the new york times, how about reading everything that this wannabe Anti-Christ is saying. On Iran tv he tells things a little different. I really can't understand why liberals would side with people that want to kill them. Bill Clinton is even on his side. He said he is sorry that the U.S oppresses them so much. I remember when this Ahmadinejad was part of a terrorist act that captured Americans in Iran(1979) and held them for 444 days. You should really read all the things the nuts are saying. Of course at the U.N he acts like a good little boy.

[mactastic]

I agree. IF LIKE, AHMADINEJAD SAID THE WORLD WILL END IN 2 YEARS THEN WHY DOES HE NEED NUCLEAR POWER? Can't he just use oil for power? HE WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DESTROY THE WORLD. Instead of just reading the new york times, how about reading everything that this wannabe Anti-Christ is saying. On Iran tv he tells things a little different. I really can't understand why liberals would side with people that want to kill them. Bill Clinton is even on his side. He said he is sorry that the U.S oppresses them so much. I remember when this Ahmadinejad was part of a terrorist act that captured Americans in Iran(1979) and held them for 444 days. You should really read all the things the nuts are saying. Of course at the U.N he acts like a good little boy.
Hey, thanks for proving that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT OF REALITY!

But just to follow up your line of reasoning IF JERRY FALWELL SAYS WE ARE IN THE END TIMES, WHY DOES HE SUPPORT BUSH'S DESIRE FOR MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Obviously BUSH AND FALWELL WANT TO DESTROY THE WORLD.

Right?

[zimv20]

I agree. IF LIKE, AHMADINEJAD SAID THE WORLD WILL END IN 2 YEARS THEN WHY DOES HE NEED NUCLEAR POWER? Can't he just use oil for power? HE WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DESTROY THE WORLD. Instead of just reading the new york times, how about reading everything that this wannabe Anti-Christ is saying. On Iran tv he tells things a little different. I really can't understand why liberals would side with people that want to kill them. Bill Clinton is even on his side. He said he is sorry that the U.S oppresses them so much. I remember when this Ahmadinejad was part of a terrorist act that captured Americans in Iran(1979) and held them for 444 days. You should really read all the things the nuts are saying. Of course at the U.N he acts like a good little boy.
i can't tell if you're just a troll or a 12 year old kid. maybe because there's little difference.

you can't go through your whole life being this afraid, you know. i'd like to say it's unamerican, but i don't think that's true anymore.

btw -- BOO!

[mactastic]

btw -- BOO!
Oh Christ, I think I just wet the bed some more. Here, take more of my rights so that the father-government can keep me safe at night, and evildoers the world over can't hurt me. [/SCARED RIGHTY]

[coffey7]

I'm with the "I don't trust either of them" folks here. Far be it from me to defend Iran, but I don't trust GW to deal with them. Like Iraq, at this point I don't know what to do other than just be angry at those who put us into this catch-22.

Damned either way, but I'm guessing both men will try to do and say whatever they can to sustain their desire for power.

Have you ever went to history class. Iran hated us when Jimmy Carter was president. He got on his knees and begged them to release the hostages(in 1979). Iran funds terrorist acts. The President of Iran wants to end the world. EVEN IF AL GORE WAS PRESIDENT THEN THE ISLAMO-NUTS STILL WOULD HAVE ATTACKED US ON 9/11 AND THEY WOULD STILL BE ACTING US NOW. The reason that the nuts of the world like the democrats is because they kiss there asses and let them get away with murder. North Korea has nuclear weapons because the Clinton admn. gave them the money and the materials to make them. Of course the little Hitler said I'm just going to use them for power not missiles. Then a week later he started the missile program. This is all common knowledge. Albright and Clinton really messed up on that one. If you trust a Hitler in a head wrap more than President Bush then you are who I am really scared of. I really think is crazy that liberals think that Bush became President and then all of a sudden the world was scared for there lives and wanted nuclear weapons. The terrorists didn't care if Clinton or Bush was president they were planning 9/11 years before it happened. We have to stick together or we will all wake up one mourning and find out a atomic bomb went off in a major city in the world. Then maybe you will wake up and learn that the U.S.A is not the cause of all the worlds problems.

[coffey7]

Hey, thanks for proving that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT OF REALITY!

But just to follow up your line of reasoning IF JERRY FALWELL SAYS WE ARE IN THE END TIMES, WHY DOES HE SUPPORT BUSH'S DESIRE FOR MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Obviously BUSH AND FALWELL WANT TO DESTROY THE WORLD.

Right?

Jerry never cut anyones head off. And he never said he wanted to wipe the jews off the map.

[zimv20]

Have you ever went to history class. Iran hated us when Jimmy Carter was president. He got on his knees and begged them to release the hostages(in 1979). Iran funds terrorist acts. The President of Iran wants to end the world. EVEN IF AL GORE WAS PRESIDENT THEN THE ISLAMO-NUTS STILL WOULD HAVE ATTACKED US ON 9/11 AND THEY WOULD STILL BE ACTING US NOW. The reason that the nuts of the world like the democrats is because they kiss there asses and let them get away with murder. North Korea has nuclear weapons because the Clinton admn. gave them the money and the materials to make them. Of course the little Hitler said I'm just going to use them for power not missiles. Then a week later he started the missile program. This is all common knowledge. Albright and Clinton really messed up on that one. If you trust a Hitler in a head wrap more than President Bush then you are who I am really scared of. I really think is crazy that liberals think that Bush became President and then all of a sudden the world was scared for there lives and wanted nuclear weapons. The terrorists didn't care if Clinton or Bush was president they were planning 9/11 years before it happened. We have to stick together or we will all wake up one mourning and find out a atomic bomb went off in a major city in the world. Then maybe you will wake up and learn that the U.S.A is not the cause of all the worlds problems.
in all seriousness:
1. you need to calm down
2. you should use whitespace
3. such deficient spelling and grammar doesn't lend itself to being taken seriously

[mactastic]

Jerry never cut anyones head off. And he never said he wanted to wipe the jews off the map.
So's your old man.

[mactastic]

Oh, and if this is all Clinton's fault WHY DID BUSH DO NOTHING ABOUT BIN LADEN FOR OVER A YEAR OF HIS OWN PRESIDENCY?

[hulugu]

I agree. IF LIKE, AHMADINEJAD SAID THE WORLD WILL END IN 2 YEARS THEN WHY DOES HE NEED NUCLEAR POWER? Can't he just use oil for power? HE WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DESTROY THE WORLD. Instead of just reading the new york times, how about reading everything that this wannabe Anti-Christ is saying. On Iran tv he tells things a little different. I really can't understand why liberals would side with people that want to kill them. Bill Clinton is even on his side. He said he is sorry that the U.S oppresses them so much. I remember when this Ahmadinejad was part of a terrorist act that captured Americans in Iran(1979) and held them for 444 days. You should really read all the things the nuts are saying. Of course at the U.N he acts like a good little boy.

There's no hyperbole in your statements at all, is there? Plus, I like how you randomly accuse Bill Clinton and 'liberals' of being on Ahmadinejad's side. It's much easier to misrepresent the positions of people who disagree with you rather than have an actual debate.

[hulugu]

Have you ever went to history class. Iran hated us when Jimmy Carter was president. He got on his knees and begged them to release the hostages(in 1979).

You need to go to history class. A five minute Google search will show that the Iranians were more than a little miffed that we helped depose Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup in 1953. Furthermore, any research into the Iranian revolution in 1979 will show that the revolution included feminists and intellectuals who hoped for a liberal-western democracy but were thwarted by the mullahs and fanatics like Armadinejad.

Iran funds terrorist acts. The President of Iran wants to end the world.EVEN IF AL GORE WAS PRESIDENT THEN THE ISLAMO-NUTS STILL WOULD HAVE ATTACKED US ON 9/11 AND THEY WOULD STILL BE ACTING US NOW. The reason that the nuts of the world like the democrats is because they kiss there asses and let them get away with murder. North Korea has nuclear weapons because the Clinton admn. gave them the money and the materials to make them...planning 9/11 years before it happened. We have to stick together or we will all wake up one mourning and find out a atomic bomb went off in a major city in the world. Then maybe you will wake up and learn that the U.S.A is not the cause of all the worlds problems.

The Bush administration did not cause 9/11, but they were given some notice in August which they ignored. Gore or Nader might have made the same mistake and this fact is only useful to keep the administration for continuously repeating the idea that the event was 'unthinkable.'
Furthermore, while Democrats have been busy 'kissing asses,' men like Rumseld and Cheney have been meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) with dictators like Saddam Hussien and running companies that sell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html) technology to Iran.
But, that makes your story of Democrats weak and stupid and Republicans strong and smart, so much easier when you ignore reality.

[mactastic]

You need to go to history class. A five minute Google search will show that the Iranians were more than a little miffed that we helped depose Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup in 1953. Furthermore, any research into the Iranian revolution in 1979 will show that the revolution included feminists and intellectuals who hoped for a liberal-western democracy but were thwarted by the mullahs and fanatics like Armadinejad.



The Bush administration did not cause 9/11, but they were given some notice in August which they ignored. Gore or Nader might have made the same mistake and this fact is only useful to keep the administration for continuously repeating the idea that the event was 'unthinkable.'
Furthermore, while Democrats have been busy 'kissing asses,' men like Rumseld and Cheney have been meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) with dictators like Saddam Hussien and running companies that sell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html) technology to Iran.
But, that makes your story of Democrats weak and stupid and Republicans strong and smart, so much easier when you ignore reality.
I thought about rebutting his arguments with facts, but it's obvious that no facts will change his mind. Thus, it's off the the hyperbole races.

I suppose I should accuse ferretboy of having loyalties to America's enemies while I'm at it...

[skunk]

I suppose I should accuse ferretboy of having loyalties to America's enemies while I'm at it...You could make a convincing case for George being one of those, I'm sure. Reminds me of Croesus and the Oracle of Delphi.

Croesus: "O Oracle, will I win this war?"
Oracle: "If you invade, a great nation will perish."
Croesus: "Gee, thanks, that's just what I needed to hear."

A little later, after Croesus' kingdom of Lydia has lost the war...

Croesus: "But, but, but..."
Oracle: "Heh-heh. I didn't say which nation."

[hulugu]

I thought about rebutting his arguments with facts, but it's obvious that no facts will change his mind. Thus, it's off the the hyperbole races.

I suppose I should accuse ferretboy of having loyalties to America's enemies while I'm at it...

After posting this he showed up in another thread and did nearly the same thing, I've sent him a polite email to stop troll these threads and I'm going to ignore him from now on as responding to his posts is just a giant waste of time.

[solvs]

Have you ever went to history class. Iran hated us when Jimmy Carter was president. He got on his knees and begged them to release the hostages(in 1979). Iran funds terrorist acts. The President of Iran wants to end the world. EVEN IF AL GORE WAS PRESIDENT THEN THE ISLAMO-NUTS STILL WOULD HAVE ATTACKED US ON 9/11 AND THEY WOULD STILL BE ACTING US NOW. The reason that the nuts of the world like the democrats is because they kiss there asses and let them get away with murder. North Korea has nuclear weapons because the Clinton admn. gave them the money and the materials to make them. Of course the little Hitler said I'm just going to use them for power not missiles. Then a week later he started the missile program. This is all common knowledge. Albright and Clinton really messed up on that one. If you trust a Hitler in a head wrap more than President Bush then you are who I am really scared of. I really think is crazy that liberals think that Bush became President and then all of a sudden the world was scared for there lives and wanted nuclear weapons. The terrorists didn't care if Clinton or Bush was president they were planning 9/11 years before it happened. We have to stick together or we will all wake up one mourning and find out a atomic bomb went off in a major city in the world. Then maybe you will wake up and learn that the U.S.A is not the cause of all the worlds problems.
He doesn't wear a head wrap. The rest of your post is nonsense as well. You obviously didn't get what I said at all, and you obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I said I didn't trust the guy, but I don't trust this administration to deal with it based on how poorly the WOT is going in Iraq, Afghanistan, and NK. Oh wait, we're not in NK, even though they already have the bomb and are wanting to use it. Same with Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where the real terrorists actually are. So what do we do about Iran? Do you have a plan that won't turn it into another Iraq? Does Bush? What do we do about Iraq? We're still stuck there. Does anyone know what to do at this point. I'm guessing no. So you can be afraid of the boogey man all you want. I'm sure your buddy GW will save us just like he hasn't every other time. But I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault Bin Laden is still out there too. So let's attack another oil rich country that had nothing to do with 9/11 while the real bad guys like OBL and NK get off scott free. And I must be a lefty for thinking so, because everyone has to be a member of a political party and I don't agree with your brilliant faulty logic, so I must be one of those radical left wing nut jobs who believe things aren't going well like the other 70% minority of the country.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you using logic. Everything you said is completely wrong. You just keep believing all that though, I'm sure it helps you sleep at night. The rest of us will keep questioning things so we don't keep making the same mistakes like a true patriot would. Because things ain't going so well, and attacking Iran isn't going to make things any better.

[KingYaba]

After posting this he showed up in another thread and did nearly the same thing, I've sent him a polite email to stop troll these threads and I'm going to ignore him from now on as responding to his posts is just a giant waste of time.
But then you'll miss all his amusing posts! :p

[solvs]

But then you'll miss all his amusing posts! :p
It would be funnier if people didn't actually believe this stuff.

[hulugu]

But then you'll miss all his amusing posts! :p

This is true, there is a certain atavistic joy in ripping into his posts. :D