Skip to main content

View Diary: Bolton Says: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran (332 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The IAEA's head was very clear, wasn't he? (0+ / 0-)

    "The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms."

    Are you claiming that the IAEA head did not, as of two days ago, understand the IAEA's stance on the issue of whether there is any evidence of an Iranian weapons program?

    Do you enjoy ridicule, or are you merely content to suffer it?

    •  No need to be derisive Thomas. (0+ / 0-)

      You are willing to trust a terrorist regime that has threatened to destroy Israel and which sponsors terrorism in Iraq.  

      I, on the other hand, am not willing to trust them, especially when the IAEA (not exactly a hard assed bunch of Iran haters) has said that Iran is not cooperating in their investigations and that, sans such cooperation, that are not in a position to verify that Iran does not possess the capability to make and use nuclear weapons.  

      I have close friends that live in Israel.  It must be easy to be so trusting from where you live.  I I'll bet that's not Israel.    

      Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not willing to trust Iran... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades

        ...and that's why I support continued inspections by IAEA inspectors. It is YOU who are apparently willing to attack Iran even though inspectors are telling us precisely the same thing they told us in Iraq: there was no evidence of WMD, but they needed more time to prove that such programs DIDN'T exist.

        You are espousing a Bush-style pre-emptive attack in the absence of any compelling evidence. To do so here at DKos is trollish, to say the least.

        •  I never espoused an attack. (0+ / 0-)

          I have simply asked others to articulate an effective alternative to military intervention that is something more than "wait and pray that it doesn't happen".  

          [crickets]

          PS:  And that's

          not

          what the IAEA is saying.   They are saying that they don't know, one way or the other, and appear to be suspicious of Iran's stonewalling.  

          I am, too.

          Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there is. (0+ / 0-)

        That's exactly what your efforts to drag the discussion into tinfoil hat looniness calls for.

        Iran has not "threatened to destroy Israel",  and your characterization of the IAEA's position is also complete and utter bullshit. Those who have actually read their reports,  instead of merely cutting-and-pasting quotes from someone else's talking points memo,  know what the IAEA's "concerns" really are.

        This is a "reality-based community".  If you're looking for a "paranoid war-mongering community",  try redstate.com.

        •  I read the Iranian Student News Agency (0+ / 0-)

          translation of the speech.  You can read it for yourself.   He was pretty clear that a "cleansing fire" would do the trick.  

          What I cut and pasted was directly from the IAEA reports, which are available on their website.   You really need to read first, then post.  

          Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:31:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site