NIE Report

I've waiting long enough on this thing. I was waiting to see whether any of you would post anything about this, but I can see that you guys like to try and ignore the bad news. I'm presuming we all know what I'm talking about, so I don't need to post a link.

So what do you think? Bush was wrong (again) and the Iranians don't have any WMD's, and aren't trying to make any. Now something like this has happened before, I just can't put my finger on it.......

muslims.
evil.

iluvfreebeer wrote:muslims.
evil.

Indeed....

Ah lively, intellectual debate, how I've missed it.

Personally I don't believe the this NIE report anymore than I believed last years report that put Iran much closer than we ever believed to have an nuclear weapon. This is the same intelligence bureau that make both Clinton and Bush believe that Iraq was overflowing with WMDs and it wasn't, why should we believe them now when they go off the chart the other direction.

I think the only safe course when dealing with people who scream "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is to keep a big gun pointed right at their ten ring with the safety off and be ready to shoot if they even act squirrely in the least. Be ready to turn Iran into a glowing sea of glass in a moments notice, no debate or second chance.

yeah.... so if Guatemalans start to chant "death to America" let's point a gun at them too right? and how bout if Canadians decide to chant that as well? get rid of problems wherever they occur yeah? am i right? who's with me? c'mon USA ! USA ! USA !

Personally I don't believe the this NIE report anymore than I believed last years report that put Iran much closer than we ever believed to have an nuclear weapon. This is the same intelligence bureau that make both Clinton and Bush believe that Iraq was overflowing with WMDs and it wasn't, why should we believe them now when they go off the chart the other direction.

I think the only safe course when dealing with people who scream "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is to keep a big gun pointed right at their ten ring with the safety off and be ready to shoot if they even act squirrely in the least. Be ready to turn Iran into a glowing sea of glass in a moments notice, no debate or second chance.

Yeah I'm pretty sure thats not how international diplomacy is supposed to work. Bush said the Iranians are making nukes, turn out they aren't, and you still wanna blow them up?

If you don't trust your intelligence services anymore then how can you guys act on anything? Its interesting that when they say Saddam has WMDs the intel is infallible, but when it says Iran doesn't have them, then its suspect. You guys can't have it both ways. If the report had said Iran was well on the way, you would be screaming for the US to attack right now.

The CIA NSA etal have been FUBAR for a long time now. Totally corrupted by political party agendas and probably a few agendas from outside the US too. The entire US intelligence apparatus needs to be ripped out by the roots and built back new, completely and totally. Half the idiots that actually make the decisions need to be taken out and shot in the head for gross incompetence and stupidity. The other half just need to fade away and bother us no more.

I honestly can't tell which years NIE report to believe, if any of them. I know I don't trust the clowns that released the latest one. They couldn't find a their own asses with both hands, a map, and a mirror but that doesn't mean they're much different than the last crew.

And yeah, you aim your nukes, army, navy and everything else at anyone who yells "death to America", you just don't go around trash talking about it. Hell, you keep a few aimed at those who aren't even yelling at us just for safety's sake. Everyone with a military and / or nuke capability does it, the difference is that Bush talked way too much about it and then again he had the balls to actually do something about it too. His big mistake (of many) was to actually believe the CIA about Saddam's WMDs and doing something about them. Clinton believed the CIA too, he just didn't have the balls to do anything more than bomb Iraq over it.

As I've said before Afghanistan would have been a glowing sea of glass on 9/12/2001 if I had been in office. Bin Laden would have been vaporized along with the taliban that made 9/11 possible. I seriously doubt that anyone would have tried it again but hell, we've got a lot of nukes.

muslims.
evil.

liberals.
more evil.

And yeah, you aim your nukes, army, navy and everything else at anyone who yells "death to America", you just don't go around trash talking about it. Hell, you keep a few aimed at those who aren't even yelling at us just for safety's sake. Everyone with a military and / or nuke capability does it, the difference is that Bush talked way too much about it and then again he had the balls to actually do something about it too. His big mistake (of many) was to actually believe the CIA about Saddam's WMDs and doing something about them. Clinton believed the CIA too, he just didn't have the balls to do anything more than bomb Iraq over it.

Sure, if you wanna aim your missles at those countries go ahead, but you can't go talking about bombing them, and then actually follow through, without knowing almost certainly that they have a nuke/terrorists/hostages/whatever. Thats not how the world works, you can't just do what you want because you half-think there could be the chance that their might be the possibility that they're beginning to build nuclear weapons. The US administration are war-mongers, plain and simple, solely to secure greater resources and to distract people from their real problems (health, education issues). Blowing up a country gives a lot of business to reconstruction corporations, who have huge influence on the government. Bush talked to much?! I doubt it. The UN told him repeatedly that Saddam did not have WMDs and he still went in on that basis. Bush doesn't care, he just makes something up, the average American swallows it because the media get caught up in a big story that sells papers and gets viewers, and then the US goes in. Rant, rant, rant.............

Spoken like a true loser from a nation whose army couldn't scare an average boy scout troop.

Spoken like a true loser from a nation whose army couldn't scare an average boy scout troop.

Weak, very weak. I'm proud that NZ isn't a warlike nation, unlike you savages. We don't need a big military because people don't hate us, people don't want to fly planes into our buildings, and people don't hold rallies praying for our downfall. I know what you're going to say as well, that you don't care what the world thinks as long as the US is powerful and secure. Well here's a newsflash: you're never going to be secure until you open your eyes and realise that the world does not revolve around the US and what you guys want. I know a lot of Americans realise that, and are tolerant progreesive people. But they also see their political process being high-jacked by right-wing nuts and christian evangelicals. No wonder half the country doesn't turn up to vote, as they realise no matter who they vote for their own interests will be ignored. Land of the Free? What a joke.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Spoken like a true loser from a nation whose army couldn't scare an average boy scout troop.

Weak, very weak. I'm proud that NZ isn't a warlike nation,

Got oil? nope
Got gold? nope
got advanced technology? nope

Other than stunning scenery, what does NZ have that anyone would want?

It isn't the tolerant progressives that are the salvation of our nation but the true conservatives. You keep mistaking these Neoconservatives, actually hawk Democrats like FDR, Kennedy, Johnson etal, for conservatives, they aren't. They may be Republicans but don't confuse that with conservative either. Real conservatives aren't into democracy building, nation building and all that crap. We're only interested in how everything affects us and ours.

And remember that kissing the bad guys azz doesn't historically work at keeping you safe either! Just ask France and England and oh, I seem to remember NZ and AUS having a bit of problems with the Japanese a few decades ago too. It's all on a wheel, it will come around again and any nation that hasn't taken care to ensure it's national sovereignty will bleed and lose it.

Got oil? nope
Got gold? nope
got advanced technology? nope

Other than stunning scenery, what does NZ have that anyone would want?

Its not a matter of natural resources or anything like that. Its the fact that we aren't a nation that attempts to tell people what to do, or use our army to make people do it. If we did, then people would have a problem with us and they would try to hurt us. No doubt, we're a very minor player in world affairs, but we actually stand up for things that matter (e.g. nuclear weapons, climate change, unrestricted whaling, the Iraq War, etc). I guess you could say we're the world's conscience (which tends to be largely ignored).

Real conservatives aren't into democracy building, nation building and all that crap. We're only interested in how everything affects us and ours.

Thats pretty much the crux of it really, and thats why the US is always going to be viewed with suspicion and hate somewhere in the world.

And remember that kissing the bad guys azz doesn't historically work at keeping you safe either! Just ask France and England and oh, I seem to remember NZ and AUS having a bit of problems with the Japanese a few decades ago too. It's all on a wheel, it will come around again and any nation that hasn't taken care to ensure it's national sovereignty will bleed and lose it.

Yeah, and that was a war where diplomacy had been pursued and trade sanctions imposed before it all began. Its not about kissing the bad guys ass either, diplomacy can be forceful if need be. If the UK and France had stood up to Hitler earlier they could have stopped him, but they didn't need to fight to do it until they had given up too much. One of the big problems NZ and Oz had was the fact that their troops were already overseas, having been fighting a war for over two years against an opponent much more powerful than the Japanese. The US didn't fight until it was forced into it, though I'm not ungrateful for the assistance of the Lend-Lease Act to the UK. Regardless, that whole period was a completely different time, where economic relationships were vastly different and there was less outrage at military expeditions.

New Zealand ensures its sovereignty by being a friend and good trade partner to nations around the world, so these nations have a vested interest in keeping us prosperous and stable.

Actually I have little or no problem with NZ or their stance in the world. I wish the US would adopt more of a isolationist stance myself. As for diplomacy, it works as long as the United (against the US) Nations isn't involved.

But then again there will be a day when the little nations who can't protect themselves will call on the US to bleed for them. I hope we're still up to the task then or willing to do so. I was in Kabul when the Russians left Afghanistan and I remember how much they loved the US then. It really only took 8 years of Clinton's diplomacy to screw that up royally.

Actually I have little or no problem with NZ or their stance in the world. I wish the US would adopt more of a isolationist stance myself. As for diplomacy, it works as long as the United (against the US) Nations isn't involved.

NZ is not isolationist, but we prefer peaceful resolutions to international issues. The UN isn't perfect, but I like the concept and believe it can be made to work. However we've already had this argument, so I will leave it at that.

The UN is nothing more than a socialist tool to enable loser mini-states to take wealth and advancements from civilized winners like the USA.