CNBC fucks up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

If the administration hadn't caused such a cloud of bullshit to form around what Iran has then no one would have panicked. If they had reported that Sweden or the Brazil had fired off nuclear missiles no one would have believed it and it we would all be laughing about bad reporting. But, when you combine the fear mongering that this administration has been conducting regarding Iran's nuclear program with a gaff like this then why WOULDN'T you expect a panic?

---

The (two) reasons I don't panic when I hear of international incidents involving Sweden and/or Brazil?

Reason 1
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9959/04ts2.jpg

Reason 2
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/8094/sverigepl7.jpg

The reason I worry when I hear of international incidents involving (nuclear-capable) missiles and Iran?
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9452/khomeinihn0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Yeah..You kinda forgot the other articles, didn't you? Like;

21 October 2003
Iran concedes to demands of the IAEA after talks with Britain, France, and Germany, and confirms signing of NPT's Additional Protocol, allowing the UN watchdog open and unannounced inspections. Iran also agrees to suspend all "uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities."
—"Full text: Iran declaration," BBC (London), 21 October 2003, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/>.

27 October 2003
US intelligence sources of Iranian and Iraqi exile groups are deemed "questionable." Former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright says, "There is a drumbeat of allegations, but there's not a whole lot of solid information. It may be that Iran has not made the decision to build nuclear weapons. We have to be very careful not to overstate the intelligence."
—Robert Collier, "U.S. gleans facts on Iran from debatable source," San Francisco Chronicle, 27 October 2003, in <http://www.iranexpert.com/>.

12 November 2003
The IAEA report released today claimes no evidence of a secret weapons program in Iran but showed concern regarding its production of plutonium, often associated with bomb-making. President Khatami states that although the IAEA report was on the whole positive, it lacked balance, saying "Iran has used the plutonium for manufacturing pharmaceuticals and the IAEA experts themselves well know that such [a] negligible amount of plutonium cannot be used for making [a] bomb." Khatami asserts that the report nevertheless proved Iran's innocence regarding its alleged nuclear weapons program. Khatami concludes by saying that "Iran will never go to enrichment of uranium over the 3.5 percent [mark] which is weapons-grade," and "we understand the world's concern in this respect."
—"Iranian President Optimistic After Nuclear Report," Reuters, 12 November 2003; "President: IAEA Report on Iran Positive, With Unacceptable Parts," IRNA, 12 November 2003.

You were saying, haoh?

---

Then maybe you need to read this report from the early 90's?

Remember all the talk about how we had trained Iraqi soldiers to fight against Iran? We did so, because Iran was receiving weapons and training from the former Soviet Union. They had a very keen interest in overtaking the Middle East and it's oil reserves.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frontpage

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Regnar Rasmussen, a former military interpreter and interrogation specialist trained at the Danish Armed Forces' Specialist School. For more than ten years, he worked as a translator in the Danish Central Police Department (immigration department) as well as in several criminal investigations departments. He affirms that, through his experience, he learned of the many ways in which the Soviet system trained the Islamist enemy we now face in the terror war. More frightening yet, he claims that his sources informed him back in 1992 that the Soviets sold the Iranian Mullahs nuclear warheads in autumn 1991.

---

Forget all the present situations with Iran and look back to the late 80's and early 90's. Iran has (former) Soviet technology and weapons, that they were given while USSR was trying to sway the balance of power in the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

The reason I worry when I hear of international incidents involving (nuclear-capable) missiles and Iran?
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9452/khomeinihn0.jpg

---

A guy whose been dead for almost twenty years? O-kay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Iran has (former) Soviet technology and weapons, that they were given while USSR was trying to sway the balance of power in the Middle East.

---

He doesn't present any evidence to back up his claims. Come back when you find some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

He doesn't present any evidence to back up his claims. Come back when you find some.

---

He doesn't need to. This argument isn't about whether or not (or what) Iran has, merely that the fear of them accumulating WMD's etc... predates GWB by many, many years, through previous administrations, media, and other countries. It does and you're wrong. Take a lesson in humility and admit a mistake it once in a while.

LOL! This is a flimsy line of reasoning to hold onto, even for a conservative. The fact of the matter is that those claims are fringe nothings, not even on the radar of the mainstream, the same with most of the stuff from '94. This contrasts greatly with Bolton saying that the IAEA's report that there is no evidence of a weapons program is "unable to be believed" and that he is certain that Iran is a 'year or less' away from being a nuclear power. That is fear mongering. Now, I think you need to take your own advice and just concede the point, because you haven't had a leg to stand on for a awhile now.

g0zen, you're beating a dead donkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba

Well you convinced me, go democrats.

---

nah Fuck that, i liked you better when you were part of the Raping children brigade.

Go back to that please.

Maybe if stock brokers weren't so quick to jump the gun with information from news channels notorious for not checking facts or relaying all of the facts in the first place (sometimes on purpose) they wouldn't have lost all that money.

These bitches got served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

nah Fuck that, i liked you better when you were part of the Raping children brigade.

Go back to that please.

---

You are a sick man YAWA, raping children twice in one day? Please go back to wherever you came from until you learn to make valid points that don't involve pedofiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

LOL! This is a flimsy line of reasoning to hold onto, even for a conservative. The fact of the matter is that those claims are fringe nothings, not even on the radar of the mainstream, the same with most of the stuff from '94. This contrasts greatly with Bolton saying that the IAEA's report that there is no evidence of a weapons program is "unable to be believed" and that he is certain that Iran is a 'year or less' away from being a nuclear power. That is fear mongering. Now, I think you need to take your own advice and just concede the point, because you haven't had a leg to stand on for a awhile now.

---

You're like the Tigers trying to convince themselves that the World Series really didn't happen. Clinton himself what a threat Iran was and took steps (sanctions) against them. If that's not main stream, than nothing is and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles about Iran's WMD intentions as a rogue state. GIVE IT UP ALREADY. You're destroying what little credibility you have left.