Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!

[Decker]

no need to go into the absurdity of the UN process. i dont want our president going to anyone but congress before we go to war. iraqs defiance over allowing security inspectors for the entire clinton administration combined with there constant attempt to shoot down our pilots in the no-fly zone does not constitute unprovoked. stop trying to paint little bitty iraq with harmless leader saddam as just some country we were trying to bully around. everyone on this forum knows better

Oh really?

Then why did Bush go to the UN and ask for permission to use force to attack Iraq?

The no-fly zones have no legal force--it's something the US just threw together to anatagonize the Iraqis and further erode their economic standing.

So Iraq was flaming meteor on course to take down the US? Iraq was pretty harmless. It was a toothless tiger.

Now it's a civil war b/c of Bush's illegal invasion.

 

[Decker]

maybe because uranium enrichment for weapons and power is the exact same thing up until it gets to 5%. something not easy to do. do we really need to go into the "declared nuclear material" topic?

Nope. I'll settle for the expert opinion of the IAEA inspectors.

And so should you.

The inspectors are on the ground doing the job they are trained to do.

This is the run up to war Iraq-style: No evidence on your part, just innuendo and unsupported allegations.

 

[bio-chem]

Oh really?

Then why did Bush go to the UN and ask for permission to use force to attack Iraq?

The no-fly zones have no legal force--it's something the US just threw together to anatagonize the Iraqis and further erode their economic standing.

So Iraq was flaming meteor on course to take down the US? Iraq was pretty harmless. It was a toothless tiger.

Now it's a civil war b/c of Bush's illegal invasion.

the first question was pretense. nothing more.

no fly zones. multiple reasons none of which you mentioned.

saying iraq was harmless is just wrong. the country in the 20 years previous to us invading has shown agression multiple times both against its neighbors and own people. yea, iraq was a toothless tiger that invaded kuwait, gassed kurds and fought a war with iran. pretty toothless if you ask me

 

[bio-chem]

Nope. I'll settle for the expert opinion of the IAEA inspectors.

And so should you.

The inspectors are on the ground doing the job they are trained to do.

This is the run up to war Iraq-style: No evidence on your part, just innuendo and unsupported allegations.

so your going with the guys on the ground? i would to if they were allowed to do their job. truth is rarely are they given the ability to do that. to go in and see what they need to without being turned away and let in much later. they have little power to go into a country and do what they need to the first time. its not happened in iraq, iran, korea. they are allowed to see only what the countries leaders want them to see.

 

[bio-chem]

Director General´s Statement to IAEA 51st General Conference
Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak ??? "this is regrettable", he commented; and

While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

heavy water reactors are use for????thats right plutonium production


also on sept 12 of this year, just a month old the IAEA director said that iran had just agreed to a timeline so outstanding questions on irans nuclear program could be answered. sounds to me like iran has been open and forthcoming on their nuclear program and we should just let them be.



Iran´s Failure to Comply with UN Demands

FT: People expect on Wednesday you will report that Iran has not suspended because there´s no sign that Iran has suspended. That´s the clear expectation.

ELBARADEI: Yes.

FT: So after your report there will obviously more pressure from the US to push for more sanctions. Do you think that it will be ill advised to push for more sanctions at the Security Council straight away?

ELBARADEI: Obviously, short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend. I´m going to see Mr. Larijani tomorrow, who´s coming to see me in Vienna. And I will continue to make a last-ditch effort to try to convince them that it is in their interest to find a way to go into negotiations. If it doesn´t happen and I don´t see that it is going to happen overnight, I will have to report negatively.

The Security Council resolution, the previous one, 1737 [agreed in December], indicated that if Iran did not comply they will take additional measures. It´s a policy judgment, I do not want to replace myself for the Security Council´s judgment, but I know for sure that even with additional sanctions, if they were to go for additional sanctions, they would still, in parallel, look for ways to get Iran to the negotiating table and in compliance with the concern of the international community that the programme is not a peaceful programme. Really the whole thing is about confidence-building.

 

[Decker]

Director General´s Statement to IAEA 51st General Conference
Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak ??? "this is regrettable", he commented; and

While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

heavy water reactors are use for????thats right plutonium production


also on sept 12 of this year, just a month old the IAEA director said that iran had just agreed to a timeline so outstanding questions on irans nuclear program could be answered. sounds to me like iran has been open and forthcoming on their nuclear program and we should just let them be.



Iran´s Failure to Comply with UN Demands

FT: People expect on Wednesday you will report that Iran has not suspended because there´s no sign that Iran has suspended. That´s the clear expectation.

ELBARADEI: Yes.

FT: So after your report there will obviously more pressure from the US to push for more sanctions. Do you think that it will be ill advised to push for more sanctions at the Security Council straight away?

ELBARADEI: Obviously, short of a major change of heart, I would report that Iran has not complied with the demand of the international community to suspend. I´m going to see Mr. Larijani tomorrow, who´s coming to see me in Vienna. And I will continue to make a last-ditch effort to try to convince them that it is in their interest to find a way to go into negotiations. If it doesn´t happen and I don´t see that it is going to happen overnight, I will have to report negatively.

The Security Council resolution, the previous one, 1737 [agreed in December], indicated that if Iran did not comply they will take additional measures. It´s a policy judgment, I do not want to replace myself for the Security Council´s judgment, but I know for sure that even with additional sanctions, if they were to go for additional sanctions, they would still, in parallel, look for ways to get Iran to the negotiating table and in compliance with the concern of the international community that the programme is not a peaceful programme. Really the whole thing is about confidence-building.

While your recount of the press release is good, it doesn???t show me anything I didn???t already know. Here???s a recap of the latest statements:

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I (ElBaradei ) would make four brief points.

First, the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has continued to provide the access and reporting needed to enable Agency verification in this regard.

Second, Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments.

Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. This is regrettable.

Fourth, while the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Agency agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues. These verification issues are at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme, and are what prompted actions by the Security Council. Iran´s agreement on such a work plan, with a defined timeline, is therefore an important step in the right direction. Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n014a.html#iran

What do we have? Iran is cooperating with inspections and has agreed to more inspections. It has not suspended its uranium enrichment b/c it has a legal right as a sovereign nation to do so. The UN might not like that and UN Res. 1737 does impose sanctions for such development but Iran is living with those penalties while still permitting inspections and developing its nuclear power.

ElBaradei wants inspections to continue: ???UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei walked out on an afternoon session Tuesday of his IAEA to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in Iran, diplomats told AFP.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.??? http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9blUeSGZOoidYozU9XYmzfgntCg

'This situation, which might continue for two or three months, is an investment in peace,' Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Thursday in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram.

It is a sticky problem. In my opinion, negotiation is really the only way to go. Let???s face it, we don???t even know if or where they may have underground nuclear development facilities. No amount of bombing or attacks or sanctions will change that. Iran is not Iraq???it???s huge in size and population, economically advanced and politically adroit. Iran is player with powerful friends--Russia and China. The US cannot be trigger happy in this instance.

 

[Decker]

the first question was pretense. nothing more.

no fly zones. multiple reasons none of which you mentioned.

saying iraq was harmless is just wrong. the country in the 20 years previous to us invading has shown agression multiple times both against its neighbors and own people. yea, iraq was a toothless tiger that invaded kuwait, gassed kurds and fought a war with iran. pretty toothless if you ask me

Check your calendar. Those examples are ancient history...or are you still worried about the Roman Imperial Army too?

So the 2003 Iraq that we attacked was not toothless? Ok. How was Iraq a threat to the US or US interests in 2003?

 

[Decker]

so your going with the guys on the ground? i would to if they were allowed to do their job. truth is rarely are they given the ability to do that. to go in and see what they need to without being turned away and let in much later. they have little power to go into a country and do what they need to the first time. its not happened in iraq, iran, korea. they are allowed to see only what the countries leaders want them to see.

Possibly. But neither you nor I know what the inspectors look for. I have read that they can determine with precision if an area had at one time been used as a nuclear development area. I don't know how they do that.


I would disagree with your assessment about inspections in Iraq. Blix came to the opposite conclusion. It was a slow go but it happened. And as it turned out, the Iraqis were telling the truth and it was our president who was mistaken...to the detriment of 70,000 dead Iraqis.

 

[bio-chem]

While your recount of the press release is good, it doesn???t show me anything I didn???t already know. :


It is a sticky problem. In my opinion, negotiation is really the only way to go. Let???s face it, we don???t even know if or where they may have underground nuclear development facilities. No amount of bombing or attacks or sanctions will change that. Iran is not Iraq???it???s huge in size and population, economically advanced and politically adroit. Iran is player with powerful friends--Russia and China. The US cannot be trigger happy in this instance.

my intention is not to educate you. your decision is made and wont be changed, i understand that. my intention is to show those reading this your point of view has many holes in it.

how many times have i said i dont think we should attack iran? iran is bad, iran is dangerous, i dont think sanctions and diplomacy and dialogue will do shit in preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power. but attacking iran is not benificial to the US at this time. in the meantime people can talk about how its perfectly legal for iran to seek enriched uranium for domestic purposes. its all a bunch of horseshit until a mushroom clout rises above tel aviv

 

[bio-chem]

Possibly. But neither you nor I know what the inspectors look for. I have read that they can determine with precision if an area had at one time been used as a nuclear development area. I don't know how they do that.


I would disagree with your assessment about inspections in Iraq. Blix came to the opposite conclusion. It was a slow go but it happened. And as it turned out, the Iraqis were telling the truth and it was our president who was mistaken...to the detriment of 70,000 dead Iraqis.

point is it shouldnt be a slow go. if sadam was forthcoming with information he would still be alive right now. i read a time magazine article in 2004 or so that showed sadam had a large mis-information campaign to show he still had a nuclear/biological program in order to project strength. it worked too well. everyone believed it and now he is dead. never mind the fact that he was an evil psycopath in the image of hitler and we should have gotten rid of him in 91

 

[bio-chem]

Arak - Iran Special Weapons Facilities

any thoughts on irans heavy water plant and reactors? considering these are research reactors good for high grade plutonium and uranium production. can anyone really sit here and say that irans nuclear program is peaceful?

 

[bio-chem]

Check your calendar. Those examples are ancient history...or are you still worried about the Roman Imperial Army too?

So the 2003 Iraq that we attacked was not toothless? Ok. How was Iraq a threat to the US or US interests in 2003?

as of 2003 it was the same government and same leader in charge of all my examples. i dont see a ceasar in rome.

but if you must. they were still shooting at our pilots. thats a no no.

 

[brogers]

I believe you are getting your "Gore Lied" information from a Peter Schweitzer article that's been debunked. In that article, Schweitzer lied about alleged royalties Gore received from a zinc mine, Gore's alleged ownership of Occidental Petroleum stock, and that Gore does not pay for his carbon offset credits.
Why should I believe a hearsay quote from some person in Gore's office.

The story was so bad that the USA today had to run a retraction.

Your source is garbage.

1) I never mentioned a zinc mine
2) I never mentioned Occidental Petroleum
3) I never said Gore didn't pay for his "Carbon offsets"

You completely ignored what I said, which is understandable, because it's the truth and it hurts.

 

[brogers]

You can also add in his "guest house" for an extra $1,000 per month worth of electricity

Oh and regarding Al's little carbon-offset scam, from Kalee Krider, a Gore spokeswoman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.

So please, for the safety of the world, send Generation Investment Management some money. Al's ego will grow along with his portfolio.

 

[Decker]

point is it shouldnt be a slow go. if sadam was forthcoming with information he would still be alive right now. i read a time magazine article in 2004 or so that showed sadam had a large mis-information campaign to show he still had a nuclear/biological program in order to project strength. it worked too well. everyone believed it and now he is dead. never mind the fact that he was an evil psycopath in the image of hitler and we should have gotten rid of him in 91

Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain
Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain

Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War
"...Blix painted a far more positive picture of Iraq's recent compliance..."
His assessment was in sharp contrast to Secretary of State Colin Powell's
FOXNews.com - Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War - U.S. & World

So we see that Bush's sabre rattling worked and Iraq was complying with UN inspections and was forthcoming with information. Yet Bush ordered the attack anyways.

We've gotten rid of a dictator but at what price. "Hitler"??? please, that is just hyperbole. In exchange for ridding the world of the flea Hussein, we've got almost 80,000 dead Iraqis by US hands (murder if the attack was illegal, which it was), we have an ongoing civil war in Iraq which is destabilizing the entire middle east and we have Iran--part of the axis of evil--bracing itself for a US attack. That and we are spending 2 Billion US tax dollars a week on this fiasco. Congressional analysis puts cost of Iraq war at $2 billion a week - The Boston Globe

What did we gain again?

 

[Decker]

my intention is not to educate you. your decision is made and wont be changed, i understand that. my intention is to show those reading this your point of view has many holes in it.

how many times have i said i dont think we should attack iran? iran is bad, iran is dangerous, i dont think sanctions and diplomacy and dialogue will do shit in preventing iran from becoming a nuclear power. but attacking iran is not benificial to the US at this time. in the meantime people can talk about how its perfectly legal for iran to seek enriched uranium for domestic purposes. its all a bunch of horseshit until a mushroom clout rises above tel aviv

I know, to your credit, that you disagree with attacking Iran. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Negotiations and inspections are the way to go to manage that problem. That and MAD has been effective for decades--the track record is good. Let's hope it still works.

 

[Decker]

1) I never mentioned a zinc mine
2) I never mentioned Occidental Petroleum
3) I never said Gore didn't pay for his "Carbon offsets"

You completely ignored what I said, which is understandable, because it's the truth and it hurts.

I know you didn't mention those things. I am pointing out that the likely source of your article (Schweizer) lied about those 3 things thus ruining the credibility of your source.

What were you saying about 'truth' again?

 

[DOMS]

Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain
Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq, but says unresolved issues remain

Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War
"...Blix painted a far more positive picture of Iraq's recent compliance..."
His assessment was in sharp contrast to Secretary of State Colin Powell's
FOXNews.com - Blix Hopes Iraq's Cooperation Will Prevent War - U.S. & World

Wow, that's great. It only took 10 years, and the threat of imminent war, to get "accelerated cooperation". Yep, he was this close to actually complying.

 

[Decker]

You can also add in his "guest house" for an extra $1,000 per month worth of electricity

Oh and regarding Al's little carbon-offset scam, from Kalee Krider, a Gore spokeswoman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.

So please, for the safety of the world, send Generation Investment Management some money. Al's ego will grow along with his portfolio.

Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?

You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...

Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation. When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.

 

[Decker]

Wow, that's great. It only took 10 years, and the threat of imminent war, to get "accelerated cooperation". Yep, he was this close to actually complying.

You're right, the alternative is much better for everyone:

Sorry about the graphics, but we are talking about human life and our money with this unnecessary war.

 

[DOMS]

You mean to say that war isn't fun?! So it isn't so!

The war, on our end, went find until dumb shit decided to "bring democracy" to a bunch of Arabs who can't live that way.

Not that I like GWB, but you'll notice that most of that graph was before his time.

 

[DOMS]

Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children. Sorry pal, but those are Arab children, to which I'm indifferent. After all, they grow up to be the bomb wearing, hand chopping, woman rapping, people that their parents are.

 

[bio-chem]

Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?

You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...

Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation. When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.

your response to al gores hypocricy on green energy is to rip on bush? WOW. that is lame. even though i totally disagree with every point of view you have ever placed on this forum, i never thought this would be your response. your defending a dead horse. you argue with the high and mighty attidude of someone who knows more than your peers. and then you come back with something ridiculous about bush? al gores lack of green energy has nothing to do with the war in iraq or bushs running of it. you have totally discredited anything you may have ever said on this site.

by the way, you didnt discredit anything that was put up showing critisim of gore. you may have said you did, but that doesnt discredit it. no one here has a fascination with al gore except you. your un-dead love for the man is frankly un-heathly and i think you should see a therapist.

oh yea, bush never broke the law, and you repeating it over and over doesnt change that.

 

[bio-chem]

You're right, the alternative is much better for everyone:

Sorry about the graphics, but we are talking about human life and our money with this unnecessary war.

thats right. but how do we know that the pictures of that little boy are not caused by arabs?
Boy, 5, doused in gas, set on fire by masked men - CNN.com
arabs are causeing the most death to their own people over there. you make it sound like american soldiers are going over there to kill children. stupid. yes children die. we are not targeting them like they are. if anything you make people more resolute on the iraq war. you would do more to help your cause by remaining quiet and unseen than arguing for it as you do such a bad job

 

[Decker]

Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children. Sorry pal, but those are Arab children, to which I'm indifferent. After all, they grow up to be the bomb wearing, hand chopping, woman rapping, people that their parents are.

I would have shown more pictures of the dead returning from Iraq, but the Bush whitehouse prohibits photographing those events.

So if you can argue that killing women, children, men or seniors is ok with you b/c Hussein was slow in his compliance with a UN Resolution or that the culture practices some barbarism, then we really do not have a common ground to discuss this stuff anymore.

It is not fathomable to me how someone could think that the Bush remedy--attacking Iraq--is commensurate with the problem--Hussein's slow-footed compliance with and inspection resolution.

Death, destruction and waste was the product of this illegal use of force. I can't rationalize that no matter how hard I try. So I'm beat on that point.

 

[DOMS]

So if you can argue that killing women, children, men or seniors is ok with you b/c Hussein was slow in his compliance with a UN Resolution or that the culture practices some barbarism, then we really do not have a common ground to discuss this stuff anymore.

The difference between what Saddam did and what the US did, was that Saddam did it for a totalitarian control and the US did it as a by-product of war. It's a shame that you can't see the difference.

It is not fathomable to me how someone could think that the Bush remedy--attacking Iraq--is commensurate with the problem--Hussein's slow-footed compliance with and inspection resolution.

He was the enemy. The US chose to let him take a peaceful way out 10 years earlier. He chose not to comply, so it was the US choice to finish it.

Death, destruction and waste was the product of this illegal use of force. I can't rationalize that no matter how hard I try. So I'm beat on that point.

Blah, blah, blah... Illegal this, illegal that. And yet no trial.

 

[BigDyl]

You mean to say that war isn't fun?! So it isn't so!

The war, on our end, went find until dumb shit decided to "bring democracy" to a bunch of Arabs who can't live that way.

Not that I like GWB, but you'll notice that most of that graph was before his time.

That's why you don't take war lightly.

 

[BigDyl]

Oh, and nice try with the pics of only children. Sorry pal, but those are Jewish children, to which I'm indifferent.

Himmler?

 

[ZECH]

Regardless if you think Iran has a right to enrich uranium or not (I do not), they have already stated they want total destruction of Israel and the United States. Now, Decker, do you think that the US and the rest of its allies should take that chance and let Iran enrich the uranium and then be capable of making a bomb to destroy one or both?? I don't think you can honestly say yes. If they are so set on ways to maker power and such, I'm sure there are other ways that the US would not object to and be willing to work with them on. Let's face it, the leader of Iran is an idiot.

 

[BigDyl]

your response to al gores hypocricy on green energy is to rip on bush? WOW. that is lame. even though i totally disagree with every point of view you have ever placed on this forum, i never thought this would be your response. your defending a dead horse. you argue with the high and mighty attidude of someone who knows more than your peers. and then you come back with something ridiculous about bush? al gores lack of green energy has nothing to do with the war in iraq or bushs running of it. you have totally discredited anything you may have ever said on this site.

by the way, you didnt discredit anything that was put up showing critisim of gore. you may have said you did, but that doesnt discredit it. no one here has a fascination with al gore except you. your un-dead love for the man is frankly un-heathly and i think you should see a therapist.

oh yea, bush never broke the law, and you repeating it over and over doesnt change that.

If someone is damaging the environment with their wreckless policies then you are supposed to rip them.


It's funny how you argue about the law with a lawyer.