Nice....so your answer to "why?" is "He's on a mission from God."?

We're on a mission from god.
*doublepromote

look up:
"the three mistakes of paul bremer"
then think for a second that blackwater is not under the UCMJ.
they are paid for by tax dollars.
ran by a fundamentalist christian,or so purported.
whose executives read like a who's-who from the PNAC.
who believes he is on a mission from god.
to kill muslims.
the list goes on..but yeah..its pretty sickening.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.

Thank you, very interesting.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

"...the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

The Independent

>> ^SSIops:
>> ^Farhad2000:
Who cares about your stupid conservative religious world view... Bush was a conservative religious person and look where it got us.
As I understand, it wasn't Bush's overzealous views of Christianity that got us in trouble. He surrounded himself with people smarter than him, and he didn't listen to a word of advice.


I think you misunderstood my problem with her statements, the religious community and many other voters connect a leaders religious devotion/conviction with capability to lead a nation. You know instead of actual policy stance and issues, I mean 2004 was an election run on family values at a time of war.

That's simply retarded considering declaring war and bombing other nations is unchristian as you can get. Some choice quotes:

1. I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003.

2. I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.
Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

Hope that clears it for you. My attitude is great post Ketamine trip. Thanks.

I can't stand Palin either but this is the same shit that has been posted here a hundred fucking times now. Re-hashed re-edited but it's still the same damn thing. And not for nothing but she never said she thought the war in Iraq was a mission from God. It's taken completely out of context. And 95% of this has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism.
Charlie.

qruel wrote:

We’ve experienced nearly 7 years of a president admittedly on a “messianic mission” from God. Since our laws and government are based on separation of church and state, we should be able to assume that the actions taken by our elected leaders will be based on US and international law, rather than the religious beliefs of the individual. I have serious reservations about having a member of a cult-type church running our country.

While I agree with almost everything you say here I have to disagree with the last sentence. That's the same tactic people were using against JFK when he was running for President.

"Kennedy declared that he viewed the separation of church and state as sacred; his religious beliefs, he said, were his private affair. "But if the time should ever come," he vowed, "... when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." Romney has echoed Kennedy's sentiments, declaring that he would no more take orders from Salt Lake City than Kennedy would from Rome." -Time Magazine

The one good thing about Romney is because of that tactic he does NOT have the support of the religious right. Giuliani is the one that scares me the most..he does have their support...or is at least starting to get it and he is leading in the polls. Check out this video about Giuliani's foreign policy team.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rudys-Four-Horsemen

Though Romney refuses to discuss his religion, Americans owe it to themselves to learn about it before casting a vote in support of him. Go to www.pbs.org/mormons to view an enlightening and disconcerting documentary of this religion of male dominance, secrecy, and oddly "middle ages" type rituals.

We’ve experienced nearly 7 years of a president admittedly on a “messianic mission” from God. Since our laws and government are based on separation of church and state, we should be able to assume that the actions taken by our elected leaders will be based on US and international law, rather than the religious beliefs of the individual. I have serious reservations about having a member of a cult-type church running our country. Please share this information with concerned voters