Taking Care Of Your Friends...

[cbacon 0]

Board members of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency approved a deal Thursday that exempts Saudi Arabia from nuclear inspections, despite serious misgivings about the arrangement in an era of heightened proliferation fears.

 

Although the Saudis resisted Western pressure to compromise and allow some form of monitoring, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency had no choice but to allow it to sign on to the agreement.

 

Called the small quantities protocol, the deal allows countries whose nuclear equipment or activities are thought to be below a minimum threshold to submit a declaration instead of undergoing inspection.

 

There is little concern the Saudis are trying to make nuclear arms, but diplomats accredited to the meeting said Riyadh's resistance to inspections - and any new deals limiting the IAEA's powers to investigate - were disconcerting at a time of increased fears countries or terrorists might be interested in acquiring such weapons.

 

With the deal approved, delegates focused on a report on Iran, to be presented later Thursday to the closed board meeting and given ahead of delivery to The Associated Press.

 

It says Iran has acknowledged working with small amounts of plutonium, a possible nuclear arms component, for years longer than it had originally admitted and receiving sensitive technology that can be used as part of a weapons program earlier than it initially said it did.

 

The agency has no authority in North Korea, the other main proliferation concern since being kicked out in December 2002. Senior U.S. delegation member Cristopher Ford warned Pyongyang that unless it abandoned "its pursuit of nuclear weapons ... we will have to consult with our allies and partners on other options" - diplomatic jargon for referral to the U.N. Security Council.

 

The Saudis insist they have no plans to develop nuclear arms - and no facilities or nuclear stocks that warrant inspection.

 

As such, they qualify for the protocol, which has been implemented by 75 nations, most of them small and in politically stable parts of the world and which puts the onus on the nations to truthfully report that they have nothing to inspect.

 

But the timing of the deal for the Saudis comes amid persistent tensions in the Middle East and concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions. It also coincides with an agency push to tighten or rescind the protocol, as suggested in a confidential IAEA document prepared for the board and also made available to AP on Tuesday.

 

While the Saudi government insists it has no interest in nuclear arms, in the past two decades it has been linked to prewar Iraq's nuclear program and to the Pakistani nuclear black marketeer A.Q. Khan. It also has expressed interest in Pakistani missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and Saudi officials reportedly discussed pursuing the nuclear option as a deterrent in the volatile Middle East.

 

The Saudis have resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union and Australia to either back away from the small quantities protocol or agree to inspections, as reflected by a confidential EU briefing memo given to the AP earlier this week by a diplomat accredited to the agency who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to release it.

 

It quoted the Saudi deputy foreign minister, Prince Turki bin Mohammed bin Saud al-Kabira, as telling EU officials in Riyadh that his country would be "willing to provide additional information" to the IAEA "only if all other parties" to the protocol did the same.

 

Diplomats inside Thursday's closed meeting said the Saudis repeated those conditions as part of debate over their deal.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050616/D8AONQMO0.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

What the shit?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

They only want those weapons so they can hold hands.

 

 

If this becomes a bigger sotry and it turns out the Saudis 'our friends" have nukes watch all that talk about Clinton Korea, and China go away. It won't take a genius to figure out why.

[Justice 0]

The Saudis have resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union and Australia to either back away from the small quantities protocol or agree to inspections, as reflected by a confidential EU briefing memo given to the AP earlier this week by a diplomat accredited to the agency who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to release it.

 

But anyways, God damn it the UN drops the proverbial nuclear ball again.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Bloody UN. I can't see this ending well.

[cbacon 0]

Yeah, because the U.S. is well known for its hard-line stance with Saudi Arabia . . .

[Jingus 0]

Why am I completely unsurprised by that comment. What, it took you a whole six posts before you could think of a line to bash the US with in a thread that has NOTHING to do with the US?

 

If you'll notice, the article that you posted is about the UN. Note the "N", not an "S".

 

Well, except for this bit:

 

The Saudis have resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union and Australia to either back away from the small quantities protocol or agree to inspections

 

So the article which YOU posted CLEARLY says that the US is AGAINST this measure... yet the only comment you have AT ALL is to title it "taking care of your friends" and then make that charming last comment. Bravo. Bra-fucking-vo. Pardon me sir, you have something stuck in your teeth, oops it's your foot. You just proved that you literally care NOTHING about the actual facts of ANY debate, and you have NO agenda other than to mindlessly blast the United States at every single turn regardless of how little to do it has with the actual subject at hand.

 

Little hint: Mike and the others didn't leave because of his banning. They left because of rampant bloody fucking stupidity like this.

[Dangerous A 0]

Why am I completely unsurprised by that comment.  What, it took you a whole six posts before you could think of a line to bash the US with in a thread that has NOTHING to do with the US? 

 

If you'll notice, the article that you posted is about the UN.  Note the "N", not an "S". 

 

Well, except for this bit:

 

The Saudis have resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union and Australia to either back away from the small quantities protocol or agree to inspections

 

So the article which YOU posted CLEARLY says that the US is AGAINST this measure... yet the only comment you have AT ALL is to title it "taking care of your friends" and then make that charming last comment. Bravo. Bra-fucking-vo. Pardon me sir, you have something stuck in your teeth, oops it's your foot. You just proved that you literally care NOTHING about the actual facts of ANY debate, and you have NO agenda other than to mindlessly blast the United States at every single turn regardless of how little to do it has with the actual subject at hand.

 

Little hint: Mike and the others didn't leave because of his banning. They left because of rampant bloody fucking stupidity like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Post. of. the. day.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Why am I completely unsurprised by that comment.  What, it took you a whole six posts before you could think of a line to bash the US with in a thread that has NOTHING to do with the US? 

 

If you'll notice, the article that you posted is about the UN.  Note the "N", not an "S". 

 

Well, except for this bit:

 

The Saudis have resisted pressure from the United States, the European Union and Australia to either back away from the small quantities protocol or agree to inspections

 

So the article which YOU posted CLEARLY says that the US is AGAINST this measure... yet the only comment you have AT ALL is to title it "taking care of your friends" and then make that charming last comment. Bravo. Bra-fucking-vo. Pardon me sir, you have something stuck in your teeth, oops it's your foot. You just proved that you literally care NOTHING about the actual facts of ANY debate, and you have NO agenda other than to mindlessly blast the United States at every single turn regardless of how little to do it has with the actual subject at hand.

 

Little hint: Mike and the others didn't leave because of his banning. They left because of rampant bloody fucking stupidity like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You seem to have forgotten the history between the Saudis and this gang in charge. Regardless, this is an important story no matter what the opinions are. Hey if Bush and co. actually do something about this rather than sit on their hands like I expect... then bra-fucking-vo! More power to them. You can't blame the opposition for having their doubts all tings considered.

 

It is STILL just a messageboard! Nobody will miss them.

[Guest SP-1]

Excellent. Jingus's post. Not the article. That sucks.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

You seem to have forgotten the history between the Saudis and this gang in charge. Regardless, this is an important story no matter what the opinions are. Hey if Bush and co. actually do something about this rather than sit on their hands like I expect...  then bra-fucking-vo! More power to them. You can't blame the opposition for having their doubts all tings considered.

 

It is STILL just a messageboard! Nobody will miss them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No sir. You missed the point. The current US representation to the UN was appointed by BUSH JR. The US delegation OPPOSES the Saudia Aims. Therefore, Bush is also OPPOSING this.

 

You're very ignorant.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You seem to have forgotten the history between the Saudis and this gang in charge. Regardless, this is an important story no matter what the opinions are. Hey if Bush and co. actually do something about this rather than sit on their hands like I expect...  then bra-fucking-vo! More power to them. You can't blame the opposition for having their doubts all tings considered.

 

It is STILL just a messageboard! Nobody will miss them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No sir. You missed the point. The current US representation to the UN was appointed by BUSH JR. The US delegation OPPOSES the Saudia Aims. Therefore, Bush is also OPPOSING this.

 

You're very ignorant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I missed no point whatsoever. All I said was in spite of my doubts about them DOING anything, I would be supportive if they surprised me and DID. Ignorant indeed.

[Modern Man's Hustle 0]

So you want him to defy the UN? ...I thought you guys didn't like it when he did that.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

There is nothing wrong with having the rest of the world on your side and actually HAVING a coalition. However, even though I am a leftist, I have NO hesitation about dealing heavyhandedly with The Saudis (who I hold resposible for 911) or N. Korea as I consider those countries an actual threat. I still think nothing will come of this, so its a moot point.

[Jingus 0]

So can we all at least agree that we agree that the Saudis are terrorist-supporting oilcrat sumbitches?

[Modern Man's Hustle 0]

Make sure you let the government know who you hold responsible. That'll straighten things out.

[NoCalMike 0]

Little hint: Mike and the others didn't leave because of his banning.  They left because of rampant bloody fucking stupidity like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Really? I thought he left because he wanted to go to a msgboard where making a negative flaming thread on Arriana Huffington's blog would be considered a Current Event!?!

[BUTT 0]

Actually, he left because he got banned.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

ZING! and ZING!

[Dr. Tom 0]

So can we all at least agree that we agree that the Saudis are terrorist-supporting oilcrat sumbitches?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. And I think you're being kind to them.

[cbacon 0]

In regards to the bashing of the US, the logic is simply that the states went into a country on the grounds that it was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows that's bullshit now, but the fact that one of their close friends has shown an interest in the exact same thing, and that said state has more to do with supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did is pretty revealing.

 

And really, I would like to know how "pressure" is defined.

[Justice 0]

In regards to the bashing of the US, the logic is simply that the states went into a country on the grounds that it was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows that's bullshit now, but the fact that one of their close friends has shown an interest in the exact same thing, and that said state has more to do with supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did is pretty revealing.

 

And really, I would like to know how "pressure" is defined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, way to twist stuff.

 

We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change.

 

Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops.

 

Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake.

 

And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do.

[Vyce 0]

You just proved that you literally care NOTHING about the actual facts of ANY debate, and you have NO agenda other than to mindlessly blast the United States at every single turn regardless of how little to do it has with the actual subject at hand. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wait - JUST proved?

 

You mean, he didn't prove it the first 10,000 he's done this? Man, Jingus, you've got higher standards for conclusive evidence than I do.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

In regards to the bashing of the US, the logic is simply that the states went into a country on the grounds that it was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows that's bullshit now, but the fact that one of their close friends has shown an interest in the exact same thing, and that said state has more to do with supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did is pretty revealing.

 

And really, I would like to know how "pressure" is defined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, way to twist stuff.

 

We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change.

 

Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops.

 

Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake.

 

And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

The only thing YOU have to offer is putting words in other peoples mouths. How the fuck do YOU know how much he does or does not care about PRESSURE? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING. Truth is it has nothing to do with what C-bacon posted. It's just a typical diversion tactic trying to take away from the actual subject. As long as you attack C-Bacon, me, or whoever personally, the real debate itself is lost and so much the better for the rest of the kool-aid drinkers who don't have to justify their crap. Sorta like citing a source and having a certain somebody shit all over it cuz they don't like where the report came from. Then suddenly they are a lying asshole. Which THEN becomes the debate. Well big whoopity-doo. Thanks for opining Justice. Another one hit out of the park.

[Justice 0]

Putting words in his mouth? Dear God, not this again.

 

Look, him asking "What exactly is 'pressure'?" is him trying to downplay the fact that this isn't us behind it and we want to stop the Sauds from starting stuff up. That's pretty much what it is. He is looking for ways to bash the US, which is exactly what he's doing here: He's trying to fault us when we aren't even at fault for anything. Look at the title of the thread: Taking Care of Your Friends, as though we are in cahots and we've been planning this event all along so as to help pay for our blood-oil. Why are you the only one who can't see this?

 

Oh, and just so you know: I'm not the one who goes on the completely offtopic rant here attacking someone for no reason. You are. Please, stop before you look any stupider.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Putting words in his mouth? Dear God, not this again.

 

Look, him asking "What exactly is 'pressure'?" is him trying to downplay the fact that this isn't us behind it and we want to stop the Sauds from starting stuff up. That's pretty much what it is. He is looking for ways to bash the US, which is exactly what he's doing here: He's trying to fault us when we aren't even at fault for anything. Look at the title of the thread: Taking Care of Your Friends, as though we are in cahots and we've been planning this event all along so as to help pay for our blood-oil. Why are you the only one who can't see this?

 

Oh, and just so you know: I'm not the one who goes on the completely offtopic rant here attacking someone for no reason. You are. Please, stop before you look any stupider.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Justice 0]

OMG ROLLEYES LOL YOU REALLY GOT ME THERE WITH THAT ONE

 

God, you've actually managed to become a bigger joke than C-Bacon. Nice. *Thumbs up*

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

OMG ROLLEYES LOL YOU REALLY GOT ME THERE WITH THAT ONE

 

God, you've actually managed to become a bigger joke than C-Bacon. Nice. *Thumbs up*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Shouldn't there be a 2005 in there somewhere? As long as you don't like it I must be doing something right.

[Red Baron 0]

So can we all at least agree that we agree that the Saudis are terrorist-supporting oilcrat sumbitches?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It took you this long to realize this?

[Guest The Bish]

In regards to the bashing of the US, the logic is simply that the states went into a country on the grounds that it was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows that's bullshit now, but the fact that one of their close friends has shown an interest in the exact same thing, and that said state has more to do with supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did is pretty revealing.

 

And really, I would like to know how "pressure" is defined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, way to twist stuff.

 

We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change.

 

Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops.

 

Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake.

 

And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're argument is a totalitarian unapologetic view from the west, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It resorts to a malicious use of war against the "Muslim" world and validates the authority of American influence in a region alien to Western traditions.

 

It's fucking sickening.

 

C-Bacon contradicts his use of terms, because there's no "logic" to impose war unilaterally, as for the war in Iraq post-2004 a.d. If there wasn't any use of nuclear weapons to be found in Iraq, therefore the war is unjust. There's no logic behind the invasion to suggest that logic existed. C-Bacon has no primary knowledge as his argument is moot.

 

Justice on the other hand, irrelevantly makes an argument that supports a war on C-Bacons faulty reasoning and illogical value.

 

Therefore, Justice's bias is parallel to the notion that the US invasion of Iraq is purging all counter arguments that exist... even though there are no "logical" grounds for unilateral invasion of Iraq. Justice is exploiting the inferences drawn from something absolutely baseless.