Peace Now Illegal

Bush sure didn't say much about Katrina. The people in Louisianna and their relatives were upset about that one. He mentioned Katrina near the end of the speech and didn't say much about it. I thought he would elaborate on it early in the speech, considering it was one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit the U.S. and killed over a thousand people. Instead he went on his usual Iraq speech.

Bush just figured out that the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil? Where's this guy been?



.

 

I did giggle a little when Bush announced that his plan for social security was voted down in congress and the Democrats stood up and clapped.

It made me laugh.

 

The problem is, Nuclear Energy programs were originally created with the intent to supply enough energy to keep houses, towns and cities running while research and development on clean energy technologies were supposed be developping to lessen the overload and dependency upon nuclear energy as a main source.

The gap has in fact, steadily been widdening in the US as well as Canada (although energy is managed provincially) and both governments have been heavily funding nuclear energy instead of investing in both technologies and taking into account a long-term sustainability initiative.

Most politicians either don't stay in power long enough, or are there for far too long. You just can't win.

 

We get 'beyond petroleum' ads

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=22&contentId=2006538

http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1

 

I found that quite interesting myself...

 

Cindy Shehan was handcuffed and arrested.
The pro-war/more killing woman suffered neither.

To-day the cops apologized to both Ms. Shehan and the hawk woman.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe this (the eviction from the speech) was a political act?
The d.c. pigs got the word from bushco to "get rid of" Ms. Shehan. Then they realized how it would look so they did a token "ask to leave" to hawk woman.
Having got their way, they apologize the next day.

Ms. Shehan plans to sue.

 

the enviroment? oil?
i'm afraid this man is lying to you to make you like him
his supporters and apologists wait only for his word and parrot him and say what a nice man he is.
good luck

 

Are you opposed to the Non Proliferation Treaty? Are you aware that other countries exist, and that they oppose Iran's nuclear program too? Are you aware that Iran is a poor country with lots of oil, and have no use for nuclear reactors which are a more expensive way to generate energy? Do you think plans to build a bomb are evidence that they are planning to build a bomb (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/02/iran.wrap/index.html)? Or do you think they are just kidding around?

 

If we're lucky, Iran's President will wear a T-shirt promoting nuclear power. Then we can simply invade and have him arrested.

.

 

word count of Bush's passages mentioning Iraq and his war on terror: 1675

word count of passage about Katrina disaster: 161

.

 

I'd like to see NO nukes everywhere. But, when countries like the US says, "We can have them, but this country can't and this country can." It is ridiculous. This world is no where near No Nukes world.

I don't see the logic in ONE country being able to tell other counties who can and who can't have whatever!

ONLY the USA has used Nukes. This makes US the MOST dangerous country who has them.

Yeah they have "plans to build a bomb" SO fucking what? So did the US, and then they killed lots of people with it. THAT isn't dangerous? I don't beleive the PROPAGANDA this government tells us. Where were those WMDs in Iraq? What happened to those? Remember that? Started a WAR over it, which is still going on? (Under his desk? haha funny joke with people being murdered.)Oh yeah, It was a FUCKING LIE, so Shrubya could invade. You want to beleive bullshit propagnada? That is why we are in the trouble we are in today. Too many people believe the bullshit they are told. "Oh Iran has so much oil they don't need nuclear power." Well, the US has so much hot air, it doesn't NEED oil, nukes or coal. Does Iran decide what types of power WE use? No. The US has no right to tell ANY country what they can and can't have. NO ONE tells the US what THEY can and can't have.

We aren't the World Police.

 

Actually, Shaggie, in the Chambers, no one has ever been allowed "protest" written or otherwise. It goes both ways, for the left and the right. NEITHER Sheehan or the Senator's wife should have tried it. There are other ways and other venues. If protests were allowed IN the venue, it would turn into a circus. Protest on the steps is allowed, but not IN the Chambers, and I can actually see the wisdom in that.

HOWEVER, Sheehan and the Senantor's wife should have been treated the same. If Sheehan got cuffed, so should the Senator's wife. (Sheehan was NOT officially arrested, so the cuffs were really overkill.) The wife put up a fuss, argued with the guards and made trouble SHE should have been cuffed. Now, she is complaining that she was mistreated. While Sheehan said she would have put her jacket back on and covered the shirt, and told the guards that. Sad world.

 

Guess they should have arrested those Iraqi women and politicians in chambers with the ink on their thumbs with hands raised that were supporting Bush during last year's SOTU speech.

.

 

Hmm. I didn't see that, but, yeah, it could well be interpreted as "protest." It was probably easy to pretend it wasn't. (Isn't that the way with the Shrub Admin, just pretend what one wants to be? ) Just like the way the Senator's wife was treated differently than Sheehan, these Iraqi womyn were treated differently.

What I would like to know is, if Sheehan HADN'T worn the shirt, would the senator's wife have been taken out? My guess would be no. They would have ignored her, or no one would have "noticed" the wife's statement.

 

Actually, its not "the US says", it is "the Non-Proliferation Treaty says". You might also have noticed that the US is far from alone in opposing Iran's nuclear program. Or maybe you haven't? Anyway, does this mean that you oppose the NPT or not? Are you in favor of proliferation?

So you don't have any problem with Iran violating the NPT and building a bomb? You can't imagine how that could go wrong? You know Saddam tried to build a bomb. Had he succeeded, what would the middle east look like today?

Again, you want to believe this is all coming from George Bush's mouth. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that many other nations are concerned about an Iranian nuclear program? Is it easier to just pretend only Bush is saying so, because that makes it easy since Bush is always wrong?

So if the Iranian parlaiment screams "Death to America", "the Holocaust never happened", "wipe Israel off the map", "send the jews back to Europe", and then shows many signs that it is violating the NPT and building nuclear weapons, your response is "I hate Bush"? Is it too hard to imagine that the world could have problems which aren't Bush's fault, and for which the solution isn't to blame Bush?

 

The govt has to come up with an argument and evidence as to why it thinks Iran violated the NPT. The most recent allegation was by the U.S. ambassador who claimed Iran had plans of uranium hemispheres according to a document (The CNN article didn't elaborate on the document, where it came from, what it said, etc). It needs to be more than the flimsy evidence type, such as Saddam tried to buy aluminum pipes from China that might have been used in a centrifuge.

The president of Iran is having fun with this issue right now because it gives him some ego in the war of words between the U.S. and Iran. The White House gets some political mileage out of it too.

Not that I'm unconcerned about Irans nuclear program, but I'd be more concerned about countries such Pakistan and NK. Pakistan has had problems with scientists in its nuclear program selling out nuclear technology to outsiders. It doesn't find its way into the U.S. news much since those stories are not as emotionally high strung as the current Iran-U.S. rhubarb.

.

 

We still haven't heard what the violations are, just vague remarks that Iran is supposedly not complying with the NPT.

.

 

We have been told.. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

do you think that is vague ????


I guess the finer points of international law and the interpretation of the NPT is the issue. Surely it does not take this long [3 years and counting] to iron these issues out ?.

 

That IAEA article was about implementing safeguards in Iran. It didn't point out any violations of NPT (unless I missed it somewhere). The IAEA is under political pressure, mainly from the U.S., and is trying to come up with a resolution to the issue.

And where did this thing about Iran not complying with inspections come from? This sounds like the same thing that was coming out of DC in the Iraq issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program

"
To date there is no direct publicly available evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. However, there is substantial evidence that Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan provided Iran with nuclear technology [9]. The United States accuses Iran of seeking the "capacity" to build bombs, or obtaining technology which "could be" used to make bombs. In Paragraph 52 of his November 2003 report The Director-General confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program."[4] After one more year and over a thousand person-days of the most rigorous inspections, the Director-General again confirmed in Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."[5]

The Iran based newspaper Baztab recently reported that the United States provided 5kg of 19.7% enriched Uranium to Iran before the revolution.[10]
"