muddysmind.com

Why dont you join the army, so you can be exposed to all the radioactive fallout and be patriotic at the same time?

Because he's to old. They won't take him for his age among other physical ailments. They wouldprobably decline him just for being married with 2 kids.

And the army won't be exposed to the fallout, that's a pleasure reserved for the local civilian population.

Because he's to old. They won't take him for his age among other physical ailments.
===================================================

Yeah, that's only been repeated by us - what? At least a handful of times? That's why *I* didn't answer personally. I'm sick of repeating myself.

The army will take anyone up to age 43. I was reading something a few months ago talking about how many new recruits are overweight and cant even pass phyiscal training the first time around. If you have 2 arms and 2 legs, theyll take you in W's army.

You find a recruiter that desperate, and I'll actually say something positive about the army.

Many new recruits are always overweight...that's been the norm for decades. The age thing is mostly BS, the only way they take you out that far is if you are prior service. Every thing else isn't new.

The iranian story was so horrible, that it raised doubts, especially given the terrible track record of this
website, which has made a tradition of posting innaccurate news from conservative papers (remember nuclear material coming from Niger
into Iraq, later proved a fake, and also the Iraqi drones and the mobile
laboratories that were supposedly able to produce chemical weapons ...)...
So, I just fact checked the news, and it appears that it simply is not true.

http://donklephant.com/2006/05/19/iran-badges-story-said-to-be-a-hoax/

You can also read this
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/05/19/1588516-cp.html

You will note that if you follow the link
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073
posted by muddy, of course the story has disappeared.

So the question becomes : what made Muddy so quick in believing such an
information ? What prevented him from fact checking it ?
After all he should know by now that he has some tendancy to believe in false
information coming from conservative journals ?

May be Muddy is anti Islam ? Or anti Iran ?

Of course, given the disaster that Iraq presently is and the disastrous level of
the US finances... It's clear that even if the Iran law had existed it is
doubtful that a nuclear tactic strike would have been the best option. Unless
the USA really want the muslim region to revolt and cut all supply to the US
soldiers located in the region.

I think it has been demonstrated by now that getting international support is
useful in order to win a war.

Handling Iran is a much tougher thing than handling Iraq : bigger population,
better infrastructures, tougher army, it has a close relationship with china
and russia...

Do you think the Chinese would continue to pour 40 billions of dollars in US
federal bonds with each month passing by if the USA were to hit Iran without
their approval ?

The situation is really complex. There's a mad president in Iran, a dangerous
soon to be dicator in Russia, and a strong pseudo communist china...

I doubt the USA will be able to do anything if they don't get at least european
support. They ve lost close to all credibility in Iraq, and tons of cash too...
And economy is becoming shaky with that housing market shaking... So unless Bush
or Cheney are planning on a coup to end the US democracy, don't expect any
attack on Iran without the UNO approval.

I don't have time to respond to everything but the british intelligence service has backed up the nuclear material from niger claim. In fact, US troops have found several metric tons of uranium in Iraq.

I don't have time to respond to everything but the british intelligence service has backed up the nuclear material from niger claim. In fact, US troops have found several metric tons of uranium in Iraq.

I don't have time to respond to everything but the british intelligence service has backed up the nuclear material from niger claim. In fact, US troops have found several metric tons of uranium in Iraq.

I don't have time to respond to everything but the british intelligence service has backed up the nuclear material from niger claim. In fact, US troops have found several metric tons of uranium in Iraq.

sky
for one, british intelligence service were wrong on the subject.
For 2 the uranium found you refer too is related to the time when Iraq had a nuclear plant (built by the french) and bombed by israel. THere was nothing new and inexpected about this finding.

This does not change the fact that Muddy published a news inaccurate and that 3 days later it is still posted on the website, even though it is evident that it is false (the link posted by himself leads to nowhere because the story was withdrawn by the paper when it prooved to be wrong, but not by muddy, because, heck, who cares, it's only iranians, no harm done if one compares them to fascists)

The chronology of the uranium in niger
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0811chronology.htm

How uranium disappeared post american intervention even though it had been kept safely for 12 years by the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

This relates how the USA removed the tons of nuclear material out of Iraq.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

As you can see this is unrelated to the nigerian fake and the actions taken by the bush administration to discredit M. Wilson by purposively creating danger for his wife by revealing she was a CIA agent. etc. Or let's say potential actions as nothing is proven yet, a trial is underway.

And of course all this is unrelated to the fact that the news on Iran is false and this should have been acknoledged by now and removed.

Once again, I won't addrss everything (aside from it being purely rehash and you never changing your mind about anything) Valeria Plame was working a desk job at langley, her life was no more in danger than yours is at this moment. I've spent more time in harm's way than she has. In fact, the very law that someone may be charged with defines a covert agent as someone working under cover in the field. A desk job at langley is about as far from the field as possible.

LOL, I cant belive your still trying to spin this "desk job" nonsense. First thats wrong, she did have overseas deployments.

Secondly, you somehow belive that its ok for the President to leak information about cia agents.

You know whats trully laughable, if this was Bill CLinton who leaked information about a FBI agent that worked on bank robberies, or something not involing national security; -- you would be all over him about how liberals put the agent in danger, how Clinton was a "traitor" and everything else.

Your trying to split molecules over here, over the fact that bush leaked information about a CIA agent. I dont care how well known she was in washington, I didnt know her name. People around the world didnt know her name. Im glad you dont think that she was covert, or undercover, but there have been people that have worked in the CIA, that have came out and blasted Bush over this. Why do people from the CIA seem more upset over this, and dont have a nonchalant attitude like you?

And, on the main topic, DF is right. You guys posted some of that right wing propoganda news, without it even being verified. You guys wanted to "Nuke" Iran, without even having all the facts about the slanderous article. But when does the truth or facts matter to convservatives anyway, lol?

You guys posted some of that right wing propoganda news, without it even being verified. You guys wanted to "Nuke" Iran, without even having all the facts about the slanderous article.
_______________________________________________

Wow. I had no idea you read muddysmind.com to keep up with all the daily news. And here *I* thought it was only a simple blog.

Wether you write something in a paper, post it on your blog, or say it to your neighbour, honesty asks you not to write or say stuff which you know are false and correct your past sayings once you know you made a mistake (and we sure all make some, that's part of human life).
It's just some people make more mistakes than other on certain subjects.

PS. I don't give a damn about plame. The point was : it's not the first instance of unverified claims suiting an agenda posted here and not erased later on.

It's just that in the other cases it took several months to prove formally that there were no drones, that the niger thing was a scam etc.
THis time it took only some days and the paper who published the news in the first place erased it.

So ...

And of course it does not adress the fact that you have to be completely barbaric to ask for nuking a country preemptively not caring a bit about the innocents who'll die in the process.

We're talking about nukes here ... Stuff that'll be doing damage some thousands years from now... Gee.

Ok let's nuke iran. After all those guys may one day hurt us, so let's nuke them, who cares about them, after all those are only muslims, not really humans.

Let's burn them alive even though most have not chosen the islamic regime they live in and its antidemocratic policies.

I think that sums it up. Not nuking Iraq was the biggest mistake, all this time lost trying to teach democracy to those muslim pigs ... The USA should simply have nuked the sites where WMD supposedly were. This way it would have been impossible to prove that there weren't WMD and 2000 US lives and billions of dollars would have been saved.

After that I suggest nuking China (not democratic), Russia (idem) France (those monkeys are boring), and well britishs are annoying with Guantanamo. Oh and I forgot mexico who lets his border open wide.

Will that be enough?
Please feel free to nuke the rest of earth.

Let me make it simpler :

Some non democratic country imposes jewish people to wear badges.
This could lead to a later decision to eradicate them.

You are the president of the United States.
Do you nuke that country ?

Would you rather save potential victims and kill actual innocents (collateral damage) or do the opposite ?

If you want to nuke Iran, then what's wrong with terrorists destroying WTC.
After all the USA are supporting Israel who hurts palestinians and occupies their territories, so terrorists have good reasons to try to hit the USA. Why should they care about the innocent victims if self proclamed christians do not care about iranese victims ?

I don't clearly see the moral standpoint that allows for preemptive use of tactical nukes. But may be it's because I'm a french surrender monkey. That must be it. That must be it.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3

Above is the official statement of the national post who first issued the story stating that the story is untrue.

Let's remember that there is not a single doubt about the personality of the Iranian president he's dangerous, suicidal, fanatic and clearly antisemitic...
But that does not allow preemptive nuke strike on the iranian people, besides the USA have highly contributed to his election...

The false info is still online on muddysmind.com
Gee...

The false info is still online on muddysmind.com
Gee...

Maybe DF just loves to be wrong?

Maybe DF just loves to be wrong?
_______________________________________

That's what *I* was thinking. He's put more false information on this website than anyone else.