NationStates Jolt Archive

Im just curious out there who thinks the speech by Irans leader Ahmadinejad is a declaration of war on the US, UK and it allies. Obviously its a direct threat against Israel. I personally think its a direct declaration and should be treated as such. What do the rest of you think?

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html

Si vis pacem para bellum.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=455311

[QUOTE=German Nightmare]Si vis pacem para bellum.

Well I can agree with that. How serious do you take the Iranian leader though?

Funny thing is that the Ayatollahs are getting nervous. This guy is getting too hot to handle for them. Contrary to popular belief, the Ayatollahs may be fundamentalist and a bit crazy, but they're not stupid, and they know that nothing good can come from this guy's stupidity.

I wonder if he will last another year.

Funny thing is that the Ayatollahs are getting nervous. This guy is getting too hot to handle for them. Contrary to popular belief, the Ayatollahs may be fundamentalist and a bit crazy, but they're not stupid, and they know that nothing good can come from this guy's stupidity.

I wonder if he will last another year.

I wonder that too. I hope for the citizens of Iran that this guy goes. He is nothing but trouble.

Iran in turmoil as president's purge deepens (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1645457,00.html)

I have decided that I'm not at all a fan of the guy. At first I thought people voted for him for domestic reasons and he would take care of those.

But his behaviour in the past few months has pretty much killed that idea. He's removing everyone who disagrees, he's slugging it out with the Ayatollahs, and he's building the bomb (I really don't think someone of his character is just going to be okay with only power plants).

Problem is how to solve this without going to war - because that's not going to be pretty no matter how you look at it.

German Papers aren't impressed with him, so I guess you won't really have Germany in the way when it comes to the last, and France has already agreed to go as far as it takes.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382133,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,382457,00.html

Im just curious out there who thinks the speech by Irans leader Ahmadinejad is a declaration of war on the US, UK and it allies. Obviously its a direct threat against Israel. I personally think its a direct declaration and should be treated as such. What do the rest of you think?

Nah. Think of this as if Hillary Clinton decided she had a bent against Jamaica. We'd all know that her rantings would not a war declaration make.

I find it sad that an American, particularly one so concerned with global terrorism, would know so little about Iranian politics that this would be alarming. This guy's a nut, an accident of Iranian electoral proceedure. Think nothing of it. Go back to your Libbyland dinner and Desparate Housewives.

I find it sad that an American, particularly one so concerned with global terrorism, would know so little about Iranian politics that this would be alarming. This guy's a nut, an accident of Iranian electoral proceedure. Think nothing of it. Go back to your Libbyland dinner and Desparate Housewives.

I personally know more than the average joe on Islamic politics. I say this guy is dangerous. If you want to ignore the facts than thats up to you.

I personally know more than the average joe on Islamic politics. I say this guy is dangerous. If you want to ignore the facts than thats up to you.

Right.

Iran has been "threatening" the US since the mid-1960s and the only thing they've done is some hostages in the late 1970s. I take a threat from Iran about as seriously as I take a Yorkshire Terrier growling at me. You should too.

Right.

Iran has been "threatening" the US since the mid-1960s and the only thing they've done is some hostages in the late 1970s. I take a threat from Iran about as seriously as I take a Yorkshire Terrier growling at me. You should too.


Think you have your timing wrong. You say your in your 30's you should know when the revolution was. US was on good terms with the Shah prior to the '79 revolution. Suprised at your lack of knowledge. ;)

Think you have your timing wrong. You say your in your 30's you should know when the revolution was. US was on good terms with the Shah prior to the '79 revolution. Suprised at your lack of knowledge. ;)

"Good" is a relative term, my friend. In the 80s, the US was selling the very weapons to Saddam Hussein that we now use as a tool to gain support for our current war. We could argue that we were on "good" terms at the time, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts that Rumsfield would never admit it.

The Shah was a Hadith loving, woman covering, 72 virgin in heaven believing Muslim who had no love for the US or anything West and don't you believe otherwise. Strangely, the Ayatollah - when he first came into power - called for Iran to return to Qur'an - the basis for the revolution - and abolish Hadith. Unfortunately, it turned out Hadith contained more political power, so he changed his mind. (go figure)

I'm telling you now, as a Muslim- and one who watches Iran because they "claim" to be an Islamic country- that you have absolutely nothing to worry about. This is just some pitbull barking in the yard, but the pitbull is on a very short chain. Iran is changing. Watch the magic.

"Good" is a relative term, my friend. In the 80s, the US was selling the very weapons to Saddam Hussein that we now use as a tool to gain support for our current war. We could argue that we were on "good" terms at the time, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts that Rumsfield would never admit it.

Of course they were snuggled up to Iraq in the 80's. Remember Iraqi ships getting US flags? The nice picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam and smiling. They were fighting Iran, the US took the least of the two evils. Of course we knew he had WMD. We as in the US and its allies sold him the crap.

The Shah was a Hadith loving, woman covering, 72 virgin in heaven believing Muslim who had no love for the US or anything West and don't you believe otherwise. Strangely, the Ayatollah - when he first came into power - called for Iran to return to Qur'an - the basis for the revolution - and abolish Hadith. Unfortunately, it turned out Hadith contained more political power, so he changed his mind. (go figure)

I actually believe otherwise. But thats a matter of opinion.

" His good relations with Israel and the United States were moreover a reason for fundamentalist Islamic groups to attack his policies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

I'm telling you now, as a Muslim- and one who watches Iran because they "claim" to be an Islamic country- that you have absolutely nothing to worry about. This is just some pitbull barking in the yard, but the pitbull is on a very short chain. Iran is changing. Watch the magic.

Hope that is true and nothing comes of it. We will see....

My, such an unbiased source... :rolleyes:

Since when is ranting and raving about anything a declaration of war? If that were so, then various American leaders would have declared war on half the world by now, including the French a couple of dozen times.

Wait until Iran makes military moves against American and British positions in Iraq and Afghanistan; then we'll talk. Until then, don't leap upon every opportunity to be an ass and yank the country into yet another disgusting war.

My, such an unbiased source... :rolleyes:

Since when is ranting and raving about anything a declaration of war? If that were so, then various American leaders would have declared war on half the world by now, including the French a couple of dozen times.

Wait until Iran makes military moves against American and British positions in Iraq and Afghanistan; then we'll talk. Until then, don't leap upon every opportunity to be an ass and yank the country into yet another disgusting war.

Hey now not trying to get us into another shooting war. But I would already maintain that Iran is active in Iraq with covert ops. British found a large group of explosives that were from the Iranian military.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article317493.ece
We do have enough going on at the moment. But you just dont let someone come out and say what he said and just ignore it. Again maybe you do... I'm personally hoping for an inside job. Less American casualties.

Hope that is true and nothing comes of it. We will see....

Well ... and that's what the lot of it comes down to, right? "We will see"

I'm with you, man. I hate living in a "We will see" world, but I can promise you that there're much worse enemies than Iran.

I have 3 enemies on my list of "watch out for".

That's the following:

1] Intifada of Northern Europe, aka Intifada of Great Britain. These guys want to blow up some places in GB to show the government of GB that they can blow up stuff. Basically, useless militants with a cause, but no real backing. They *might* get their hands on a stick of dynamite.

2] The New Mossad. Yes ... it's a dumb name (if you're Jewish, you'll understand), but they actually may have some backing from people like Abdul Mazzanwi, who financed the Cole bombing.

3] Black Hand Jihad. Yes, you heard me "Black Hand". They have some funding becuase they're tied to Zarqawi, but they're like Ninja Muslims trying to recapture the Hashashin days. They have money, they've recruited many people, and they seem enough like Zombie Ninja Pirates that they could be recruiting our impressionable video game crowd. Ok, not seriously.

These are things I know. You tell me that you know something ... what do you really know? You talk about Muslim plans when you're not Muslim. I am Muslim and this is what I know. All of it amounts to, well, DICK!

Well ... and that's what the lot of it comes down to, right? "We will see"

I'm with you, man. I hate living in a "We will see" world, but I can promise you that there're much worse enemies than Iran.

I have 3 enemies on my list of "watch out for".

That's the following:

1] Intifada of Northern Europe, aka Intifada of Great Britain. These guys want to blow up some places in GB to show the government of GB that they can blow up stuff. Basically, useless militants with a cause, but no real backing. They *might* get their hands on a stick of dynamite.

2] The New Mossad. Yes ... it's a dumb name (if you're Jewish, you'll understand), but they actually may have some backing from people like Abdul Mazzanwi, who financed the Cole bombing.

3] Black Hand Jihad. Yes, you heard me "Black Hand". They have some funding becuase they're tied to Zarqawi, but they're like Ninja Muslims trying to recapture the Hashashin days. They have money, they've recruited many people, and they seem enough like Zombie Ninja Pirates that they could be recruiting our impressionable video game crowd. Ok, not seriously.

These are things I know. You tell me that you know something ... what do you really know? You talk about Muslim plans when you're not Muslim. I am Muslim and this is what I know. All of it amounts to, well, DICK!
You know, you make some good points, and you seem to be pretty knowledgable, so take this advice with a grain of salt.

Spare us the " I am a Muslim, therefore I know more than you" bullshit. It's condecending, and makes you look petty and self absorbed. Just because you pray on a rug 5 times a day, doesn't mean you are either smarter, or more informed than a Christian, Jew, or Atheist. Being a Christian doesn't make people experts on the KKK, and being a Jew doesn't make you an expert on the holocaust.

Drop the holier than thou crap, and more people will take you serious, because right now, I put about as much faith in your word as the occasional newb poster who claims he's sitting in a tent in Bahgdad so he "knows" what he's talking about..

* buuuurp * ....ummm ok..so a nut in Iran wants nukes and wishes to remove a few countrys and cultures from the face of the earth.....he's just doing some posturing for the home crowd .....unless he's not ... so...ummm * buuurp *...chill out....

Iran in turmoil as president's purge deepens (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1645457,00.html)

I have decided that I'm not at all a fan of the guy. At first I thought people voted for him for domestic reasons and he would take care of those.

But his behaviour in the past few months has pretty much killed that idea. He's removing everyone who disagrees, he's slugging it out with the Ayatollahs, and he's building the bomb (I really don't think someone of his character is just going to be okay with only power plants).

Problem is how to solve this without going to war - because that's not going to be pretty no matter how you look at it.

German Papers aren't impressed with him, so I guess you won't really have Germany in the way when it comes to the last, and France has already agreed to go as far as it takes.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382133,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,382457,00.html


If we follow the current logic of people opposed to the Iraq War (and most of whom view war with Iran as a big mistake that should be avoided at all costs), the "burden of proof" lies on the US alone.

We have to prove that Iran has nuclear weapons, and intends to use them.

By proof, this means that there have to be several nuclear detonations over major Israeli, US, and European cities, and then we have to go back and prove to a 100 percent certainty that Iran fired those nuclear weapons.

We can conveniently ignore all Iranian rhetoric, including their own admissions, before, during, and after the nuclear detonations.

And once we have troops on the ground in Iran, we can retreat and surrender as soon as we have a couple of thousand casualties (or if we accidentally kill a single civilian Iranian).

If we follow the current logic of people opposed to the Iraq War (and most of whom view war with Iran as a big mistake that should be avoided at all costs), the "burden of proof" lies on the US alone.

We have to prove that Iran has nuclear weapons, and intends to use them.

By proof, this means that there have to be several nuclear detonations over major Israeli, US, and European cities, and then we have to go back and prove to a 100 percent certainty that Iran fired those nuclear weapons.

We can conveniently ignore all Iranian rhetoric, including their own admissions, before, during, and after the nuclear detonations.

And once we have troops on the ground in Iran, we can retreat and surrender as soon as we have a couple of thousand casualties (or if we accidentally kill a single civilian Iranian).

That is so true. The surrender monkies and the "they have to kill half of us first" crowds aren't exactly trustworthy. I'd trust Bush on pro-abortian and anti-Christian stuff before I trust Loudmouthed Sheehan on what we should do. Cut and run is not what we should do. The terrorists are nutjobs. How can a person whose plan is to "kill civillians then take full credit for it to drive more people against the US" be thinking clearly?

Right now, Iran is being run by nutjobs. One mushroom cloud is all it would take for the US to start a nuclear war with them. I don't trust hippies to protect me from homocidal nutjobs. If they were in charge of the US during the last hundred years, the US would be split between Nazi Germany and Japan. Flowers work against normal people, not crazy people.

One mushroom cloud is all it would take for the US to start a nuclear war with them.

In the current political environment, the US would have to prove to the world that Iran fired the nuclear weapon - and the only proof they would accept is not US intelligence on the matter, but a UN investigation that would take years and culminate in absolving Iran of firing the weapon.

These are things I know. You tell me that you know something ... what do you really know? You talk about Muslim plans when you're not Muslim. I am Muslim and this is what I know. All of it amounts to, well, DICK!


Well if this is directed at me Keruvalia your memory is short. We have got into this type of conversation before. You should remember that I am a muslim too. I actually speak Arabic and can read the Koran. Not some english translate. I am married to a muslim woman and travelled and lived in Muslim/Islamic nations. But like someone else in this post pointed out. You do not have any more authority over a non-muslim because of being a muslim. This does not give you special rights or make you the all knowing authority. I have noticed on these boards that you seem to make yourself that at times. Any convert can qoute the Koran. It isnt a big deal and personally I get a chuckle out of it when you do it. Either for you own personal feeling of pumping up your ego or who knows.... When I do speak about Muslim politics I try and back up with some facts from either the net or my own personal observations. Now I can be crititcal of Muslims like the rest.

Well if this is directed at me Keruvalia your memory is short. We have got into this type of conversation before. You should remember that I am a muslim too. I actually speak Arabic and can read the Koran. Not some english translate. I am married to a muslim woman and travelled and lived in Muslim/Islamic nations. But like someone else in this post pointed out. You do not have any more authority over a non-muslim because of being a muslim. This does not give you special rights or make you the all knowing authority. I have noticed on these boards that you seem to make yourself that at times. Any convert can qoute the Koran. It isnt a big deal and personally I get a chuckle out of it when you do it. Either for you own personal feeling of pumping up your ego or who knows.... When I do speak about Muslim politics I try and back up with some facts from either the net or my own personal observations. Now I can be crititcal of Muslims like the rest.


It might be added that Arabs and Iranians don't necessarily do things because they are Muslim - nor do all Muslims think alike, nor do they all interpret the Koran or Hadith in the same way - there's a natural heterodoxy in any religion and Islam is no different.

Muslims are people two - everyone has their own opinions and no one can speak for all of them.

Well if this is directed at me Keruvalia your memory is short. We have got into this type of conversation before. You should remember that I am a muslim too.

Nope ... just directed into the air, really. Not at anyone in particular.

Im just curious out there who thinks the speech by Irans leader Ahmadinejad is a declaration of war on the US, UK and it allies. Obviously its a direct threat against Israel. I personally think its a direct declaration and should be treated as such. What do the rest of you think?

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html
It's not a declaration of war unless they say "we are declaring war", isn't there something about that in international law?

if you attack iran youre just gonna make terrorism ten times worse than it is now. you cannot fight fire with fire.

We have to prove that Iran has nuclear weapons, and intends to use them.
Well, I was against the Iraq War, and yet I could see myself agreeing with a limited campaign against Iran.

Iraq was a unilateral decision by the US. It was deliberately presented as if Iraq was a threat to the US.
The US started the discussion, the US pushed it and the US ignored it when it went in the wrong direction.
WMDs or not, there was no way that Iraq posed a threat to anyone - every one of its neighbours could've taken it down (I believe even Syria could've, especially since it's allied with the other Arab powers).

It only needs to be done properly:
- EU tries diplomacy and fails.
- US and EU go to the UN, provide convincing argument for why sanctions are okay, compromises with Russia and China.
- Iran gets pissed and acts aggressively.
- US and EU go back to the UN and provide an even better argument for why military operations may be necessary.
- If UN agrees, US and EU take out Iranian Military and sign peace with Ayatollahs, who'll dispose of Ahmadinejad anyways.

It's not like Iran actually has the capabilities to build a nuke right now. They can (after a few attempts) enrich Uranium to a certain level.
That hardly makes a nuke - it'll take another year or more after the decision to go through with it to have even one viable warhead. And firing that results in getting destroyed - thus Israel survives, but Iran doesn't, which is hardly the goal of the Iranian leadership.
They want to play a game with the rest of the world, and we simply need to play better.

Trust me, if the US discovered that Iran nuked the US, the result would be the annihilation of Tehran, regardless of how mad the world got. Of course, if the Iranians nuked NEW YORK, there COULDN'T be a UN investigation, as the UN would have been incinerated.

If a nuclear device went off in an Israeli city (provided Hamas & Co. didn't claim responsibility), Israel would nuke Iran itself, as Iran is the only other nation in the Middle East interested in nukes. Especially since there is no evidence that Hamas is interested in acquiring ANY sort of WMD.

Oh, and while I don't know who sold Saddam chemical or biological weapons, I DO know who sold him his nukes. France did, a few decades after selling a similar plant to Israel.

Which goes to show... the French are on the side of the highest bidder. Considering the deal Saddam was giving them, I find it hard to blame them.

Oh, and while I don't know who sold Saddam chemical or biological weapons, I DO know who sold him his nukes. France did, a few decades after selling a similar plant to Israel.
Don't misrepresent things.

No one sold Iraq nukes. Iraq has never had a nuke.

Many countries (meaning companies in those countries, not the governments), including France, Germany and the US, have sold parts necessary to build Uranium Enrichment Facilities and Research Reactors to Iraq.

Israel destroyed them.

And by the way, the B- and C-Weapons came partly from the US and partly from Germany. The delivery systems however were French jet fighters.