NationStates Jolt Archive

Report: U.S. planning Iran strike (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3192864,00.html)

Is the Bush administration preparing for a strike on Iran? The United States is preparing for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and has informed NATO member states to make similar preparations, the German daily Der Spiegel reported Saturday.

Intelligence officials familiar with the Iran file, told Der Spiegel that NATO members are considering a number of options to prevent
Iran from acquiring nuclear technology that would allow it manufacture nuclear bombs, adding that military action was in the cards.

The newspaper said during his latest visit to Turkey, CIA head Porter Goss’s asked Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Turkey allows the United States uses military bases in the country for an air strike on Iran planned for 2006.

“What’s new about these reports is that the United States seems to be sending top envoys to ally countries in preparation for an attack. It is no longer a matter of hints we heard over 2005,” the report said.

According to the German News Agency DDP, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan are also being updated with the plan, with American officials saying a military operation is “a possible option”, yet giving no time limit.

The newspaper said it is difficult to estimate whether the United States is in fact embracing for a military strike on Iran but quoted a New York Times report earlier this year that U.S. commando units have already infiltrated Iran to mark nuclear facilities for a possible strike.

I doubt even the U.S will be invading anywhere for awhile its under to much pressure at the moment in Afghanistan and Iraq a possible war could erupt between the NATO peacekeepers and afghan warlords but that’s it.

I wouldn't listen to this scare mongering there is always someone saying a war is going to happen and since the cold war is over allot of people are looking for a fight to predict never mind the fact that Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme is perfectly okay under international law

Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme
At risk of not sounding like my usual liberal self, the fact that Iran's president says he wants to wipe Israel off the map means we should be very skeptical about Iran's intentions for its nuclear programme.

The military and government are always making contingency plans, it doesn't mean the will use them. Prime example is in another thread on this forum that shows America made plans to invade Canada, but we didn't do it. No big deal.

“What’s new about these reports is that the United States seems to be sending top envoys to ally countries in preparation for an attack. It is no longer a matter of hints we heard over 2005,” the report said.

Dec 20, Dick Cheney came out of his "undisclosed location" and visited Pakistan, out of the blue. On Dec 21, Rumsfeld visits Pakistan.

I do think that something's cooking.

We all know that it will be Israel that takes away the nuclear technology from the crazy holocaust denying facist asshole that is Iran's President.

But I am sure that the new F-22s would be of great help in taking out Iran's Air Force.

We all know that it will be Israel that takes away the nuclear technology from the crazy holocaust denying facist asshole that is Iran's President.

But I am sure that the new F-22s would be of great help in taking out Iran's Air Force.
If we used the F-22s, we wouldn't even need to shoot a single plane down. We'd be in and out before they knew what happened.

Israel preparing for strike on Iran?
fixed.

Fascist president :rolleyes:

Prejudice much?

Cybach']Fascist president :rolleyes:

Prejudice much?
Huh?

Cybach']Fascist president :rolleyes:

Prejudice much?

So in reality he is a great humanitarian?

Cybach']Fascist president :rolleyes:

Prejudice much?

Is it just me or do people on these forums like any leader as long as they hate America?

Is it just me or do people on these forums like any leader as long as they hate America?

Pretty much the case these days.

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.

But of course we can trust the President of Iran.....

But of course we can trust the President of Iran.....
I never said that. I mistrust both equally. There is no "lesser of two evils" as far as I am concerned, I consider both hostile.

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.

Wow I never saw a Godwin with a picture before.

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.
I think the fact that he threatened to wipe out an entire country is all the evidence we need that he isn't trusted to have anything nuclear.

It's not like they have an energy problem. And if it's an environmental thing, let them build windmills.

The only conclusive evidence that everyone will believe after the WMD debacle is a smoking sheet of glass where Israel used to be.

In my opinion, that's too long to wait. Just like with Saddam, he has been warned that what he's doing isn't acceptable. HE is the one with the choice here. Our only choices are air strikes that will be condemned by the world, or letting a crazy asshole (who is a kidnapper of Americans, by the way) run a nuclear program that he can't be trusted with.

Wow I never saw a Godwin with a picture before.
Hey. Not just anyone can own this freakin' hard. :D

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.

You know......that isn't a salute and to even attempt to compare him to Hitler is really stupid.

I think the fact that he threatened to wipe out an entire country is all the evidence we need that he isn't trusted to have anything nuclear.

It's not like they have an energy problem. And if it's an environmental thing, let them build windmills.
Firstly, Bush has issued plenty of threats himself, as have numerous other countries. When he says he will "drain the swamp" in Afghanistan, or Putin says he would consider using nukes against a conventional enemy, that's no different.

Secondly, energy policy is an issue of sovereignty. There is no "let them build windmills". There are no international laws governing any nation's energy system development.

You know......that isn't a salute and to even attempt to compare him to Hitler is really stupid.
Eh, I'm just having a laugh with that. :p

Is it just me or do people on these forums like any leader as long as they hate America?


180° wrong, NO I am an American republican voting Patriot. :D

But to call the Iranian president a fascist, is downright wrong, and ignorant. It is the type of thing a disgruntled Commie would say, or a complete idiot who doesn't understand political views.

Iran is not fascist, it is theocratic. Hence my sarcastic remark, prejudice much. Just because the Iranian ruler is bad does not make him a fascist.

I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.

Hasn't Iran admitted that they have flouted the NPT and that they have surreptiously enriched Uranium?

There are no international laws governing any nation's energy system development.

But did not Iran sign NPT? Are they not bound by what they themselves signed?

You know......that isn't a salute and to even attempt to compare him to Hitler is really stupid.

True. Hitler was an orator; while the shrub?....

True. Hitler was an orator; while the shrub?....
You know that when you call him "The Shrub" all your doing is making yourself look bad, and losing all credibilty in any serious argument, right?

People wonder how he won the election. :rolleyes:

I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.
agreed.

Does anyone watched this flash movie (http://gprime.net/flash.php/theendoftheworld)? :D

But did not Iran sign NPT? Are they not bound by what they themselves signed?
The NPT allows enrichment. The IAEA's mission is to spread the relevant scientific expertise and technology. You just can't go all the way to weapons-grade and put the finished product into a bomb. Once you have a bomb, you have broken the law. But not before.

http://www.shifting-gears.com/bush-salute3.jpg


It could happen again.


I certainly think it would be irresponsible for the US or Israel to attack Iran, in the absence of any conclusive evidence. The got it wrong over Iraq, their judgement can't be trusted in this matter either.


Oh yes a complete lack of evidence in Iran's case. I'm sure they wouldn't ever want a nuke. I'm also certain that Israel planted a presidential look alike to say all those comments too. When the Iranian's call for America's downfall I'm sure they are talking in terms of "football/soccer" team.

You know that when you call him "The Shrub" all your doing is making yourself look bad, and losing all credibilty in any serious argument, right?

People wonder how he won the election. :rolleyes:

Hey. Freedom of speech says I can call him whatever I want.

I have no respect for this clown. I refuse to label him as the President.

I didn't care for Reagan but I called him that. I didn't care for Poppy Bush but I still call him the President.

Blind support of the shrub is also not a good sign of creditibilty either.

After 9/11 the shrub had the world in his hands. Everybody was willing to give us anything we wanted. He pisses it away with a personal vendeta("He tried to kill my daddy") against Sadaam.

Until he releases the Presidential Daily Briefs, his claims of knowledge are questionable.

Blaiming bad intelligence is easy because the intelligence community can not defend itself as you are not allowed to discuss such matters.

Secondly, energy policy is an issue of sovereignty. There is no "let them build windmills". There are no international laws governing any nation's energy system development.

The question of Nukes is never a question of sovereignty. Do we allow any nation to have them?

Stability and intentions should always be weighed.

Heck by your argument, every country in Africa should be allowed to have nukes.

You know that when you call him "The Shrub" all your doing is making yourself look bad, and losing all credibilty in any serious argument, right?

People wonder how he won the election. :rolleyes:
Dude, not everybody like Bush. Most of us are very pissed off at him these days now.

But BTW, Bush = Shrub.

But BTW, Bush = Shrub.

Hey! Get it right!

Bush Jr. = Shrub

:p

Dec 20, Dick Cheney came out of his "undisclosed location" and visited Pakistan, out of the blue. On Dec 21, Rumsfeld visits Pakistan.

I do think that something's cooking.

Yes, we are probably planning a major offensive in Afghanistan near the border of Pakistan in the spring and want to make sure all is cool with Pakistan in case we "accidentally" cross their border in the tribal region. :eek:

We all know that it will be Israel that takes away the nuclear technology from the crazy holocaust denying facist asshole that is Iran's President.

But I am sure that the new F-22s would be of great help in taking out Iran's Air Force.

We could take out Iran's Air Force with a Cessna 172 armed with an RPG. :D

Cessna 172 http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?fr=sbcfp-imp&tab=Images&p=Cessna+172&btn=Search

Our only choices are air strikes that will be condemned by the world, or letting a crazy asshole (who is a kidnapper of Americans, by the way) run a nuclear program that he can't be trusted with.

Nooo. That is not the only choice. The Europeans said they will take care of it. Trust them, they can do it. (and the UN said they would take care of Saddam :eek:)

Cybach']cut....Iran is not fascist, it is theocratic. Hence my sarcastic remark, prejudice much. Just because the Iranian ruler is bad does not make him a fascist.

What part of "Israel doesn't have the right to exist" don't you understand? What part of "the Holocaust never happened" don't you understand? What part of "you should give up territory in Europe or America so the Jews can have a homeland and get them out of the middle east" don't you understand?

If the president of Iran had his way with the Jews, Hitler would look like a saint.

Hey! Get it right!

Bush Jr. = Shrub

:p

Who or what the hell is "Shrub"?

appears to be the original question here. I suspect that it will endure air strikes on their supposed nuclear facilities probably sometime in March. Maybe sooner. Who will adminster these attacks???? Flip a coin between the US and the Israeli's. My own suspicion is that it will be an air strike by the Israeli's with a ground mop up attempt by the US.

The question is why is this going to happen???? It has everything to do about oil. Opec members have threatened the US that they will trade in euros.

If that happens the US will become a second sister to Europe if not a third world country.

But then again that is exactly what bushco wants to happen so they can destroy FDR's New Deal.

Who or what the hell is "Shrub"?
A small, I presume up-kept, piece of foliage similar to the bush.

The question of Nukes is never a question of sovereignty. Do we allow any nation to have them?

Stability and intentions should always be weighed.

Heck by your argument, every country in Africa should be allowed to have nukes.
Do you mean nuclear power plants and fuel production facilities, or nuclear weapons? Every country in Africa is allowed to have nuclear power plants.

That's what the IAEA was set up for - universal proliferation of nuclear technology. The US was one of the founding nations, in case you have forgotten. That mission still stands. A Pacific island nation with a population of a few thousand could decide to conduct a study into enrichment centrifuge technology, and the IAEA would have to find a Russian consultant. Provided there is no explicit UN SC Resolution forbidding them from acquiring the knowledge, they are entitled to seek it, and - you will laugh at this - entitled to request international assistance in their endeavour.

Nuclear weapons are a different matter. But until weapons-grade uranium or plutonium has been produced/acquired by a country, the NPT and IAEA terms have not been breached. In principle, even a country in Africa is allowed to build a nuclear power plant and close the nuclear fuel cycle, with the IAEA's help, provided they never build a bomb.

To reiterate: Every country in the world has a legal entitlement to build nuclear power stations and produce nuclear materials in any quantity. That includes Iran. It's the Atoms for Peace biting you on the arse.

As long as they do it properly. "Surgical strikes" will achieve absolutely nothing.
All it will do is get the Iranians to attack the US Forces in Iraq, thus throwing the place into chaos and condemning the Iraqis who just want their life back.

If there is going to be an attack, it should be made sure that they won't be hitting back. And it needs to be an international thing. The EU-negotiators have said that if the negotiations fail, they will help the US, and so that needs to be cleared up first.

The NPT allows enrichment. The IAEA's mission is to spread the relevant scientific expertise and technology. You just can't go all the way to weapons-grade and put the finished product into a bomb. Once you have a bomb, you have broken the law. But not before.

Then what is Iran's problem in allowing IAEA inspections?

You ARE aware that Iran admitted to having received bomb designs from AQKhan, don't you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10095684/from/RL.4/
Iran has acknowledged that it obtained instructions on how to enrich uranium, which can used to make nuclear arms, from the black market network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in a confidential report seen Friday by the Associated Press.

You ARE aware that Iran has also received centrifuges from Pakistan too, don't you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4336559.stm
Pakistan has confirmed that the former head of its nuclear weapons programme, AQ Khan, gave centrifuges for enriching uranium to Iran.

You still think that Iran does not have intentions of acquiring nuke bomb?

If yes, then have they not violated NPT to which they voluntarily signed?

One can only hope and pray to God. The EU has been screwin around having fuckin tea parties with the Iyotollah's, while his Alims are building nuclear missiles. Lets hope that someone will have the balls to step in and disarm Iran, whether it be Europe (Doubtful), Israel (Likely), or the US (Less likely).

Let's see....
We have 160,000 troops in Iraq (plus me:-( ), 18,000 in Afghanistan, a bunch more sprinkled all over the world, and anyone thinks that we are going to invade another country that is about 2.5 times larger than Iraq? Good luck on that one, it isn't going to happen.

Iran's problem in having IAEA inspections is the same one any country would have. Do you seriously think the US, UK or anyone else would open up their nuclear laboratories to the UN? Dream on. No-one likes having foreign eyeballs up their arse.

Uranium needs to be enriched before you can use it as fuel. It needs to be enriched considerably further before you can use it in a bomb. The gas centrifuge technology is dual-use, but legal. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle means nuclear energy independence. Why buy from Russia when you can make your own? It is a sensible energy policy.

They do appear to have obtained restricted technical data from a rogue Pakistani scientist. It is not clear however on whose initiative it happened. It could have been an unexpected appendix to an unrelated information request for all we know. As I explained, under the IAEA, nuclear engineering know-how is freely transferred between nations. It is a UN program! It's no big deal if someone on the Pakistani side exceeded their authority and included something they should not have - it would not be Iran's responsibility.

As for intentions, who knows? They don't have one. They are legally entitled to obtain the full range of civilian nuclear tech, with foreign assistance. Some of it is dual use. Unless the UN SC can pass a resolution making an exception of Iran and banning them from pursuing certain lines of research or using IAEA technical expertise, there is no legal case for action.

The NPT allows enrichment. The IAEA's mission is to spread the relevant scientific expertise and technology. You just can't go all the way to weapons-grade and put the finished product into a bomb. Once you have a bomb, you have broken the law. But not before.


According to american legion reports, iran has enough oil to fufill its current consumption for another 200 years, and enough natural gas to last 400 years. Why do they need nuclear power then ?

According to american legion reports, iran has enough oil to fufill its current consumption for another 200 years, and enough natural gas to last 400 years. Why do they need nuclear power then ?
The reports are bullshit. The energy picture is a good deal more complicated than that. America can say pretty much anything because most people don't know any better.

Tell you what, find the US EIA world oil/gas production stats by nation and plot Iran's case.

According to american legion reports, iran has enough oil to fufill its current consumption for another 200 years, and enough natural gas to last 400 years. Why do they need nuclear power then ?
Because it's better for the environment?

Because it's better for the environment?

Curiously, I don't think many Iranians care about that....

Incidentally, according to the USGS, the UK should double its oil production by 2010.

It is going to halve, the decline rate has held at 7% since 1999. Similar time-displaced picture for natural gas.

The UK government is talking about a new nuclear build because without it, we won't be able to heat and light the country next decade. But according to the USGS, that's bollocks, we have plenty of everything to go around, even a surplus to sell to the US. Excuse me if I believe non-political energy stats.

When Iraq's over move on into Iran? Do I smell a Middle-east Roadtrip? Hey, maybe France will get in on this one.

:D

One can only hope.

But of course we can trust the President of Iran.....

This would be sooooo much easier if we could somehow get Bush and Khatami into a courtroom to shout things out. Even if they hired the most expensive laywers available, I have this gut feeling it would be cheaper in the end.

Iran's problem in having IAEA inspections is the same one any country would have. Do you seriously think the US, UK or anyone else would open up their nuclear laboratories to the UN? Dream on. No-one likes having foreign eyeballs up their arse.

Agreed, but Iran has violated the norms of the treaty they themselves signed and hence (in my view) have forfeited that right.

US/UK are already NWS and their status is different under NPT.

If Iran wanted the bomb, it should have done what India did. Stay away from NPT.

Besides, IAEA is not exactly a US front.

Uranium needs to be enriched before you can use it as fuel. It needs to be enriched considerably further before you can use it in a bomb. The gas centrifuge technology is dual-use, but legal. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle means nuclear energy independence. Why buy from Russia when you can make your own? It is a sensible energy policy.

Makes sense for a country that is an exporter of energy.;)

They do appear to have obtained restricted technical data from a rogue Pakistani scientist. It is not clear however on whose initiative it happened. It could have been an unexpected appendix to an unrelated information request for all we know.

Ok TG, I have seen my share of sophistry, but that one takes the cake.:)

"Rogue" scientist. Come on. Do you really believe in that story?

Everybody knew what he was doing. The Chinese knew. It was their design after all. The Americans knew.

The guy made trips to NoKo in Pakistani military aircraft like a dozen times. Pakistani C-130 planes carrying parts were re-fuelled in China enroute to NoKo. Pakistan gave centrifuges to Iran and Libya. All these are documented facts.

And its not like AQKhan slipped a few centrifues in his pocket and slipped across the Iranian border and handed them over. [sarcarm]These things are heavy, ya know [/sarcasm].

AQKhan took the fall, because US wanted to shield the Musharraf regime as part of the deal after 9/11.

In fact, there is a theory that it is all part of an elaborate sting. Note that the centrifuges of AQKhan never worked. They did not work for Pakistan and they never did work for Gaddafi and Iran. A pissed off Gaddafi (he invested a lot and I mean a LOT..millions..for the Pakistani nuke and was shortchanged by Pakis) spilled everything out.

Here's a recent news on AQKhan

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=59806
The Dutch justice minister acknowledged today that the dossier of evidence used to prosecute disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in the 1980s had disappeared ;) , but said there was no evidence of CIA involvement:rolleyes: .

There is nothing "rogue" about AQKhan. He did everything under the regime's bidding which in turn were under the Chinese bidding.

Here's a hilarious animation take on the whole episode. Guarenteed laughs.A must see.

To view directly
http://media.putfile.com/Photochor

To download from rapidshare
http://rapidshare.de/files/9304350/Photochor.swf.html

Btw, the word "photochor" means one who surreptiously takes photocopies (from his phtocopying days in Belgium).

It's no big deal if someone on the Pakistani side exceeded their authority and included something they should not have - it would not be Iran's responsibility.

You know, it's not like he included his grocery list or something. You do not INADVERDANTLY include BOMB DESIGN.

... U.S. commando units have already infiltrated Iran to mark nuclear facilities for a possible strike.[/b][/i]
I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but US SpecOps types have been "boots on the ground" in Iran for several years now.

Makes sense for a country that is an exporter of energy. ;)
LOL. So was the US, when it started building its civilian nuke plants. Just because you are in a position to export now, doesn't mean you will be able to forever, and we are talking about a finite resource and increasing domestic and global demand here. That "oh, they have oil for centuries" stuff is bullshit.

I am not convinced the technology transfer from Pakistan to Iran offers any clear indication regarding intent. The US has a contingency plan for invading Canada, so what if Pakistan decided to give the Iranians an insurance policy? Until there is a bomb, no crime has been committed under international law. There is no bomb. It's a black and white thing. Arguing over intent and then firing the first shot, that decides the identity of the aggressor. You can't just kill people based on suspicion.

What part of "Israel doesn't have the right to exist" don't you understand? What part of "the Holocaust never happened" don't you understand? What part of "you should give up territory in Europe or America so the Jews can have a homeland and get them out of the middle east" don't you understand?

If the president of Iran had his way with the Jews, Hitler would look like a saint.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


IDIOT. The President of Iran may be the devil incarnate. but please study Politics you retard. He is NOT A FASCIST. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST. HE IS NOT A MONARCH, HE IS NOT DEMOCRAT, HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN He is a member of a THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. AGAIN THEOCRATIC. T-H-E-O-C-R-A-T-I-C.

FFS, fascism has absolutly nothing to do with anti-semitism, or Iran.

God do stupid people piss me off.

America is enough in trouble with Iraq and its own domestic problems, there's no way they are prepared to attack Iran...
Now again, many people didn't understand, but Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq for a long time and Bush and all his people have blatantly ignored that...
Anyways, we'll see what's gonna happen this year: who knows maybe the UK or the USA will withdraw some troops or not do anything about it, we'll see also what the UN still stands for if it does have some power or not still left.
Anyways, from a strategic point of view, attacking Iran at this time is just unthinkable, period. (unless Israel does the job like in the 1980's).

Happy New Year 2006!!!

Cybach']:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


IDIOT. The President of Iran may be the devil incarnate. but please study Politics you retard. He is NOT A FASCIST. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST. HE IS NOT A MONARCH, HE IS NOT DEMOCRAT, HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN He is a member of a THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. AGAIN THEOCRATIC. T-H-E-O-C-R-A-T-I-C.

FFS, fascism has absolutly nothing to do with anti-semitism, or Iran.

God do stupid people piss me off.
Warning, oh n00bish one: the individual you are addressing in this flame is one of the more respected on here. Do control your tendency toward uncontrolled outbursts. :mad:

But Eutrusca just because someone is respected doesn't make them right.

But Eutrusca just because someone is respected doesn't make them right.
But Harlesburg, just because someone is a n00b doesn't mean they can flame with impunity. :p

Let's see....
We have 160,000 troops in Iraq (plus me:-( ), 18,000 in Afghanistan, a bunch more sprinkled all over the world, and anyone thinks that we are going to invade another country that is about 2.5 times larger than Iraq? Good luck on that one, it isn't going to happen.


Their already attacking yall. Who do you think supports Hazzabollah and many of the other terrorist organizations claiming "jihad" on America in those two countries?

Their already attacking yall. Who do you think supports Hazzabollah and many of the other terrorist organizations claiming "jihad" on America in those two countries?
a) It's "Hezbollah".
b) This organisation has both a military arm (recognised as a terror organisation everywhere) and a civilian arm (not recognised by the EU, China and so on, and a political party in Lebanon).
c) Hezbollah has never set a foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I suggest you start over.

At risk of not sounding like my usual liberal self, the fact that Iran's president says he wants to wipe Israel off the map means we should be very skeptical about Iran's intentions for its nuclear programme.

Whilst at the same time, Jews are recognised as people of the book in the Iranian constitution - I think you need to learn the difference between real policy and sound bites for local consumption.

We all knew that after Iraq, the US of A would be looking at Iran, and South Korea. Americans are incredibly predictable. They will find whatever excuse suits them best, and apologize after.

I doubt even the U.S will be invading anywhere for awhile its under to much pressure at the moment in Afghanistan and Iraq a possible war could erupt between the NATO peacekeepers and afghan warlords but that’s it.

I wouldn't listen to this scare mongering there is always someone saying a war is going to happen and since the cold war is over allot of people are looking for a fight to predict never mind the fact that Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme is perfectly okay under international law

Babe, for several months we were told, "no war is going to happen in Iraq", "oh, disregard those thousands of troops on the boarders of Iraq" etc. etc. and look what happened.

For me, I really don't give a shit if there is a war - why not go and do Syria as well; I'll be laughing when the US is bought to its knees because of the neo-conservative straussian agenda, and you know what? the US population are that stupid, they'll vote in an even more hard core neo-con next time around.

But hey, like I said, if the US empire collapses, I'll be cracking open some nice French Champagne, running naked around the house knowing that the yanks will be pulled down a few notches.

Unlikely, but you never know with Bush. We already tried to flush out their radar with drones and they didn't turn on their radar because they "know US tactics". If we did attack, we'd have a bit of fight. Iran has a good army that would fight and not surrender like the ragtag Iraqis did.

First: I haven't read the entire thread, but doesn't anyone else think that the Iranian president could be grandstanding, because its expected of him?

That doesnt mean I like him or agree with him or shit all. I am just thinking, why get all riled over his words when it's just like everything else: putting on a show.

Granted, Iran might actually now have the ability to carry out the threat, but it's pretty fucking stupid considering that he'd be royally buggered everyway all the way to Sunday and back.

Of course, the fundamentalists wouldn't CARE that much, but I doubt that everyone in Iran is a fundamentalist. Must be a fair few who go, okay, we'll bust out the Korans/Qurans and flags so we don't get targetted by some wacky lads from the local mosque.

Second: does the US military truly have the ability to wage a two-front conflict with the amount of men and equipment it has now as a sustainable and viable option? Because Pentagon logistics are being pushed rather far just to handle Iraq, with rotating schedule and the equipment demand. Sending in another force, this time against an even more hostile country, seems just plain suicidal.

And the fact that the rest of the middle east might join in is somewhat prevalent. US can only threaten to bomb the shit out of them, which means...fight in the cities! Guerilla warfare! Because who would be stupid enough to face the military might of the US of A in an actual set-piece battlefield?

I just think that the US shouldn't bother. Use gunboat diplomacy, but don't be stupid enough to engage in actual war, because maybe Iran WILL actually fire that nuke. And maybe the middle east WILL rise up.
Lotsa disturbing stuff.

Perhaps it would be good to link to the actual Spiegel article.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html

Whilst at the same time, Jews are recognised as people of the book in the Iranian constitution - I think you need to learn the difference between real policy and sound bites for local consumption.
Oh, you mean kinda like being told that there was going to be no war in Iraq even though troops were massing on the border. Just a tad hypocritical, are we? Tsk! :D

a) It's "Hezbollah".
b) This organisation has both a military arm (recognised as a terror organisation everywhere) and a civilian arm (not recognised by the EU, China and so on, and a political party in Lebanon).
c) Hezbollah has never set a foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I suggest you start over.

So because Hezbollah has a civilian wing it shouldn't be considered a terrorist organzation?

So because Hezbollah has a civilian wing it shouldn't be considered a terrorist organzation?
Well, I wouldn't call the civilian wing a terrorist organisation, but the military wing is.
It's rather unrealistic I guess, but there may be a remote possibility of the entire money from Iran to Hezbollah goes into the civilian activities.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah is a lot more complex issue than a simple "They are terrorists, Iran gives them money, therefore Iran is terrorists!"

Well, I wouldn't call the civilian wing a terrorist organisation, but the military wing is.
It's rather unrealistic I guess, but there may be a remote possibility of the entire money from Iran to Hezbollah goes into the civilian activities.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah is a lot more complex issue than a simple "They are terrorists, Iran gives them money, therefore Iran is terrorists!"

I agree it is a complex issue, but can you honestly say that Iran is right to give money to Hezbollah? Sure they mainly operate against Israel, but terrorism against Israel is still terrorism.

Well, I wouldn't call the civilian wing a terrorist organisation, but the military wing is.
It's rather unrealistic I guess, but there may be a remote possibility of the entire money from Iran to Hezbollah goes into the civilian activities.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah is a lot more complex issue than a simple "They are terrorists, Iran gives them money, therefore Iran is terrorists!"

Would Hezbollah's social programs make it any less of a terrorist organization that needs to be countered?

I agree it is a complex issue, but can you honestly say that Iran is right to give money to Hezbollah? Sure they mainly operate against Israel, but terrorism against Israel is still terrorism.
Well, Iran is as right to give money to one side in the civil war as everyone else is in giving money to the others.
About today however, there can be a lot of debate. Iranians would probably say that the Shi'ite Muslims in Lebanon need proper representation and that the government has not done a good job of helping that population. Which may be a reasonable thing to say.
Knowing Ahmadinejad, he'd probably also say something about Zionism. Which would be a lot less reasonable.

But just for the record, I don't think Hezbollah has actually committed any terrorist acts against Israel for years. Occasionally they might fire a rocket at the IDF, and then they get their arses kicked.
The ones blowing up Israelis are Sunnis from Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs, Islamic Jihad and so on...and I would think that they are not on the paylist of Iran. They've got enough support from Arabia.

Would Hezbollah's social programs make it any less of a terrorist organization that needs to be countered?
That's a good question, considering that Hamas for example has the same organisation. And I would guess that LeT also does social programs somewhere.
So, no, it does not excuse it - but it is of course conceivable that people join these organisations to help their local communities, rather than for reasons of hatred. It might be worth looking at for some of the less radical organisations to help with a process like that of the IRA, which has now turned into a political movement only, and abandoned armed conflict.

But just for the record, I don't think Hezbollah has actually committed any terrorist acts against Israel for years. Occasionally they might fire a rocket at the IDF, and then they get their arses kicked.
The ones blowing up Israelis are Sunnis from Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs, Islamic Jihad and so on...and I would think that they are not on the paylist of Iran. They've got enough support from Arabia.

Don't you realise that Hizbollah are in the game for the reasons that are there in your post (but you probably did not realise it).

You see, the pan-shia theocrazy (intended spelling) of Iran needs to keep a foot in the door. They just cannot leave all the political space of the "guardian of islam..defender of islam.." thing to the sunnis.

Should the Israelis derive succour from the fact that it is just a shia-sunni power play and let the Hizbollahs be?


That's a good question, considering that Hamas for example has the same organisation. And I would guess that LeT also does social programs somewhere.
So, no, it does not excuse it - but it is of course conceivable that people join these organisations to help their local communities, rather than for reasons of hatred. It might be worth looking at for some of the less radical organisations to help with a process like that of the IRA, which has now turned into a political movement only, and abandoned armed conflict.

I can't comment for others but I do know that LeT's social programs are

1. a front for getting charity. They get lots of fundings from the oil sheikhs and from other charities.

2. recruitment base. Even terrorists cannot alienate the local population.

There is a fundamental difference between other terrorist org like IRA, LTTE etc and pan-islamist salafi orgs.

You can visit this old thread where such differences were discussed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314&highlight=islamism
Islamism study thread

Speaking of charities, see this news of two charities in Pakistan receiving Rs 10 million from a UK NGO. The problem is that both the charities are banned by the UN for being a front for terrorists.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/afg150.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8475.doc.htm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\01\02\story_2-1-2006_pg7_37
* Al-Rashid Trust and Al-Akhtar Trust ‘received’ Rs 10m each from UK NGO

By Maqbool Ahmed

KARACHI: On the directions of the Interior Ministry, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has sought details of a huge amount of donations two Muslim charities, Al-Rashid Trust and Al-Akhtar Trust, are receiving from a UK-based NGO Human Aid.

Sources said that recently the two charities received $10 million each from Human Aid. They said the NGO recently transferred $20 million from the UK to its account at a Quetta branch of the Metropolitan Bank. The amount was further credited to different accounts of Al-Rashid Trust and Al-Akhtar Trust, each getting $10 million for sacrificing animals on Eidul Azha on behalf of thousands of British Muslims.

According to sources, the FIA has also sent a questionnaire to both charities, seeking details on when they started functioning, their areas of work, their trustees, sources of funding, expenditures and auditors.

Sources said both organisations have been asked to provide the names and addresses of their trustees with their profession and to state whether any trustee has been expelled. They have also been asked to provide details of their inland and foreign accounts both in Pak rupees and foreign currencies and disclose the sources of their income, including donations and donors.

Sources said a ‘Trust Deed’ recently retrieved by the FIA from at least two banks where Al-Akhtar Trust International, outlawed by the US Treasury Department in 2003 for having links with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network, has its accounts showed that Saud Memon is one of the eleven trustees.

Sources added that the name of Saud Memon, who owns the shed where US journalist Daniel Pearl’s remains were found, appeared at number nine (09) on the list of the 11-member Board of Trustees.

Saud Memon, an industrialist, had been named by several arrested members of the Harkatul Mujahideen Al-Almi as their chief financial backer. Sources said Saud Memon’s particulars in the ‘Trust Deed’ and the Red Book of the Crimes Investigation Department (CID), Sindh, matched 100 percent.


Thus money from the west gets routed into charities and onto the jihadi orgs.

The social programs serve this purpose.

If Bush used the "We didn't know" card for Iraq, then what has he got for Iran?:D

Cybach']:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


IDIOT. The President of Iran may be the devil incarnate. but please study Politics you retard. He is NOT A FASCIST. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST. HE IS NOT A MONARCH, HE IS NOT DEMOCRAT, HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN He is a member of a THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. AGAIN THEOCRATIC. T-H-E-O-C-R-A-T-I-C.

FFS, fascism has absolutly nothing to do with anti-semitism, or Iran.

God do stupid people piss me off.

Oh post like that piss me off

Theocracy is Fascism with the support of a religion.

When a man makes everyone do and act and believe as he does, its facsism, but when a theocracy does its, its okay because its there religion. When US troops kill Iraqi civilians its intolerable and evil, but when a suicide bomber does it, its okay because his religion told him too!?

I dont really give a dam what you think vato, because to me, Iran is fascist, pure and simple.

Oh post like that piss me off

Theocracy is Fascism with the support of a religion.

When a man makes everyone do and act and believe as he does, its facsism, but when a theocracy does its, its okay because its there religion. When US troops kill Iraqi civilians its intolerable and evil, but when a suicide bomber does it, its okay because his religion told him too!?

I dont really give a dam what you think vato, because to me, Iran is fascist, pure and simple.
"When a man makes everyone do and act and believe as he does", that is a dictatorship. Which can be a fascist dictatorship, communist dictatorship, theocratic dictatorship etc. You get my drift. The fact is that there are ideological differences between all these ideologies, so a theocratic dictatorship can be quite different from a communist dictatorship, for example. Of course, they're both bad, but they're bad in different ways. :)

P.S. What dam? The Hoover Dam? :D

"When a man makes everyone do and act and believe as he does", that is a dictatorship. Which can be a fascist dictatorship, communist dictatorship, theocratic dictatorship etc. You get my drift. The fact is that there are ideological differences between all these ideologies, so a theocratic dictatorship can be quite different from a communist dictatorship, for example. Of course, they're both bad, but they're bad in different ways. :)

P.S. What dam? The Hoover Dam? :D


Correct. Good to see at least someone listened in school. Iran political system has naught to do with Fascism. It is technically a Theocracy and is called a theocracy. The arguement can be made that it is a dictatorship. But anyone who says Iran is fascist, is either a prejudiced communist, or an ignorant.

Sorry for my outburst. No matter how respected the person may be, his statement was ignorant and false. And his statement about Nazi camps was also pure poleimic and ignorance. All Nazis were fascist, but not all fascist were Nazis.

Not every bad political system in the world = fascism. Or every bad leader is fascist. That is what is called communist propoganda.

Also before anyone calls Iran fascist again. Please study Political science, so you don't come out looking like an ignorant trolling caveman.

--snip-- It has everything to do about oil. Opec members have threatened the US that they will trade in euros. --snip--

Interesting read on just this. http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/sharma0204.html

...Thus, after WWII the U.S. had accumulated 80 percent of the world’s gold and 40 percent of the world’s production. At the founding of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944-45, U.S. predominance was absolute. A fixed exchange currency was established based on gold, the gold-dollar standard, wherein the value of the dollar was pegged to the price of gold—U.S. $35 per ounce of gold. Because gold was combined with U.S. bank notes, the dollar note and gold became equivalent, which then became the international reserve currency.

...Initially, the U.S. had $30 billion in gold reserves. But the United States spent more than $500 billion on the Vietnam War alone, from 1967-1972. During these years, the U.S. had over 110 military bases across the globe, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These expenses were paid in paper dollars and the total number given out far exceeded the gold reserve of the U.S treasury. By then (1971-72), the U.S. Treasury was running out of gold and had only $10 billion in gold left. On August 17, 1971, Nixon suspended the U.S. dollar conversion into gold. Thus, the dollar was “floated” in the international monetary market.

... The U.S. sought to protect its dollar strength and hegemony by ensuring that Saudi Arabia price its oil only in dollars.

... Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., “fiat” dollars.

... Such fiat dollars are invested or deposited in U.S. banks or the U.S. Treasury by most non-oil producing, underdeveloped countries to protect their currencies and generate oil credit. Today foreigners hold 48 percent of the U.S. Treasury bond market and own 24 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market and 20 percent of all U.S. corporations. In total, foreigners hold $8 trillion of U.S. assets. Nevertheless, the foreign deposited dollars strengthen the U.S. dollar and give the United States enormous power to manipulate the world economy, set rules, and prevail in the international market.

... If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance—dollar imperialism or hegemony—would be seriously challenged.

Their already attacking yall. Who do you think supports Hazzabollah and many of the other terrorist organizations claiming "jihad" on America in those two countries?

I love it when some guy tells me about the situation in Iraq from the safety of Bumfuck, OK, while I am actually sitting here in Basrah. Thanks, genius.
I finally know how to spell "yall." I am so thrilled.

Unlikely, but you never know with Bush. We already tried to flush out their radar with drones and they didn't turn on their radar because they "know US tactics". If we did attack, we'd have a bit of fight. Iran has a good army that would fight and not surrender like the ragtag Iraqis did.

Didn't they say that the Iraqi Army was going to fight hard before Gulf War One started? I don't think the US Military would mind if the Iranian Army put up a fight, it would give the new recruits great target practice.

Would Hezbollah's social programs make it any less of a terrorist organization that needs to be countered?


The Hezbollah's social programs are part of the Sharia, they aren't donations, they're taxes. The Muslim people are forced by the Sharia to give money. Now this may sound good, but its not democracy, giving should be the choice of the individual, not a state order.

a) It's "Hezbollah".
b) This organisation has both a military arm (recognised as a terror organisation everywhere) and a civilian arm (not recognised by the EU, China and so on, and a political party in Lebanon).
c) Hezbollah has never set a foot in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I suggest you start over.


They haven't admitted to it, but you can bet your life if the US strikes Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah into Iraq and Afghanistan, if you know anything about the Iraq Iran war of the 80's you'd know that Iran wants Iraq, and it wants all the Middle East because they, somewhat like Italy of the 30's and 40's, want to re-establish the Persian Empire. The Iranians aren't Arabic, their Persian.

I think it was you but it may have been someone else (and if it was I apologize) that said the Ayatollah's aren't even involved in politics. Wrong, the Ayatollah's control Iran inside and out, religiously,militarily,politically, and economically. They set up the elections so that their candidates can win every election and then say this is what the people wanted, but in reality the Ayatollah's control everything. The Ayatollahs allowed free open elections (for the elections before this current President was elected), and the reform more secularist candidate became President by a landslide. That president fought against developing nuclear weapons and against the theocracy of the Ayatollah's. The Ayatollah's had him removed through these past "elections" and now have another lapdog in office.

Didn't they say that the Iraqi Army was going to fight hard before Gulf War One started? I don't think the US Military would mind if the Iranian Army put up a fight, it would give the new recruits great target practice.


Iran nearly defeated Iraq with its 5 million (I think if not somewhere in that range) man religious army. This army marched (not armed) into the Iraqi machine guns and drove the Iraqi's back simply because the Iraqi's ran out of ammunition, and had to stop to reload.

I love it how Droskianishk doesn't even acknowledge Kaledan's post.

Have the decency to act like a gentleman and acknowledge when one has, as can be said, royally fucked up. It's only courtesy, and costs you nothing but pride.

The Hezbollah's social programs are part of the Sharia, they aren't donations, they're taxes. The Muslim people are forced by the Sharia to give money. Now this may sound good, but its not democracy, giving should be the choice of the individual, not a state order.

I am extremely hazy about all things related to taxtation, but could you please clarify for me...

Is there any difference between a state-ordained demand for a tax and the more democratically-sounding 'choice' of accepting a tax, if not for which there are consequences which are by far and large negative?

Both rely on the fact that the tax-payer in question is damned if he doesn't.

They haven't admitted to it, but you can bet your life if the US strikes Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah into Iraq and Afghanistan, if you know anything about the Iraq Iran war of the 80's you'd know that Iran wants Iraq, and it wants all the Middle East because they, somewhat like Italy of the 30's and 40's, want to re-establish the Persian Empire.

I don't see why you're complaining. If America was invaded by a force on it's own territory, you can bet your life that it would call up militia and paramilitary groups to save it's ass.

The Iraq-Iran War that our great government helped fund? And not to mention introduced the whole scenario by interfering in Iranian affairs due to an actual republic in the making that had the 'poor' choice of not agreeing with the US?

Finally, if you know anything about history, you know that Italy under Mussolini desired a return to the ROMAN empire, from where Italy was it's birthplace. Not the Persian Empire. Mussolini is rolling in his grave, whereever that is.

I love it how Droskianishk doesn't even acknowledge Kaledan's post.
This?
I love it when some guy tells me about the situation in Iraq from the safety of Bumfuck, OK, while I am actually sitting here in Basrah. Thanks, genius.
I finally know how to spell "yall." I am so thrilled.
Yeah.. I too wonder why he didn't answer... Well thought out post as it was.

They haven't admitted to it, but you can bet your life if the US strikes Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah into Iraq and Afghanistan...
You reckon they have that many transport helicopters? :rolleyes:

...if you know anything about the Iraq Iran war of the 80's you'd know that Iran wants Iraq...
Look it up. It was Saddam who started it, with Arab and Western support because people didn't like an anti-Western Shi'ite theocracy. It would be a lot of work for Iran to conquer, and hold an area that is dominated by a totally different type of Muslim.

...and it wants all the Middle East because they, somewhat like Italy of the 30's and 40's, want to re-establish the Persian Empire. The Iranians aren't Arabic, their Persian.
I'm glad you started to read up on Italy, and the ethnicity of the Iranians.
Except that you are making your points up...if I was to believe you, you'd have to find me some evidence.

I think it was you but it may have been someone else (and if it was I apologize) that said the Ayatollah's aren't even involved in politics.
They don't do the negotiations. The Ayatollahs sit on a "Supreme Council", which is a little bit like the US Senate in that they have to sign off laws that have been passed in parliament and so on.
The difference is that they are not elected, and that they also have to consider the "morality" of the country.
But when you say that the EU is negotiating with the Ayatollahs, then that is not really correct. The EU is negotiating with Iranian diplomats, sent by the secular part of the Iranian government, the head of which is Ahmadinejad.

Wrong, the Ayatollah's control Iran inside and out, religiously,militarily,politically, and economically. They set up the elections so that their candidates can win every election and then say this is what the people wanted, but in reality the Ayatollah's control everything.
They do control a lot - but if you kept up, you'd know that Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council have clashed quite a bit recently about various nominations for ministers, at the end of which a compromise was found. So it's not like Ahmadinejad is simply the mouthpiece of the Ayatollahs.

The Ayatollahs allowed free open elections (for the elections before this current President was elected), and the reform more secularist candidate became President by a landslide.
Well, sorta free and open. And "landslide" is a little bit over the top.

That president fought against developing nuclear weapons and against the theocracy of the Ayatollah's.
Hardly. They had disagreements at times, but the whole nuclear issue actually started under Khatami, not under Ahmadinejad.
He tried to reform, but he managed to alienate many people by not really improving conditions on the ground, and to alienate the religious establishment at the same time.
In the end, he was as unpopular as it gets. So he lost the election.

The Ayatollah's had him removed through these past "elections" and now have another lapdog in office.
Listen, all the Ayatollahs do is to check candidates for their "morality" (ie whether they are good and wholesome on family values...sorta what happens in the US, just more implicitly), and if they pass, they can run. Or so goes the theory anyways.
Fact of the matter is that the people had the choice between a reformer, in Rafsanjani, and a conservative in Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad ran the better campaign, promising to tackle issues like drugs, inflation and unemployment and finding a resonance with the country's lower classes.
So he won. Get used to it - as much as I disagree with what he's done and said since then, his election was legit.

Oh, you mean kinda like being told that there was going to be no war in Iraq even though troops were massing on the border. Just a tad hypocritical, are we? Tsk! :D

True, but it can go both ways; demonise another country for political gain, but never actually do something - one thing that is at risk, is if the local population then start demanding some action, thats when the whole thing comes unstuck.

It the US it'll be the same situation with the religious right and the Republicans; the Republicans will keep using the religious right, throw the occasional bone of anti-gay rhetoric, bash a few solo mums, crap on about how keeping teenagers ignorant will somehow, magically, stop teen pregnancies and STDs.

One day, maybe near, the religious right will demand REAL moves; and just you wait, the first moves you'll ignore, but then when the religious police of vice and virtue come knocking at your door, because you did something deemed 'immoral', you better the feeling like a right nit wit for allowing these sort to take over the US.

Listen, all the Ayatollahs do is to check candidates for their "morality" (ie whether they are good and wholesome on family values...sorta what happens in the US, just more implicitly), and if they pass, they can run. Or so goes the theory anyways.

Fact of the matter is that the people had the choice between a reformer, in Rafsanjani, and a conservative in Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad ran the better campaign, promising to tackle issues like drugs, inflation and unemployment and finding a resonance with the country's lower classes.
So he won. Get used to it - as much as I disagree with what he's done and said since then, his election was legit.

Well, the fact is, another thing Americans forget is this; their system is NO BETTER; the electorial college can go AGAINST the wishes of the majority and vote in someone who was never supported - hell, they could vote in a third candidate if they liked! it is the equivilant of having a president voted in by a parliament that only ever sits once!

So one hand you have the US system where the hope is the electorial college with go with the will of the majority, whilst the other side of the coin you have the Ayatollahs who check the candidates as to whether they're of good moral standing - that, at the fact that they don't want their country sold out to the US like what happened under the Shar, who was, for all intensive purposes, the US's bitch in the middle east.