NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it the US accusing Iran of making nuclear weapons this time?

Surprise! It's the French! Officially!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-16T205236Z_01_L16562184_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&rpc=22

PARIS (Reuters) - France accused Iran on Thursday of pursuing a secret military nuclear program, drawing a swift rebuke from Tehran before talks next week on a Russian proposal for resolving the dispute.

The United States said the international community was very concerned about Iran developing nuclear arms but diplomacy was being used to try to resolve the standoff. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was very optimistic about the diplomacy.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's nuclear work, which Tehran says is solely for power generation, could not possibly be designed for civilian uses alone.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani responded with a warning to the West not to hector Tehran, an exchange that boded ill for talks in Moscow on Monday on the Russian proposal.

Russia has offered to enrich Iranian uranium on its soil and return it to Iran for use in atomic reactors, thereby easing international concerns Iran could produce bomb-grade uranium.

"No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. So it is a clandestine Iranian military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy told France 2 television.

So, the French are jackasses too? Whatever.

So, the French are jackasses too? Whatever.
How does that make them jackasses?

How does that make them jackasses?
Indeed, how does it?

They're jackasses because every nation that opposes the US is entitled to have nuclear weapons regardless of how insane their leaders are. Duh.

Is it the US accusing Iran of making nuclear weapons this time?

Surprise! It's the French! Officially!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-16T205236Z_01_L16562184_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&rpc=22

Whooo...go France, for actually stepping up to the plate of the REAL WORLD...unlike *cough* *cough* Russia.

They're jackasses because every nation that opposes the US is entitled to have nuclear weapons regardless of how insane their leaders are. Duh.
That's just how it works. If the U.S. or anyone from the U.S. says something, it's obviously wrong.

Whooo...go France, for actually stepping up to the plate of the REAL WORLD...unlike *cough* *cough* Russia.
Russia is waking up too. The statements made by Iran's presidents towards the Jews caused concern on part of the Russians.

Here's what the Iranian leaders are thinking...
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD109606

Iran had best develop those nukes quickly.

Iran had best develop those nukes quickly.
Nukes aren't much good without a delivery system that can put them on the US.

And Iran has absolutely no defense against submarine launched ballistic missiles, which is the official US Plan B.

How does that make them jackasses?
A nuclear Iran has the potential to keep US military forces out of the Middle East, therefore saving me money. A nuclear Iran will contain Israeli aggression (MAD) and will ensure that, should a dictator come to power in an abandoned Iraq, he will not have the ability to subjugate the region.

Russia is waking up too. The statements made by Iran's presidents towards the Jews caused concern on part of the Russians.

Sure...but concerns will only get us so far.

My point is Putin is still blind to Iran's real ambitions and keeps stating that Iran is trying to use Nuclear power for peace time operations. If he would just come out and say, "Iran is going for Nukes", then try to work with us to diffuse the situation, militaristiclly or diplomatically, then I would officially be a happy camper.

Nukes aren't much good without a delivery system that can put them on the US.

It's called "people."

And Iran has absolutely no defense against submarine launched ballistic missiles, which is the official US Plan B.

Neither does North Korea, but it halted the US in its tracks. Nukes seem to be the only thing to do so. More countries should be getting them.

Sure...but concerns will only get us so far.

My point is Putin is still blind to Iran's real ambitions and keeps stating that Iran is trying to use Nuclear power for peace time operations. If he would just come out and say, "Iran is going for Nukes", then try to work with us to diffuse the situation, militaristiclly or diplomatically, then I would officially be a happy camper.
To be honest it threatens Russia in no way. Russia profits from it. There is no real reason for Russia to care.

A nuclear Iran has the potential to keep US military forces out of the Middle East, therefore saving me money. A nuclear Iran will contain Israeli aggression (MAD) and will ensure that, should a dictator come to power in an abandoned Iraq, he will not have the ability to subjugate the region.
A nuclear Iran would attempt to dominate the region and control the other nations in it. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and make nuclear war with Israel almost a certainty.

Sure...but concerns will only get us so far.

My point is Putin is still blind to Iran's real ambitions and keeps stating that Iran is trying to use Nuclear power for peace time operations. If he would just come out and say, "Iran is going for Nukes", then try to work with us to diffuse the situation, militaristiclly or diplomatically, then I would officially be a happy camper.
To be honest it threatens Russia in no way. Russia profits from it. There is no real reason for Russia to care.

A nuclear Iran has the potential to keep US military forces out of the Middle East, therefore saving me money. A nuclear Iran will contain Israeli aggression (MAD) and will ensure that, should a dictator come to power in an abandoned Iraq, he will not have the ability to subjugate the region.

Sorry, you didn't read Rumsfeld's official announcement earlier this week, where if the US is unsuccessful with a conventional attack using B-2 stealth bombers, the backup plan is to shower Iran with submarine launched ballistic missiles.

Iran couldn't do anything about that, and it is likely that everyone in Iran would die.

A nuclear Iran has the potential to keep US military forces out of the Middle East, therefore saving me money. A nuclear Iran will contain Israeli aggression (MAD) and will ensure that, should a dictator come to power in an abandoned Iraq, he will not have the ability to subjugate the region.
And of all the nations in the Middle East, Iran is the one to be entrusted with nuclear power? So you can save tax dollars?

Kimchi: You do mean everyone within the area of where we think the bombs are being developed, right? Or are we seriously considering completely wiping out another nation?

And of all the nations in the Middle East, Iran is the one to be entrusted with nuclear power?

We've no more to fear from them than we have from the US, Russia or Pakistan.

Kimchi: You do mean everyone within the area of where we think the bombs are being developed, right? Or are we seriously considering completely wiping out another nation?
Well we can't really be sure where every nuclear site is.

And of all the nations in the Middle East, Iran is the one to be entrusted with nuclear power? So you can save tax dollars?
It's the closest isn't it? Besides, if we stopped supporting Isreal and pulled our troops from that part of the world, they wouldn't hate us anymore.
Sorry, you didn't read Rumsfeld's official announcement earlier this week, where if the US is unsuccessful with a conventional attack using B-2 stealth bombers, the backup plan is to shower Iran with submarine launched ballistic missiles.
Please refer to Fass's post about North Korea.

A nuclear Iran would attempt to dominate the region and control the other nations in it.
So? Are you upset becasue they would be intruding on our turf?
A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and make nuclear war with Israel almost a certainty.
You seem to be forgetting the principle’s of MAD.

Well we can't really be sure where every nuclear site is.
So we're considering wiping out an entire nation. On the upside, they aren't being supported by a superpower that has nukes and would nuke us in retaliation. And if they are, I'm a few dozen miles out of the radiation radius if they nuke Chicago.

We've no more to fear from them than we have from the US, Russia or Pakistan.
Indeed, yet Undelia was giving the impression that it would actually be logical for them to develop a nuclear system, as if they are a nation committed to pacifism.

It's the closest isn't it? Besides, if we stopped supporting Isreal and pulled our troops from that part of the world, they wouldn't hate us anymore.
In absence of one reason of hating you, they would find another. Creativity. :)

So? Are you upset becasue they would be intruding on our turf?

You seem to be forgetting the principle’s of MAD.
I'd be more upset that more people might be executed for being gay, talking freely about religion and politics, or being "immoral" women because of Iran's moral leadership in the region.

MAD doesn't apply to suicide terrorists.

A nuclear Iran has the potential to keep US military forces out of the Middle East, therefore saving me money. A nuclear Iran will contain Israeli aggression (MAD) and will ensure that, should a dictator come to power in an abandoned Iraq, he will not have the ability to subjugate the region.

MAD is what it will become when Iran's president "wipe israel off the face of the earth" gets his hands on nukes

One or 2 well placed nukes on Tel Aviv will kill about 25% of the Israeli population, Jews, Christians and Muslims and everyone else and destroy about 50% of Israeli industry.

If thats what you want, sure , support Iran.

Of course the Israeli response to a such an attack would be rather brief and spectacular .:eek: and best watched from a safe distance ,say Mars or Jupiter :D

But of course the biggest Irony of all would be if an iranian missile gets a near miss from the Israeli BMD and lands in East Jurusalem as a result...

Is it the US accusing Iran of making nuclear weapons this time?

Surprise! It's the French! Officially!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-16T205236Z_01_L16562184_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&rpc=22

So, you snipe at them when they don't agree with you... and you snipe at them when they do.

What the fuck do you want exactly? :rolleyes:

So? Are you upset becasue they would be intruding on our turf?

You seem to be forgetting the principle’s of MAD.

I'm looking for evidence for your assertion that Israel somehow is so aggressive that it needs to be contained.

Better yet, find evidence that it has threatened to "wipe" another nation off the map in a first strike, as Iran has done repeatedly.

Nukes aren't much good without a delivery system that can put them on the US.

And Iran has absolutely no defense against submarine launched ballistic missiles, which is the official US Plan B.

That is a very naive statement. I strongly suspect the US would not be Iran's target number one. Let's play a guessing game. Which nearby middle eastern state is unpopular with every Arab Nation on earth?

As far as criticising the French... at least they wait to have some evidence before loading their guns and going to war unlike Bush and Blair.

I'd be more upset that more people might be executed for being gay, talking freely about religion and politics, or being "immoral" women because of Iran's moral leadership in the region.
All the other countries in the region are like that anyway.
MAD doesn't apply to suicide terrorists.
:rolleyes: You don’t achieve and maintain power over a nation of that size without being reasonable and pragmatic. The only reason that they are fundamentalists is to control the populace.
Getting your country blown to hell isn’t reasonable.
Indeed, yet Undelia was giving the impression that it would actually be logical for them to develop a nuclear system, as if they are a nation committed to pacifism
The US and Russia sure aren't comited to pacifism. They are comited to not getting blown up, just as Iran is.
In absence of one reason of hating you, they would find another. Creativity.
You are hopeless. They aren't savages. They have a legitimate problem with us.
I'm looking for evidence for your assertion that Israel somehow is so aggressive that it needs to be contained.
Ever watch the news?
Better yet, find evidence that it has threatened to "wipe" another nation off the map in a first strike, as Iran has done repeatedly
The Iranian government just does that to appease the peons.

That is a very naive statement. I strongly suspect the US would not be Iran's target number one. Let's play a guessing game. Which nearby middle eastern state is unpopular with every Arab Nation on earth?

As far as criticising the French... at least they wait to have some evidence before loading their guns and going to war unlike Bush and Blair.

Not a naive statement. Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map. I believe that they intend to do so as soon as they have the bombs to do so.

I believe that Iran will fire first.

And then no major power in the world will let that stand - Iran and all of its people will be wasted.

...every Arab Nation on earth?
Iran is Persian. They aren't Arab at all, actually.

NAnd then no major power in the world will let that stand - Iran and all of its people will be wasted.
Which is why they won’t do it.

The US and Russia sure aren't comited to pacifism. They are comited to not getting blown up, just as Iran is.
They haven't threatened any nations recently though with annihiliation.

You are hopeless. They aren't savages. They have a legitimate problem with us.
My point is that they do not like US sovereignty. They aren't going to merely stop opposing the US if they develop nuclear capacity and you drop support for Israel.

We've no more to fear from them than we have from the US, Russia or Pakistan.
You're right. All of the nations you listed have urged their citizens to violence over a cartoon. AND all of the nations have expressed a public "official" policy of wanting an entire nation murdered. :rolleyes:

Which is why they won’t do it.
Yes they will.

They are taking every single step and statement towards that goal.

They are repeatedly demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map". Not once, but many times.

They are demanding that Europe take ALL Jews from Israel and resettle them in Europe. Not once, but many times.

They have a nuclear program that they have resumed that convinces the French that they have a nuclear weapons program.

Once they have the bombs, they will make the demand one last time.

Nuclear war is ridiculous and absurd. It's really a shame that people are ridiculous and absurd too.

Nuclear war is ridiculous and absurd. It's really a shame that people are ridiculous and absurd too.
Which is why I believe Iran will nuke Israel at the first opportunity.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the French say this. They've had the toughest rhetoric pretty much the whole time. When even Bush was simply saying "We don't take anything off the cards", Chirac was saying "...or else!" and just for effect publicly declaring that new nuke policy.

They are the hard bastards in this game.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the French say this. They've had the toughest rhetoric pretty much the whole time. When even Bush was simply saying "We don't take anything off the cards", Chirac was saying "...or else!" and just for effect publicly declaring that new nuke policy.

They are the hard bastards in this game.
Exactly. I suppose this comes as a surprise to most Americans though.

You're right. All of the nations you listed have urged their citizens to violence over a cartoon. AND all of the nations have expressed a public "official" policy of wanting an entire nation murdered. :rolleyes:

All the countries I mentioned are "bad guys." They're not bad guys in similar ways - there are nuances to their wretchedness. So, really, another "bad guy" with the bomb in that lot will hardly make a difference.

But, your puerile analysis of Iran would have been amusing, had it not been so drab.

All the countries I mentioned are "bad guys." They're not bad guys in similar ways - there are nuances to their wretchedness. So, really, another "bad guy" with the bomb in that lot will hardly make a difference.
Maybe the end result will be all the said "bad guys" annihilating each other, freeing us of their presence altogether.

Yes they will.

They are taking every single step and statement towards that goal.

They are repeatedly demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map". Not once, but many times.

They are demanding that Europe take ALL Jews from Israel and resettle them in Europe. Not once, but many times.

They have a nuclear program that they have resumed that convinces the French that they have a nuclear weapons program.

Once they have the bombs, they will make the demand one last time.

The Red Scare is dead. Long live the Green Scare.

Exactly. I suppose this comes as a surprise to most Americans though.
No surprise here. We already checked to make sure France wasn't making billions of dollars from any U.N. programs involving Iran. There just wasn't any bribe in the security council this time.

Maybe the end result will be all the said "bad guys" annihilating each other, freeing us of their presence altogether.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing those places gone, really, were it just not for the fact that they're sort of people, too, even if they are somewhat morally challenged. Not to mention that, you know, they can't do that without taking us with them.

Which is why I believe Iran will nuke Israel at the first opportunity.
So you think Persians are inherantly stupider than other countires that have had nukes for decades?
Once they have the bombs, they will make the demand one last time.
God damn it. They aren't idiots. They don't want to be wiped out.
My point is that they do not like US sovereignty. They aren't going to merely stop opposing the US if they develop nuclear capacity and you drop support for Israel
Of course. We would also have to recall out troops from the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Then they will hate us no more or less than they hate Europe or China.

No surprise here. We already checked to make sure France wasn't making billions of dollars from any U.N. programs involving Iran. There just wasn't any bribe in the security council this time.
Wanna bet that there probably is?

A nation's envoy to the UN is just a spokesperson. They do not have the power to make decisions. The decision of France not to go to war with Iraq would have been made by the top guys, Chirac and his cabinet. Unless you can somehow show me that they had been bribed, the Oil for Food thing is pointless.

And while we're at it...did you know that Australia was giving money to Saddam?

All the countries I mentioned are "bad guys." They're not bad guys in similar ways - there are nuances to their wretchedness. So, really, another "bad guy" with the bomb in that lot will hardly make a difference.

But, your puerile analysis of Iran would have been amusing, had it not been so drab.
What exactly is so puerile about stating facts? Does is confound your wish that everything be explained away with big words and a snobbish attitude?

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing those places gone, really, were it just not for the fact that they're sort of people, too, even if they are somewhat morally challenged. Not to mention that, you know, they can't do that without taking us with them.
Well there is always the option of hiding underground for us, until they see each other through.

Of course. We would also have to recall out troops from the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Then they will hate us no more or less than they hate Europe or China.
Neither of which are the true dominant superpowers though. At least not for now.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing those places gone, really, were it just not for the fact that they're sort of people, too, even if they are somewhat morally challenged. Not to mention that, you know, they can't do that without taking us with them.
Not to mention the world’s economy might not do so well without them.

Not to mention the world’s economy might not do so well without them.
It wouldn't. Yet who said sanity would essentially guide any of the said powers' actions?

What exactly is so puerile about stating facts?

The puerility comes from the fact that you seem to think those things actually matter. The US was an apartheid state for several decades into its nuclear programme, and continues to be a political absurdity. Russia wasn't exactly the freest of places. Oh, and Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator that seized power through a coup d'état.

Again - Iran will hardly make a difference in that pleasant lot.

Does is confound your wish that everything be explained away with big words and a snobbish attitude?

Just 'cause they're big to you, doesn't mean they are to other people, bless your trying noggin. My attitude is by the way not snobbish. It is just superior.

Neither of which are the true dominant superpowers though. At least not for now.
The US doesn’t need to be a superpower either.

Well there is always the option of hiding underground for us, until they see each other through.

Très Montréal.

The US doesn’t need to be a superpower either.
No. What I meant is that the US is the de facto superpower. China and Europe are not. They could be in the distant future, yet not for now.

Not to mention the world’s economy might not do so well without them.

Well, if the rest of us go unscathed, we can sell them the crap they'll need to rebuild, the few of them that are left, that is. Worked for us in WWII. It could work again.

Très Montréal.
Save venturing into out of space, would we have any other option? Assuming that no resolution could be achieved between the "bad guys."

Save venturing into out of space, would we have any other option? Assuming that no resolution could be achieved between the "bad guys."

The last thing they need is a resolution. The nukes keep them at bay.

Well, if the rest of us go unscathed, we can sell them the crap they'll need to rebuild, the few of them that are left, that is. Worked for us in WWII. It could work again.
It won’t work if there is nobody left to buy it.
Also, I wasn’t aware of any large ore deposits in Scandinavia, at least none that were active. Though, my knowledge of that part of the word beyond the 1940’s is lacking.

My country ended up giving a lot of stuff away when we could have made good money. Damn Marshal.

The Red Scare is dead. Long live the Green Scare.
You don't find the Iranian President's speeches and vitriolic demands "scary"?

The puerlity comes from the fact that you seem to think those things actually matter. The US was an apartheid state for several decades into its nuclear programme, and continues to be a political absurdity. Russia wasn't exactly the freest of places. Oh, and Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator that seized power through a coup d'état.

Again - Iran will hardly make a difference in that pleasant lot.
I'm curious as to what facts you based your supposed "expertise" of world politics, and also to what extent you even grasp anything beyond the borders of your "quaint" little neutral country.



Just 'cause they're big to you, doesn't mean they are to other people, bless your trying noggin. My attitude is by the way not snobbish. It is just superior. I assure you my vocabulary rivals yours when I find the need to use it, however, I rarely see the need to mask my ignorance with words I find in a thesaurus.

In other words, I won't tell you to take your erection and insert it into the depths of your bowels, when it suits my needs just fine to tell you to go fuck yourself.

You don't find the Iranian President's speeches and vitriolic demands "scary"?
I'm sure he doesn't find them anymore scary that Bush's. I sure don't.
In other words, I won't tell you to take your erection and insert it into the depths of your bowels, when it suits my needs just fine to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Fass prefers his erection in other men’s bowels, actually.

You don't find the Iranian President's speeches and vitriolic demands "scary"?
Not really. Annoying, yes. Unacceptable, yes. But scary? No.

Maybe it's the thing Michael Moore meant when he said that Americans were trained to be scared easily. :p

I'm curious as to what facts you based your supposed "expertise" of world politics, and also to what extent you even grasp anything beyond the borders of your "quaint" little neutral country.
A "quaint" country that enjoys a very high GDP/capita, high levels of education and excellent right protections? I would think it to be near-utopian.

It won’t work if there is nobody left to buy it.

Which was sort of my point. There'll be no sellers, either. But if we are left unscathed, through this hypothetical miracle, then some of them should at least have survived - mutant freaks, as though they may be.

Also, I wasn’t aware of any large ore deposits in Scandinavia, at least none that were active. Though, my knowledge of that part of the word beyond the 1940’s is lacking.

Supply and demand. The resource hunger is already making what used to be unlucrative ores quite interesting in a profit margin sort of way - many mining companies are prospecting in Scandinavia.

My country ended up giving a lot of stuff away when we could have made good money. Damn Marshal.

Look what you gained: A market to which you could sell your crap. Marshal made economic sense.

I'm sure he doesn't find them anymore scary that Bush's. I sure don't.

The difference is that Bush masks his words with a distinct air of stupidity unlike anything I have ever witnessed. That makes them all the more amusing. :)

A "quaint" country that enjoys a very high GDP/capita, high levels of education and excellent right protections? I would think it to be near-utopian.
Except for the hate speech laws and high taxes.

Except for the hate speech laws and high taxes.
His facial expressions are still entertaining. He epitomises the modern village idiot.

I'm curious as to what facts you based your supposed "expertise" of world politics,

The facts I just mentioned. What a silly question to ask - even for a rhetorical one, it's really devoid of any sense. Wish to try again?

and also to what extent you even grasp anything beyond the borders of your "quaint" little neutral country.

Oh, noes. You tried to say something negative or disparaging about Sweden. Is this where I'm supposed to somehow be offended, or something? I'm so not good at this whole pointless nationalism nonsense.

I assure you my vocabulary rivals yours when I find the need to use it,

Your hollow assurances are forsooth the only thing we shall have to attest this.

however, I rarely see the need to mask my ignorance with words I find in a thesaurus.

You'd need a thesaurus for the words I use? That's sort of sad, really.

In other words, I won't tell you to take your erection and insert it into the depths of your bowels, when it suits my needs just fine to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Oh, if I could sodomise myself, I'd never leave the house. I appreciate you wishing me well in my endeavours to better anal pleasure, though.

A "quaint" country that enjoys a very high GDP/capita, high levels of education and excellent right protections? I would think it to be near-utopian.
I don't really care to get into a pissing match about Sweden, but when you consider the Tax burden placed on Swedes, and the two figures below, coupled with the fact that these numbers are comparing a country that used to deal with Hitler, vs a country who has been at war with dictators for 40 years, costing trillions of dollars, I can't see the booming success you express.
GDP per capita

United States $ 41,800
Sweden $ 29,600

Unemployment

United States %5.10
Sweden %6.00

I'm not so sure that Iran would really nuke Isreal.

As I understand it, Jerusalem is still a very holy site in Islam. Any nuking of Isreal would probably result in that city's destruction, unless Iran is able to target more discriminately. So, if Isreal were nuked and Jerusalem destroyed, wouldn't that really just get Muslims mad at Iran, along with the rest of the world?

I don't really care to get into a pissing match about Sweden, but when you consider the Tax burden placed on Swedes, and the two figures below, coupled with the fact that these numbers are comparing a country that used to deal with Hitler, vs a country who has been at war with dictators for 40 years, costing trillions of dollars, I can't see the booming success you express.
The tax burden helps provide for an excellent welfare system, and an excellent educational system. That means they needn't spend as much on, say, healthcare as other nationals would. Sweden is consistently voted one of the best places in the world to live. So, quaint is not quite the word I'd use for it.

And the USA's entry into wars costing it "trillions of dollars" is the price it pays for being a superpower. Isn't it one of the most indebted governments in the world right now?

The tax burden helps provide for an excellent welfare system, and an excellent educational system. That means they needn't spend as much on, say, healthcare as other nationals would.

And the USA's entry into wars costing it "trillions of dollars" is the price it pays for being a superpower. Isn't it one of the most indebted governments in the world right now?

When you owe the bank 1000 dollars (or euros), you have a problem.

When you owe the bank trillions of dollars (or euros), the bank has a problem.

I think if Iran actually wants to build nukes I would still support them after all the world has not been too good to Iran in the past even as Iraq started using chemical weapons against it so a deterrent would be a good thing for a nation that thinks it stands alone

Iran could also prove very tough should any action be taken a U.N sanction would do nothing due to Iranian supplies and military action would be nothing short of one of the bloodiest conflicts of the past 61 years

though all of this still relies on the fact that all the times Iran has stated this programme is for peaceful nuclear power it was lying whilst remarks about the Jews are believed as fact

I think if Iran actually wants to build nukes I would still support them after all the world has not been too good to Iran in the past even as Iraq started using chemical weapons against it so a deterrent would be a good thing for a nation that thinks it stands alone

Iran could also prove very tough should any action be taken a U.N sanction would do nothing due to Iranian supplies and military action would be nothing short of one of the bloodiest conflicts of the past 61 years

though all of this still relies on the fact that all the times Iran has stated this programme is for peaceful nuclear power it was lying whilst remarks about the Jews are believed as fact


Recall the link earlier this week to Pentagon spokesmen who said that in the event that conventional bombing of Iran using B-2s fails to neutralize their nuclear program, the US would use submarine launched ballistic missiles.

Goodbye, Iran. No US casualties. Period.

The facts I just mentioned. What a silly question to ask - even for a rhetorical one, it's really devoid of any sense. Wish to try again?
I was referring to your lack anything intelligent in the interpretation of them.



Oh, noes. You tried to say something negative or disparaging about Sweden. Is this where I'm supposed to somehow be offended, or something? I'm so not good at this whole pointless nationalism nonsense.
I was simply saying "Those in glass houses.........."



Your hollow assurances are forsooth the only thing we shall have to attest this.Maybe because I prefer people pay attention to the base of my argument, as opposed to my ability to cloud an argument with useless rhetoric?




You'd need a thesaurus for the words I use? That's sort of sad, really. About as sad as you needing to fill your posts with words that 90% of the world doesn't need in normal conversation, in an attemtp to seem more important than you really are.




Oh, if I could sodomise myself, I'd never leave the house. I appreciate you wishing me well in my endeavours to better anal pleasure, though. Your sex life is none of my concern. I was simply trying to show you how to make a point without acting like a snob.

When you owe the bank 1000 dollars (or euros), you have a problem.

When you owe the bank trillions of dollars (or euros), the bank has a problem.
That's a little simplistic though. The US economy is very heavily dependent on foreigners lending them money. Should it stop, it will hurt.

And much of the foreign debt is really just sitting in Chinese government accounts to be used in their free market operations to keep the Renminbi stable. Should the US not pay up, their currency will crash anyway, meaning that the dollars won't be worth that much to the Chinese.
It's not like they want to buy anything with that money, it's just a tool.

That's a little simplistic though. The US economy is very heavily dependent on foreigners lending them money. Should it stop, it will hurt.

And much of the foreign debt is really just sitting in Chinese government accounts to be used in their free market operations to keep the Renminbi stable. Should the US not pay up, their currency will crash anyway, meaning that the dollars won't be worth that much to the Chinese.
It's not like they want to buy anything with that money, it's just a tool.
Very much so. A huge part of why Ancien Regime France collapsed was war debts. The government indebted itself to an untenable extent, adopted silly methods of debt repayment and effected its own death sentence. The USA differs greatly in how it treats its debts, yet it will only evade the repercussions of their existence for so long.

That's a little simplistic though. The US economy is very heavily dependent on foreigners lending them money. Should it stop, it will hurt.

And much of the foreign debt is really just sitting in Chinese government accounts to be used in their free market operations to keep the Renminbi stable. Should the US not pay up, their currency will crash anyway, meaning that the dollars won't be worth that much to the Chinese.
It's not like they want to buy anything with that money, it's just a tool.
The thing I like about unsecured money and the absence of demand notes in the US and the whole idea of credit is that it all relies on your imagination.

You are imagining that someday you'll get your money back - in most cases with interest.

People who would never believe in God or Santa or the Tooth Fairy will gladly loan billions of dollars.

The tax burden helps provide for an excellent welfare system, and an excellent educational system. That means they needn't spend as much on, say, healthcare as other nationals would. Sweden is consistently voted one of the best places in the world to live. So, quaint is not quite the word I'd use for it.
You're right! An excellent welfare state. If your sick, you will be taken care of, and if you want an education, they will help you. But fuck healthy people, right? Fuck those who choose a different avenue in life other than a college education, right? Fuck them, and they better pay their taxes!

And the USA's entry into wars costing it "trillions of dollars" is the price it pays for being a superpower. Isn't it one of the most indebted governments in the world right now?
In perspective with our budget and GDP, it's actually quite low. What your saying is comparable to me saying that Bill Gates couldn't afford a brand new Mercedes, because they just cost SO MUCH.

Recall the link earlier this week to Pentagon spokesmen who said that in the event that conventional bombing of Iran using B-2s fails to neutralize their nuclear program, the US would use submarine launched ballistic missiles.

Goodbye, Iran. No US casualties. Period.

the U.S is prepared too attack nuclear sites in the event of war does this somehow flatten Iran? and is this any different to planed attacks of Russian Nuclear silo's in the event of war?

One might wonder what Sweden has to do with Iran.

When Iran takes the first step and smokes Israel like a cheap cigar, no one in Sweden will be harmed.

They've learned what the Swiss learned a long time ago.

The cheapest way to win a war is to "act neutral", which occasionally means pandering to the obscene in order to avoid problems.

Whether there's war in Iran is no matter to Sweden. So I don't believe a discussion of Sweden is anything but hijacking this thread.

The thing I like about unsecured money and the absence of demand notes in the US and the whole idea of credit is that it all relies on your imagination.
The issue is that there is not enough domestic investment to keep things going. So you are dependent on foreigners giving your businesses (and government) money to keep it going. Should you not pay up, you won't get any more, meaning that everything crashes (and it makes paying for your military sorta difficult...had a look at the Russian Navy recently?).

It's not good for anyone, but to say that it's really their problem and not yours is silly.

You're right! An excellent welfare state. If your sick, you will be taken care of, and if you want an education, they will help you. But fuck healthy people, right? Fuck those who choose a different avenue in life other than a college education, right? Fuck them, and they better pay their taxes!
As opposed to letting someone sick die in the street.

In perspective with our budget and GDP, it's actually quite low. What your saying is comparable to me saying that Bill Gates couldn't afford a brand new Mercedes, because they just cost SO MUCH.
True. So long as it can sustain its high GDP the debt will not be a problem.

The issue is that there is not enough domestic investment to keep things going. So you are dependent on foreigners giving your businesses (and government) money to keep it going. Should you not pay up, you won't get any more, meaning that everything crashes (and it makes paying for your military sorta difficult...had a look at the Russian Navy recently?).

It's not good for anyone, but to say that it's really their problem and not yours is silly.
Not any more silly than those who say it's not Europe's problem and only the US's problem.

I'm here in the UK right now, and the layoffs are front page news. If the US economy went into the toilet, the suction would take everyone else with it.

You wouldn't have the strength to hold onto the rim of the toilet bowl to keep from being sucked down.

In a very real sense, all of the markets and loaning of money is a massive, legal confidence game.

I was referring to your lack anything intelligent in the interpretation of them.

I work with what I am given, and the lack of intelligence in your original comment was mirrored in mine. Do you get how this game goes? You say something really, really dumb, and then I say something as dumb to make you catch it. Seems like that eluded you.

I was simply saying "Those in glass houses.........."

Are you sure you understand the meaning and usage of the idiom you just managed to malphrase?

Maybe because I prefer people pay attention to the base of my argument, as opposed to my ability to cloud an argument with useless rhetoric?

Oh, your useless rhetoric is anything but clouded.

About as sad as you needing to fill your posts with words that 90% of the world doesn't need in normal conversation,

Well, seeing as we're speaking English, that stat might just be true. However, that you still need a thesaurus for it is a bit of a concern. English is your native language, isn't it?

in an attemtp to seem more important than you really are.

You seem to be under the illusion that anyone on the Internet is the least bit important. Talking about "quaintness..."

Your sex life is none of my concern.

Yet, we had your titillating description of the pleasurable way my "bowels" (I prefer the word "ass" as in "fuck my ass" or "shove it up my ass" or "I want your cock in my ass") are used in coitus.

I was simply trying to show you how to make a point without acting like a snob.

And as habitual, your point-making skills leave us unimpressed.

In a very real sense, all of the markets and loaning of money is a massive, legal confidence game.
That's globalisation for ya. And one of the reasons I think game theory would be a great field to really get into.

Whether there's war in Iran is no matter to Sweden. So I don't believe a discussion of Sweden is anything but hijacking this thread.

Kindly notice my not being part of it.

Kindly notice my not being part of it.
I appreciate the reacharound. ;)

I don't really care to get into a pissing match about Sweden, but when you consider the Tax burden placed on Swedes, and the two figures below, coupled with the fact that these numbers are comparing a country that used to deal with Hitler, vs a country who has been at war with dictators for 40 years, costing trillions of dollars, I can't see the booming success you express.

And we should all be happy, for the US have been at war with dictators for 40...
http://badraie.com/images/alahazrat2.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/Castillo_armas_1954.gif
I mean 30...
http://www.narconews.com/pinochetportrait.jpg
I mean 20...
http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Tu-lieu/2004/12/3B9D9B10/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg2.jpg
I mean, for at least the last 4 years! When it suits the interests of the country...

You don't find the Iranian President's speeches and vitriolic demands "scary"?

This side of George W. Bush, not really.

I appreciate the reacharound. ;)

I tend not to have to perform one, but far be it from me not to offer.

Neither does North Korea, but it halted the US in its tracks.
:rolleyes:
N.Korea can hit Japan and S.Korea. That is their deterrance. Not hitting the mainland US.

:rolleyes:
N.Korea can hit Japan and S.Korea. That is their deterrance. Not hitting the mainland US.

No shit. Did I write anything contrary to that, or did you just have the need to post superfluously?

No shit. Did I write anything contrary to that, or did you just have the need to post superfluously?

You said that N.Korea is not able to hit US but still they have deterred by virtue of having nukes and that is the only thing that is holding off an impending US invasion.

Which is BS, because if there were no American interests in S.Korea and Japan, N.Korea would be toast now.

I'm looking for evidence for your assertion that Israel somehow is so aggressive that it needs to be contained.

Better yet, find evidence that it has threatened to "wipe" another nation off the map in a first strike, as Iran has done repeatedly.

great point d/k

i recall...saddam attacking kuwait and threatening saudi arabia(if not for the coalition he may have gone there too)
i recall...a big disgustin,murderous war between iran and iraq
i recall...syria,lebanon,egypt,jordan all attacking israel twice,kinda an attempted mugging but they got there asses handed to them luckily.
i remember lately some peace loving iranian mullah/president saying israel should be wiped off the map
i seem to remember hamas..refusing to say israel even has a right to exist!

and israel is the aggressor...what planet do you live on...or as usual..you hate america so damn much you hate israel by assocciation?

yes the israeli/palistinian issue is thorny to say the least...but we can thank most of the west(britain,france)colonialism for that.

they have every right to defend themselves...yet the arabs of the region are on thin ice justifying attacking them...especially fuckin iran.
shit..most iranians are not arab if memory serves...persian?
they arent even on the same block so to speak.

bottom line is...most iranians that i know are great people...arabs and jews as well...yet there lunatic leaders(irans and the average arab nations) attempt,and pretty successfully it seems,use the arab/israeli issue to keep there populations riled up about it..rather then there populations notice the grinding poverty and bullshit there leaders put them through,and also use it to keep power over them...simplistic view...sure

but to actually support a madman having nukes...and comparing that to israel is pathetic,dishonest and adding fuel to the fire the lunatics are trying to sell.

israel has had nukes for years,and has never used them,and probably could have in some past wars...but DID NOT..i dont feel the same as iran nor any religous dictatorships in the arabian peninsula.

the mad equation/analogy just doesnt work here..you need sanity on both sides for it to work!

you are entitled to whatever opinion you want/have...but you are also wrong,and probably have an anti american/israeli agenda...so go jump...;)

You said that N.Korea is not able to hit US but still they have deterred by virtue of having nukes and that is the only thing that is holding off an impending US invasion.

Which is somehow contrary to what you wrote because...?

Which is BS, because if there were no American interests in S.Korea and Japan, N.Korea would be toast now.

I wrote my last question before this bit to signal again that I don't recall having written anything contrary to this, but to also show you that your assertion is superfluous, as it isn't the interests that keep the US at bay - it is the serious threat to those interests. Were there no threat of such a grand nature, NK would be sitting there like Iraq or Iran. The interests in the area are what keep the US there. What keeps the US out of NK is the enormous threat to those interests. Had there been no interests, the US would have no reason to "toast" NK.

and israel is the aggressor...what planet do you live on...or as usual..you hate america so damn much you hate israel by assocciation?
How dare you.
yes the israeli/palistinian issue is thorny to say the least...but we can thank most of the west(britain,france)colonialism for that.

Not to mention neo-imperialism from the US.
you are entitled to whatever opinion you want/have...but you are also wrong,and probably have an anti american/israeli agenda...so go jump...;)
There you go again. I assure you that I am not anti-American. I just hate the government and the military, mostly because they are the true enemies of the American people, not Iran. Israel has been using the US for years, putting my people in harms way, so I despise them.

yadda yadda yadda
and israel is the aggressor...what planet do you live on...or as usual..you hate america so damn much you hate israel by assocciation?

and blah blah blah
The thing IS... some people hate Israel so damn much they hate America by association. You just messed them a bit. A rookie mistake. Carry on.

I think you are all missing a key component. By using nuclear weapons against Iran we (countries opposed to Iran getting nukes) can not only prevent Iran from producing their own N.W. but also stop global warming dead in its tracks!

The thing IS... some people hate Israel so damn much they hate America by association. You just messed them a bit. A rookie mistake. Carry on.

thanks for pointing out a major flaw in my opinion...truly...your probably correct.;)

Guys, take a break from all this bitching.

I just want to point out that, if you actually read the title of this thread out loud, it will, without a doubt, make you laugh.

I mean come on....just think about it.

France Grows A Pair.

Its pretty funny, yes?

To actually talk about the subject at hand, as amazing as the concept is...

France stepping up surprises me not one bit. They have been in plenty of conflicts in the last 20 years or so, peacekeeping and the like. They have been strong against terrorism since 9/11. They have been taking a hard-line against Iran in this. They have given out their nuclear testing policy in an attempt to show they are serious.

People vastly underestimate the French. Thats why I feel sorry for anybody who goes to war with them. No non-nuclear nation has a chance against them, and France has the third most capable nuclear force in the world.

However, it doesn't make me support action on Iran any more now. While I think sanctions should be taken on them if they violate the IAEA(What are the exact punishments that occur from that?), I support them dropping from the IAEA, and developing nuclear weapons.

I don't believe at all they will nuke israel, or anyone else, without a crap load of provocation. Leaders, unless incredibly religiously fanatical(more than any current world leader), want pretty much nothing more than to maintain their power. I knew north korea wouldn't do anything against SK or japan, because Kim wants to keep his power more than anything else.

Iran is the same way. The leaders want to maintain power, and their rhetoric gives them public support, while a nuclear program will keep them safe from abroad. Iran would not trade its 60m or so people, to destroy six million israeli's, plus muslim holy sites. These are intelligent people, at least some of them. Don't underestimate your enemies.

Which is somehow contrary to what you wrote because...?


Because of your implication that having nukes will automatically protect a nation from US invasion and that is possibly the only protection a nation can have to prevent a US invasion and ergo Iran should get nukes.

as it isn't the interests that keep the US at bay - it is the serious threat to those interests.

True. And what serious threat can Iran pose with to what US's interests in the region.

Iran cannot strike at Israel the way N.Korea can strike S.Korea and Japan. So getting a nuke can also not save Iran from a military offensive from US, if that is what the US wanted.

Because of your implication that having nukes will automatically protect a nation from US invasion and that is possibly the only protection a nation can have to prevent a US invasion and ergo Iran should get nukes.


True. And what serious threat can Iran pose with to what US's interests in the region.

Iran cannot strike at Israel the way N.Korea can strike S.Korea and Japan. So getting a nuke can also not save Iran from a military offensive from US, if that is what the US wanted.

If the US attacked Iran without Iran making any provocations, especially if they had nuclear weapons and weren't using them, then that would be horrible PR for the US(and whoever else joined in). It would make the opinion of the US even go further in the craphole.

Israel has been using the US for years, putting my people in harms way, so I despise them.

US has also been using Israel for years and putting the Israelis in harms way. The Israeli foreign policy is more hostage to the American policies for the region than the other way around.

France Grows A Pair.

Its pretty funny, yes?

Not...particularly...no.

Not...particularly...no.

hmm...may be just me.

However, in all seriousness, I think its times like these when we should embrace our allies when they make good decisions, rather than make fun of them...:rolleyes:

If the US attacked Iran without Iran making any provocations, especially if they had nuclear weapons and weren't using them, then that would be horrible PR for the US(and whoever else joined in). It would make the opinion of the US even go further in the craphole.

Who cares for PR? PR is kinda the last considerations in any military objective.

Bottom line is nuclear Iran is a bad thing for many countries who have the capacity to do something about it and that's what matters.

hmm...may be just me.

However, in all seriousness, I think its times like these when we should embrace our allies when they make good decisions, rather than make fun of them...:rolleyes:

You floored me with that comment. Seriously.

Who cares for PR? PR is kinda the last considerations in any military objective.

Bottom line is nuclear Iran is a bad thing for many countries who have the capacity to do something about it and that's what matters.

Politicians are who care about PR, and are who decide when and where to go to war.

Bottom line is that a Nuclear Iran would be good for Iran, and not effect others much. Fearmongers are overblowing this.

Guess who's not growing a pair though...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,401344,00.html

Nukes aren't much good without a delivery system that can put them on the US.


They don't need to. All they need to do to bring down the US is to point them at a few oilfields in the Middle East. The US then collapses by default.

Bottom line is that a Nuclear Iran would be good for Iran, and not effect others much. Fearmongers are overblowing this.

As an Indian citizen who watched a nuclear Pakistan start a jihad on India with the security of nuke deterrance, I can say that a nuclear Iran would have the same effects on Iran sponsored terrorist orgs.

They would just up the ante and carry out terrorist attacks with impunity.

As an Indian citizen who watched a nuclear Pakistan start a jihad on India with the security of nuke deterrance, I can say that a nuclear Iran would have the same effects on Iran sponsored terrorist orgs.

They would just up the ante and carry out terrorist attacks with impunity.

They are already doing pretty much what they can for terrorism. Anything more would pretty much result in blatantness, and that would allow conventional warfare.

Iran will probably never have the capability to nuke any of the five big nuclear states, as they have distance and ABM capabilities that should be able to keep up with iranian delivery systems. Iran could attempt a dirty bomb, but I would bet that they would eventually trace it to Iran, and nuke the hell out of them.

Or, economic sanctions would do the trick. You have nukes, good for you. People starving? Stop the terrorism, and we'll talk. Things like that will matter to the iranian electorate, and they will boot out whoever is causing them to starve.

I think freedom is the best way to allow Iran to become democratic and more peaceful in relationship to the world, not to try to preempt things. We have a bad history with Iran. We forced a dictator onto them, whom got so bad that the people finally overthrew him. However, these things always lead to bad leaders as well, so they got the Ayatollah. Then, we supported Iraq against Iran, as well as the western world. And now we are threatening war and whatnot against them. There are few people in Iran who can remember a time that the US wasn't doing something bad to them. No wonder they don't like us.

Give them freedom. Don't let their leaders make their people think that we are the great satan. If we got the hell out of the middle east, stopped pushing ourselves into things, they would realize we aren't a big deal to them. When you put someone in a cage, they want to break out. When you give someone freedom, they are often content to do nothing with it.

Is it the US accusing Iran of making nuclear weapons this time?

Surprise! It's the French! Officially!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-16T205236Z_01_L16562184_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&rpc=22
Well see how strong they are when its time go in there, Im guessing they will just back down and surrender before they even get in there.

I think you are all missing a key component. By using nuclear weapons against Iran we (countries opposed to Iran getting nukes) can not only prevent Iran from producing their own N.W. but also stop global warming dead in its tracks!
I think you're missing a key component. George Bush doesn't believe in global warming.