NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Although I'm glad that Russia doesn't think military options are necessary at this point, I'm glad to see that they find the possession of nuclear weapons by a rogue state that supports terrorism unacceptable. Perhaps now Iran will realize that they are playin with fire ... literally! Your thoughts?


Russia, China slam Iran's nuke plans (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-121845-5181r.htm)


April 13, 2006
From combined dispatches
TEHRAN -- The world's leading powers, including Russia and China, joined the United States in expressing heightened concern yesterday over Iran's advancing its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Washington, urged the U.N. Security Council to take unspecified "strong steps" to preserve its credibility. The Russian government repeated its assertion that force could not resolve the dispute.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton went in more detail than Miss Rice, saying that Washington would seek a Chapter 7 resolution at the council. The chapter deals with threats to peace and allows the use of military force as a response.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran for the first time had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale, a key step in generating fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. He warned yesterday that forcing Iran to suspend its enrichment program would "cause everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians."

The U.N. Security Council has set April 28 as a deadline for Tehran to halt enrichment activity, although no consequences have been specified.

Miss Rice reiterated those demands yesterday.

"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power. ... The world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon," she said, during a welcoming ceremony for President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea in Washington.

Asked whether the council would impose sanctions on Iran, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "That's a possibility as well, that's one option that's available."

Russia and China, key players to the Iran issue with veto rights at the Security Council, have thus far opposed sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that the use of force was no answer to the standoff with Iran.

"If such plans exist, they will not be able to solve this problem. On the contrary, they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes," he said.

Russia and China rejected a Chapter 7 resolution yesterday, indicating that they are not ready to condemn Iran as a threat to international peace and security. "There is no reason for punitive measures yet," Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov said at the United Nations.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-121845-5181r_page2.htm). ]

U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton (..) would seek a Chapter 7 resolution at the council.to be honest, I would love to see him try.

Russia and China, key players to the Iran issue with veto rights at the Security Council, have thus far opposed sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that the use of force was no answer to the standoff with Iran.
That's correct, sanctions only impoeverate the people and feed resentment while doing nothing at the problem at hand. At least in my opinion.

Just how, exactly, is Iran a "rogue" state?

Just how, exactly, is Iran a "rogue" state?
As much as one as Russia is.
"Rogue" states are Washington's term for "those who do not follow our wishes".

As much as one as Russia is.
"Rogue" states are Washington's term for "those who do not follow our wishes".

Then why do European powers refer to Iran as a rogue state?

I doubt they care if the states in question follow Washington's wishes...:rolleyes:

As much as one as Russia is.
"Rogue" states are Washington's term for "those who do not follow our wishes".

Ah! Makes perfect sense to me. :p

Although I must admit, I find it funny that in Iran's constitution, there is Article 20 - an equal rights amendment for men and women - whereas, even though we've fought to get one for 40 years, there isn't one in the United States's constitution.

Yet, Iran is a rogue state. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Although I must admit, I find it funny that in Iran's constitution, there is Article 20 - an equal rights amendment for men and women

Yeah...they abide by it too...:rolleyes:

Then why do European powers refer to Iran as a rogue state?
I doubt they care if the states in question follow Washington's wishes...
Cold War inertia?

Cold War inertia?

Nah...it could be that the term rogue state...is just curretly one to use for states that are militant and defy the general worlds wishes....alas Sudan, Iran, North Korea could all be labeled rogue...whether or not they defy our wishes....

Rogue, in my opinion, simply means they pose an impending threat.

Yeah...they abide by it too...:rolleyes:

As much as the US abides by the miranda laws. :rolleyes:

You've never been to Iran. I doubt you've even ever googled Iran. You can stfu about that which you do not know.

Now we have 3 of the worlds biggest military powers telling Iran to stand down, but some how I don't think the Iranians will listen!

As much as the US abides by the miranda laws. :rolleyes:

You've never been to Iran. I doubt you've even ever googled Iran. You can stfu about that which you do not know.

Nope, never been to Iran...yes I've definetly Wiki'ed Iran...

But more importantly, why would I ever WANT to go to a muslim shit hole where I would be hated by the government because of my nationality, and I would be hated by the people because of my religion.


Sigh...yeah, I forgot...cant offend your fellow Muslims...:rolleyes:

dp

But more importantly, why would I ever WANT to go to a muslim shit hole where I would be hated by the government because of my nationality, and I would be hated by the people because of my religion.

You eat pork and don't care about the sabbath. You have no religion.

If you see at ALL the facts (and the time lines) carefully, You will notice that China and Russia were just "making time" for Iran.

We gotta stop daydreaming.. Its like the people thinking that China will "take care" of North Korea for US. :rolleyes:

The truth is WE facilitated the Nukes For Israel, WE now have to face the brave new World.

we are just sowing the seeds of our own stupidity.

Well the reason that people think that China will take care of North Korea is that it is sort of know that China is becoming expansionist...and wants to take the entire Korea....

The thing with Iran is...Israel will probably end up just bombing Iran...doing the West's dirty work, like usual....

You eat pork and don't care about the sabbath. You have no religion.

Uhuh, shows how much you know.

I actually DONT like pork...so no I dont eat pork.

Anyway, we werent talking about us Jews...we were talking about YOU muslims...YOUR people.

Lets get back to it.

Rogue, in my opinion, simply means they pose an impending threat.
Then Russia would be included in that, as being an unreliable trading partner, as Ukraine found out in January. Not to mention beginning to throw some more weight around in their near aborad, especially in the former Soviet Union. To me the rolling back of democracy is also of concern, not just talking about the president, but the people cannot elect their own governors now, they must be appointed. In all of the Western media I've read as of late, there is talk of taking Russia out of the G8, and returning to the G7. There is "reconsideration" of Russia from all sides, generally on the Western side in a negative trend. Russia was also accused of giving information to Saddam Hussein on the eve of the invasion in US Congress, and thus "... endangering American lives ... ".

Now we have 3 of the worlds biggest military powers telling Iran to stand down, but some how I don't think the Iranians will listen!If you see at ALL the facts (and the time lines) carefully, You will notice that China and Russia were just "making time" for Iran.

We gotta stop daydreaming.. Its like the people thinking that China will "take care" of North Korea for US. :rolleyes:

The truth is WE facilitated the Nukes For Israel, WE now have to face the brave new World.

what you see today are the results of OUR own past stupidity.
and.. About what we are doing today in Iraq.. We are yet to see the results (No I don't know what they will be..)

Anyway, we werent talking about us Jews...we were talking about YOU muslims...YOUR people.

You're not a Jew and "Muslim" isn't a people.

Then Russia would be included in that, as being an unreliable trading partner, as Ukraine found out in January. Not to mention beginning to throw some more weight around in their near aborad, especially in the former Soviet Union. To me the rolling back of democracy is also of concern, not just talking about the president, but the people cannot elect their own governors now, they must be appointed. In all of the Western media I've read as of late, there is talk of taking Russia out of the G8, and returning to the G7. There is "reconsideration" of Russia from all sides, generally on the Western side in a negative trend. Russia was also accused of giving information to Saddam Hussein on the eve of the invasion in US Congress, and thus "... endangering American lives ... ".

Then you know what, I would agree to that.

Great post.

I was unaware about alot of that..like for instance the apointing of the governors...wow.

Thanks alot.

Whos behind all this "leaving democracy"?

Is it Putin?

Israel will probably end up just bombing Iran...doing the West's dirty work, like usual....its kind of sad.
isn't it?

Just how, exactly, is Iran a "rogue" state?
Heh! You're kidding, right?

its kind of sad.
isn't it?

Yes.

Its sad that Israel is the only country that has the balls to do something when its crunch time.

Its sad that the West, America included, is so rapped up in trying to improve world opinion, that they cant just use action when its needed.

So yeah, its kinda sad.

Although I must admit, I find it funny that in Iran's constitution, there is Article 20 - an equal rights amendment for men and women - whereas, even though we've fought to get one for 40 years, there isn't one in the United States's constitution.
Perhaps there is, but it's not followed, so it may as well not be there.

Heh! You're kidding, right?
Hes defending his people...

His fellow Muslims.

Perhaps there is, but it's not followed, so it may as well not be there.

Exactly what I said earlier...

He tends to ignore these kind of things though...

dp
???

You eat pork and don't care about the sabbath. You have no religion.
WTF does that have to do with anything? I don't eat pork, and the Sabbath is my "day of rest" ( well, ONE of them anyway! Heh! ), yet I don't think of myself as having any "religion" whatsoever. What's that make ME? ( Careful how you answer this. Stick to the issue! :p ) :D

WTF does that have to do with anything? I don't eat pork, and the Sabbath is my "day of rest" ( well, ONE of them anyway! Heh! ), yet I don't think of myself as having any "religion" whatsoever. What's that make ME? ( Careful how you answer this. Stick to the issue! :p ) :D

ATHIOUS, Meaning you follow some religious practices but not others.

Did I miss something, or do Iran still not have nuclear weapons and are only doing something that they are legally allowed to do?

Hes defending his people...

His fellow Muslims.
My country(US) is more of a rogue state than Iran.. and No I don't say that based on my religion. (I am Christian)

Accusing him of defending his people, Would be the equivalent of accusing any Jew of defending Israel.. based on pure religion considerations.

My country(US) is more of a rogue state than Iran.. and No I don't say that based on my religion. (I am Christian)

:rolleyes: How can you actually beleive that, dude. Where do you live, by the way? England?


Accusing him of defending his people, Would be the equivalent of accusing any Jew of defending Israel.. based on pure religion considerations.

Ok. I hear that just about every day.

Did I miss something, or do Iran still not have nuclear weapons and are only doing something that they are legally allowed to do?

You TOTALLY missed something.

Whos behind all this "leaving democracy"?
I really can't say, but the one who is heading it all up certainly seems to be Putin.

:rolleyes: How can you actually beleive that, dude. Where do you live, by the way? England?
Well, he said US... But as for calling Iran a rogue state, which was the last country to invade another in violation of international law, Iran or the US? And which is threatening both to develop new nuclear weapons and to use them against another country's nuclear facilities which have not been shown to be being used for weapons production?

:rolleyes: How can you actually beleive that, dude. how can you beleive Iran is more of a Rogue state than the US Where do you live, by the way? England?
I never give names or locations.. But yes I have spent a bit of my life in the UK and EUOk. I hear that just about every day.its kinda sad, isnt it?

The thing with Iran is...Israel will probably end up just bombing Iran.
This is in fact the most likely scenario.

ATHIOUS, Meaning you follow some religious practices but not others.
Nahh! I just hate pork. Heh! :p

You TOTALLY missed something.
What? Iran have nuclear weapons now? That's bad.
(By the way, if you're talking about the enriched uranium, I know. Enriched uranium is NOT a nuclear bomb. The stuff the Iranians have is probably not anywhere near useful for bomb-making, and probably not in anywhere near large-enough amounts for use, either in a bomb or a peaceful nuclear programme...)

My country(US) is more of a rogue state than Iran.
Interesting viewpoint. Why do you say this?

how can you beleive Iran is more of a Rogue state than the USI never give names or locations.. But yes I have spent a bit of my life in the UK and EUits kinda sad, isnt it?

Because it is an extreme Muslim state that has openly declared that it wishes to wipe out another country.

I didnt ask for a name or where EXACTLY you live.

I just wanted to know what country.

Eh...you get used to it.

What? Iran have nuclear weapons now? That's bad.
(By the way, if you're talking about the enriched uranium, I know. Enriched uranium is NOT a nuclear bomb. The stuff the Iranians have is probably not anywhere near useful for bomb-making, and probably not in anywhere near large-enough amounts for use, either in a bomb or a peaceful nuclear programme...)
Stay tuned. Film at eleven. :(

And which is threatening both to develop new nuclear weapons and to use them against another country's nuclear facilities which have not been shown to be being used for weapons production?

I don't think any nation is. Unless you mean which country has some lunatic civilian shouting for a nuclear strike against iran:rolleyes: It's not gonna happen and neither the US gov't nor the US military has ever said it will.

You eat pork and don't care about the sabbath. You have no religion.

Knock off the Religion attacks Keruvalia.

and Congrats to Russia and China for slamming IRan.

Stay tuned. Film at eleven. :(
For a second I thought there had been some humongous leap forward, but unless Google News has failed me, there doesn't seem to be anything new.

Leathernecks, the US government has planned to develop new nuclear-bunker busters (which is in breach of some treaty they signed about no more new nukes, I believe) and it seems like some people have been advocating nukes as a possible option. Perhaps threatening was too strong a word though. And the person who has ultimate control over the nuclear option is a civilian, remember.

You're not a Jew and "Muslim" isn't a people.

Well in technicality they are a people. If they weren't, then there would be no muslims.

Well, he said US... But as for calling Iran a rogue state, which was the last country to invade another in violation of international law, Iran or the US? And which is threatening both to develop new nuclear weapons and to use them against another country's nuclear facilities which have not been shown to be being used for weapons production?

O.k Iran is a Medieval Theocracy which wishes to Wipe the Nation of Israel off the map with the use of nuclear weapons, they have actually admitted this a number of times. Therefore Iran is known as a Rogue Nation (or Danger to world peace).

As for the United States Invasion of Iraq the Coalition thought that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction (or WMD) which they did have at the end of the first gulf war they to did not like Israel and launched over 40 Scud Missiles that killed an unknown number of Israeli's (If you must know Israel never reveled the Number of dead as it might make Saddam feel Happy.)

So Now we have the same Situation as we did In Pre-War Iraq except that they have admitted they are developing Nuclear weapons.

Leathernecks, the US government has planned to develop new nuclear-bunker busters
I believe there has been debate about wether we should plan to. Big difference.

it seems like some people have been advocating nukes as a possible option.
You mean one or two anti-military persons have been raising fear and paranioa against the US military. And the person who has ultimate control over the nuclear option is a civilian, remember.
Scary isn't it.;)

and Congrats to Russia and China for slamming IRan.
I wish someone would stand up and say "You know, Iran isn't doing anything illegal, they have a right to do this, let them be."

Also, Muslims aren't a people, they're a religion. Islam is a religion, so is Judaism. The Arabs are a people, and so are the Jews (here meaning not those that practice Judaism, but those that are ethnically Jewish).

I wish someone would stand up and say "You know, Iran isn't doing anything illegal, they have a right to do this, let them be."

How do we know they aren't doing it for weapons? They are not letting the IAEA do their jobs as specified under the NPT. By not doing so, they are actually doing something illegal. They are violating the NPT.

Also, Muslims aren't a people, they're a religion. Islam is a religion, so is Judaism. The Arabs are a people, and so are the Jews (here meaning not those that practice Judaism, but those that are ethnically Jewish).

ok, You totally missed the sarcasm apparently or you just flat out failed to read the whole sentence. I know Islam is a religion Kalmykhia. You just missed what I said.

Interesting viewpoint. Why do you say this?this issue of rogue-state-USA has been debated to death in this forums.. and after reading all the points made in multiple threads, I gotta say they do have a point.

I do not live by the My-country-right-or-wrong premise.

this issue of rogue-state-USA has been debated to death in this forums.. and after reading all the points made in multiple threads, I gotta say they do have a point.

I do not live by the My-country-right-or-wrong premise.

Now can you explain why you feel that we are a rogue state?

This is in fact the most likely scenario.

Totally agreed.

Because while the West will just be sitting there talking about how much of a threat the Iran is....Israel is the only one actually in direct contact of this threat...therefore, Israel will be the first to act.

It also helps that they could give two shits about the world opinion of themselves....Gotta love em for that.

I believe there has been debate about wether we should plan to. Big difference.
Well, actually ... we already have them.

and Congrats to Russia and China for slamming IRan.
I wish someone would stand up and say "You know, Iran isn't doing anything illegal, they have a right to do this, let them be."

Also, Muslims aren't a people, they're a religion. Islam is a religion, so is Judaism. The Arabs are a people, and so are the Jews (here meaning not those that practice Judaism, but those that are ethnically Jewish).

Leathernecks, as far as I can remember, the new nukes thing was a declared plan - although they may have backtracked. And the leading investigative journalist in America is unlikely to be making things up to satisfy any agenda he may have. All nukes are scary, no matter who controls them.
Cape Isles. I must have missed the bit where Iran said they wanted nukes, because all I've heard is them CONTINUALLY saying "This is peaceful, this is peaceful" again and again and again. As for wiping Israel off the face of the map... Well, he's a crazy, but he hasn't done it yet, and he doesn't have nuclear weapons.
As for claiming Iraq had NBC weapons... Not going to get into that, because it will divert this off topic. Suffice it to say that I don't believe, and never have, that Iraq had any usable NBC weapons at the beginning of the war.

I wish someone would stand up and say "You know, Iran isn't doing anything illegal, they have a right to do this, let them be."

Also, Muslims aren't a people, they're a religion. Islam is a religion, so is Judaism. The Arabs are a people, and so are the Jews (here meaning not those that practice Judaism, but those that are ethnically Jewish).
Several on here have said that, unfortunately. :(

Muslims are a somewhat diverse people holding somewhat similar religious beliefs. There is actually far less "diversity" among Muslims than there is among Christians.

A jew is one who says "I am a jew," whether they're speaking of religion or "ethnicity" or simply wish to identify themselves as being Jewish.

Well, actually ... we already have them.
News to me. Link?

Now can you explain why you feel that we are a rogue state?You are repeating Eutrusca question. (the very same question I answered in the Post you are quoting)

So, You request has been denied. (I wont explain)

But I do encourage you to use the NS-Forums search function ;) good luck.

It also helps that they could give two shits about the world opinion of themselves....Gotta love em for that.
It's somewhat admirable, yes. It makes a big difference in what your government does whether you're under threat or not, yes? :)

WTF does that have to do with anything? I don't eat pork, and the Sabbath is my "day of rest" ( well, ONE of them anyway! Heh! ), yet I don't think of myself as having any "religion" whatsoever. What's that make ME? ( Careful how you answer this. Stick to the issue! :p ) :D

You don't pretend to be Jewish.

I wish someone would stand up and say "You know, Iran isn't doing anything illegal, they have a right to do this, let them be."

O.k specking theoretically What if after Iran nukes Israel they turn their Missiles on Saudi Arabia, Because Iran Doesn't like to see dealings with the likes of the 'Infedels' in the West. How would you feel if they destroyed Riyadh or even Mecca?

It's somewhat admirable, yes. It makes a big difference in what your government does whether you're under threat or not, yes? :)
Of course.

Its one thing to talk about a threat, its another thing to BE threatend.

But I love how Israel can act without being all raped up in world opinion tape.

Wish we were like that.

Even if Iran is completely untrustworthy, it is still a sovereign, legitimate state, with a government supported by it's people. So really it is just as entitled to arm itself with nuclear weapons as any other nation. So long as countries like the US, France, Russia etc keep their nuclear arsenals, how can they argue against nuclear proliferation in the rest of the world?
For anyone who thinks western countries are more mature, moral or responsible, well your just plain wrong. All nations act in their own interests.

You don't pretend to be Jewish.
Heh! True, but you do! ;) ;)

Heh! You're kidding, right?

Not at all. They're a Constituional Democracy and happen to be a Theocracy.

How are they a rogue state?

Heh! True, but you do! ;) ;)

I don't pretend. I was born Jewish.

I pretend to be fat.

Heh! True, but you do! ;) ;)

He claims to be Jewish, and claims that I'm not.

He denys the fact that converting to Islam makes you a Muslim and not a Jew.

And insists that because I do not keep kosher I am not Jewish.

How do we know they aren't doing it for weapons? They are not letting the IAEA do their jobs as specified under the NPT. By not doing so, they are actually doing something illegal. They are violating the NPT.
We don't know they aren't doing it for weapons, but the thing is, they could also be doing this in good faith. And until they break faith, you have no right to do anything to them. Also, Iran has offered to allow the IAEA back in if they are allowed enrich uranium.

ok, You totally missed the sarcasm apparently or you just flat out failed to read the whole sentence. I know Islam is a religion Kalmykhia. You just missed what I said.
Now I feel stupid. Scratch that last one. Race is not something I know much about, and I shouldn't talk about what I don't know.

Eutrusca, what's wrong with someone saying "You have a legal right to do something, it's not morally wrong, so I think you should be allowed do it, even though some people think that you doing it could lead to you breaking the law five years down the line if you break my trust."?

Cape Isles, if Iran nukes Israel, I will be pissed. I would care as much if they nuked Tel-Aviv as if they nuked Mecca. By the way, I'm not a Muslim.

Novaya Zemlaya, they signed the NPT, so they are legally not entitled to develop weapons. (Admittedly, the nuclear powers should have removed theirs long ago...)

O.k specking theoretically What if after Iran nukes Israel they turn their Missiles on Saudi Arabia, Because Iran Doesn't like to see dealings with the likes of the 'Infedels' in the West. How would you feel if they destroyed Riyadh or even Mecca?

Iran will not nuke Israel.

He denys the fact that converting to Islam makes you a Muslim and not a Jew.

Yes I did convert to Islam and became a Muslim. That made me a Muslim Jew.

And insists that because I do not keep kosher I am not Jewish.

You don't know anything about Jewish people, being Jewish, Jewish customs, or Jewish history. You don't even know what the definition of "Jewish" is.

It's not that you don't keep kosher, it's that you don't know anything about us. You cannot be Jewish.

Even if Iran is completely untrustworthy, it is still a sovereign, legitimate state, with a government supported by it's people. So really it is just as entitled to arm itself with nuclear weapons as any other nation. So long as countries like the US, France, Russia etc keep their nuclear arsenals, how can they argue against nuclear proliferation in the rest of the world?
If you have trouble understanding the differences between a radical Islamic, terroist-supporing state, and the two Western democracies you mentioned, you're seriously in need of a headspace and timing check. :rolleyes:

Iran will not nuke Israel.

Funny that you would say that because...

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

Guess you know more about what the President said than the President himself.

But, him being your muslim breathren and all...I guess you guys have that towel head connection.

You don't know anything about Jewish people, being Jewish, Jewish customs, or Jewish history. You don't even know what the definition of "Jewish" is.

It's not that you don't keep kosher, it's that you don't know anything about us. You cannot be Jewish.

I know that I am Jewish because I BELEIVE in Judaism.

Thats all that matters.

Iran will not nuke Israel.

I said theoretically and If they had the opertunety they might, What bothers me is the Palestinians how do they justify killing them?

If you have trouble understanding the differences between a radical Islamic, terroist-supporing state, and the two Western democracies you mentioned, you're seriously in need of a headspace and timing check. :rolleyes:

Since when is Iran "radical Islamic" and I'd like to see hard evidence of them being supporters of terrorism.

I respect you, Eut, but getting your facts from Fox News is beneath you.

Iran will not nuke Israel.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/

(CNN) -- Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue.

"My word is the same as that of (the) Iranian nation," he told the official IRNA news agency.

During a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini -- founder of Iran's Islamic revolution -- that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."



So the democratically elected president doesn't represent the people? They don't want Israel destroyed? They aren't developing medium range missiles and MIRV weapons? They aren't enriching Uranium?

Guess you know more about what the President said than the President himself.

Who cares what the President said? I'm betting he's out next election because of his hardliner stance. He doesn't speak for Iran any more than Bush speaks for the US. Have you checked the President of Iran's popularity ratings? They're lower than Bush's.

But, him being your muslim breathren and all...I guess you guys have that towel head connection.

Fuck you, goyim.

If you have trouble understanding the differences between a radical Islamic, terroist-supporing state, and the two Western democracies you mentioned, you're seriously in need of a headspace and timing check. :rolleyes:
Well, I'm given to understanding that one of those democracies did invade another state on grounds that are, shall we say, 'questionable'. And that the other is much less radical than many of the friends of that democracy, and is a democracy, admittedly with some rather strange laws.
Also, France threatened to nuke terrorists a couple of months back, so I hardly think we can say either democracy can be trusted with nukes.

You cannot be Jewish.Ok, so lets say he wanted to become Jewish, what does it takes?

In my religion all it takes is some priest drops some water on your head.. and BINGO!!

You don't know anything about Jewish people, being Jewish, Jewish customs, or Jewish history. You don't even know what the definition of "Jewish" is.

It's not that you don't keep kosher, it's that you don't know anything about us. You cannot be Jewish.
Who are you to say who is a Jew and who isnt?

Ok, so lets say he wanted to become Jewish, what does it takes?

In my religion all it takes is some priest drops some water on your head.. and BINGO!!
It's a lot harder in Judaism, apparently. Takes many many moons of study and the like.

Who cares what the President said? I'm betting he's out next election because of his hardliner stance. He doesn't speak for Iran any more than Bush speaks for the US. Have you checked the President of Iran's popularity ratings? They're lower than Bush's.



That sounds like a good reason to nuke Israel. There's nothing like a good war to boost approval ratings.

Since when is Iran "radical Islamic" and I'd like to see hard evidence of them being supporters of terrorism.

I respect you, Eut, but getting your facts from Fox News is beneath you.

One word: Hezbollah

Ok, so lets say he wanted to become Jewish, what does it takes?

Years of study, immersion into the Jewish community and culture, learning Hebrew, and whatnot. Takes a long time. Anywhere from 2-5 years. I've only seen it done a couple of times.

That sounds like a good reason to nuke Israel. There's nothing like a good war to boost approval ratings.
Yeah, but not a war that's going to get you nuked back fifty times over (or more - it'll take them a while to make even four nukes). Unless, of course, you hid, say, a million folk up in the hills and had them come out after and vote for you...
A conventional might boost ratings, but not a nuclear one...

Who are you to say who is a Jew and who isnt?

Nobody.

I didn't make the rules on who is a Jew and who isn't. Antlantean seems to think he did, though. Go yell at him.

If you have trouble understanding the differences between a radical Islamic, terroist-supporing state, and the two Western democracies you mentioned, you're seriously in need of a headspace and timing check. :rolleyes:

Im definitly not saying a nuclear Iran will make the world a safer place.
But one country can't credibly tell another to disarm if it will not do so itself.
The main Iranian motivation for getting weapons is that Israel has them. It's the same reason the US was motivated to build it's arsenal, because it's enemy, the Soviet Union, was doing the same.

Hmmm, this subject requires a lot of thought, but the answer is quite simple:

Is the US right? No.
Is Iran right? No.

Are the Republicans right? No.
Are the Democrats right? No.


What it all comes down to is who can beat the other. Right now the US can beat Iran, and the Republicans can beat the Democrats. But the US doesn't blink Iran out of existence, because it just doesn't work for the overall good of the world. The Republicans don't blink the Democrats out of existence, because it wouldn't be good for the country.

I'm sure that in the future, the US will collapse, and Iran will be a great power. Just like the US used to be a tiny nation with nothing going for it and Iran used to be a great power (Golden Age). I'm sure that at that time, we'll be wanting to develop the new weapon, and Iran will have it, and won't want us using it. But will they destroy us completely? No. Because then they just screw themselves.




Everyone can debate until the end of time that they're right,
I just say I am and ignore every point against me.

Nobody.

I didn't make the rules on who is a Jew and who isn't. Antlantean seems to think he did, though. Go yell at him.
Where are these rules that he made up? You're the one making up the rules and judging who is Jewish enough for you.

Im definitly not saying a nuclear Iran will make the world a safer place.
But one country can't credibly tell another to disarm if it will not do so itself.
The main Iranian motivation for getting weapons is that Israel has them. It's the same reason the US was motivated to build it's arsenal, because it's enemy, the Soviet Union, was doing the same.

And Israel has called for Iran to be "wiped off the map"?

Israel has called for worldwide revolutions to impose Jewish governments?

Im definitly not saying a nuclear Iran will make the world a safer place.
But one country can't credibly tell another to disarm if it will not do so itself.
The main Iranian motivation for getting weapons is that Israel has them. It's the same reason the US was motivated to build it's arsenal, because it's enemy, the Soviet Union, was doing the same.

Some how I don't think the Iranians or Israeli's will want a Cold War!

Im definitly not saying a nuclear Iran will make the world a safer place.
But one country can't credibly tell another to disarm if it will not do so itself.
The main Iranian motivation for getting weapons is that Israel has them. It's the same reason the US was motivated to build it's arsenal, because it's enemy, the Soviet Union, was doing the same.
(Actually, it's the other way round. The Soviets started building nukes because America already had them, they were playing catch-up for the first thirty years or so. They didn't even get the bomb until 1949.)

EDIT:
And Israel has called for Iran to be "wiped off the map"?

Israel has called for worldwide revolutions to impose Jewish governments?
Nope, of course not. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it, they just don't shout about it. I can't see Israel having any qualms about glassifying the Middle East (except for fallout on Israel) and the US still regularly foments revolution against freely, fairly, and democratically elected governments - Hugo Chavez, for example.

(CNN) -- Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

Fine ... thousands of Americans think it's ok to kill all Christians. Does that make it US policy?

Rabbi Yousef Hamadani-Cohen is Iran's chief Rabbi. I'm sure he'd like to know about this supposed "Death to Jews" policy everyone seems to think Iran has.

Or contact any of the synagogues in Iran ...

Or just call the Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History
(310) 472-3012

I'm sure they'd love to know about it, too.

Where are these rules that he made up? You're the one making up the rules and judging who is Jewish enough for you.

You've missed the other threads on this matter.

Fine ... thousands of Americans think it's ok to kill all Christians. Does that make it US policy?

Rabbi Yousef Hamadani-Cohen is Iran's chief Rabbi. I'm sure he'd like to know about this supposed "Death to Jews" policy everyone seems to think Iran has.

Or contact any of the synagogues in Iran ...

Or just call the Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History
(310) 472-3012

I'm sure they'd love to know about it, too.
The Chief Rabbi has a "Death to Israel" policy.

You've missed the other threads on this matter.
Oh, alright.

The Chief Rabbi has a "Death to Israel" policy.

Evidence.

Fine ... thousands of Americans think it's ok to kill all Christians. Does that make it US policy?

Really? Source? Do they march down the streets on Gov't sponsored anti-christian days w/ the president?

Rabbi Yousef Hamadani-Cohen is Iran's chief Rabbi. I'm sure he'd like to know about this supposed "Death to Jews" policy everyone seems to think Iran has.

Or contact any of the synagogues in Iran ...

Or just call the Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History
(310) 472-3012

I'm sure they'd love to know about it, too.

The same community that has shown increased emmigration.

Some how I don't think the Iranians or Israeli's will want a Cold War!

Your probably right, although India and Pakistan have managed to keep a lid on things.

And Israel has called for Iran to be "wiped off the map"?

Israel has called for worldwide revolutions to impose Jewish governments?

Did the Israelis really say that?? Ive heard the Iranian quote before alright, and yeah its definitly cause for concern. But the way I see it, as long as someone has nukes, everyone else and his cousin will want them.


Hmmm, this subject requires a lot of thought, but the answer is quite simple:

Is the US right? No.
Is Iran right? No.


All of this reinforces what I already believe - that there should be one government for the entire human race, no nation states. It's the only way there'll ever be an end to war.

Evidence.

There are only 16 English articles on google with the words "Hamadani Cohen" so you'll have to learn Farsi to find out more about him.

But here is another article about what sort of rabbis keep President Ahmedenijad company. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/235714D7-3186-4DA3-835F-3715DC03C318.htm

There are only 16 English articles on google with the words "Hamadani Cohen" so you'll have to learn Farsi to find out more about him.

But here is another article about what sort of rabbis that keep President Ahmedenijad company. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/235714D7-3186-4DA3-835F-3715DC03C318.htm


Jewish Holocaust deniers. That's classic.

There are only 16 English articles on google with the words "Hamadani Cohen" so you'll have to learn Farsi to find out more about him.


So, in short, you have no evidence. You're just making stuff up. Fine.

But here is another article about what sort of rabbis that keep President Ahmedenijad company. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/235714D7-3186-4DA3-835F-3715DC03C318.htm

Uh huh ...

So are these people also "Death to Israel" folks?

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Jew =/= automagically pro-Israel

So, in short, you have no evidence. You're just making stuff up. Fine.

Use your powers of logic and deductive reasoning. Jews in Iran are either anti Israel or silent about Israel, they can't be pro-Israel or they'll be constantly scorned.

But anyways we've gotten off topic. WE're talking about Iran and nukes here, we're not talking about Mr. Hamadani-Cohen. The heart of the matter is, Iran may not have a "death to Jews" policy (and I never said it did and Ive always known it did not), but Iran is a country with an official "Death to Israel" policy, no number of Chief Rabbis will change that fact. After we learn Farsi we can go read more about the chief rabbi.

Uh huh ...

So are these people also "Death to Israel" folks?

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Jew =/= automagically pro-Israel
Wait, what does that have to do with anything?

We're talking about Iran and whether it's a roguish state or not. We're also talking about uranium and nukes and whether Iran should be allowed to have them.

I've simply proved that the President of Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Just because a few Jews live in Iran does not change this situation.

Although I must admit, I find it funny that in Iran's constitution, there is Article 20 - an equal rights amendment for men and women - whereas, even though we've fought to get one for 40 years, there isn't one in the United States's constitution.

Yet, Iran is a rogue state. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but in reality you're not really claiming that women are better off in Iran than in the US, right? No, of course you're not. That would be stupid.

I guess you guys have that towel head connection.
Stop this, please. Nothing will be gained by casting aspersions.

Just because a few Jews live in Iran does not change this situation.

11,000 is not really "just a few".

However, it doesn't matter. This side-bar of the thread is really kinda pointless.

Yeah, but in reality you're not really claiming that women are better off in Iran than in the US, right?

I don't know. Ask Shirin Ebadi.

The Irananian President is just spouting hard-line rhetoric. The vast majority (if not all) of Middle Eastern experts say so, and that he has no real intention of wiping Israel off the face of the map. BTW what's the problem with Iran getting nukes - in a way it will have a calming effect; Mutually Assured Destruction and all that.

It's alright for us to sit here and cast judgement on something we know little about, watching these events through our own endoctrinated/prejudiced eyes, and then try and dictate to people who know little about us (an perhaps prefer it that way) that they shouldn't do what everybody else has been doing for decades.

I don't know. Ask Shirin Ebadi.
Well, I don't need to because all I have to do is ask my fiance's family who fled Iran after the 1979 revolution. In any case I did a little looking and don't really need to go farther than this:

Ebadi was assigned to a lower position, actually the same branch's secretary, following the Iranian revolution in 1979, when conservative clerics insisted that judgement is forbidden by women in Islam. After protests by her and other female judges, they were assigned to a slightly higher position, that of "law expert." She finally asked for early retirement when she could not stand her situation.

Women here sit on the highest court in the land. Maybe if she had moved here young enough she could have made it to the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg did.

The Irananian President is just spouting hard-line rhetoric. The vast majority (if not all) of Middle Eastern experts say so, and that he has no real intention of wiping Israel off the face of the map. BTW what's the problem with Iran getting nukes - in a way it will have a calming effect; Mutually Assured Destruction and all that.

It's alright for us to sit here and cast judgement on something we know little about, watching these events through our own endoctrinated/prejudiced eyes, and then try and dictate to people who know little about us (an perhaps prefer it that way) that they shouldn't do what everybody else has been doing for decades.

MAD only works when both sides are motivated by survival. Proliferating nuclear weapons only increases the chances that terrorists will get a hold of one and use it.

But MAD only works when both sides are motivated by survival. Proliferating nuclear weapons only increases the chances that terrorists will get a hold of one and use it.

You do realise the US is the only country ever to explode such a bomb. And since when did the US/CIA stop sponsoring terrorism?

Well, I don't need to because all I have to do is ask my fiance's family who fled Iran after the 1979 revolution. In any case I did a little looking and don't really need to go farther than this:

You can't judge Iran based on the time just after the revolution. Revolutions are chaotic things and can take decades to recouperate from. Iran is getting better.

You do realise the US is the only country ever to explode such a bomb. And since when did the US/CIA stop sponsoring terrorism?

Guerilla-A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Terrorist- the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

We've supported plenty of guerillas but i don't think we ever have terrorists. Bin laden wasn't a terrorist when we dealt with him. We used a nuclear weapon when MAD didn't exist b/c we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

I don't know. Ask Shirin Ebadi.

The woman who won a Nobel Peace Prize for her work on Iranian abuses of women and children? Sure.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/ebadi-bio.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3181992.stm

We've supported plenty of guerillas but i don't think we ever have terrorists.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

I completely agree that diplomacy should be outlawed:rolleyes: I though you were an advocate of talking with the enemy before invading.

You can't judge Iran based on the time just after the revolution. Revolutions are chaotic things and can take decades to recouperate from. Iran is getting better.
That very well may be, but it has a HELL of a long ways to go before women have anywhere near the rights and just basic social respect that women are afforded here. The fact that women post on this board about political matters and that those posts are taken just as seriously and without reservation - hell, when talking with women on this board I generally don't even take their gender into account - is world's away from what they have in Iran.

The woman who won a Nobel Peace Prize for her work on Iranian abuses of women and children?

That's why I mentioned her.

I completely agree that diplomacy should be outlawed:rolleyes: I though you were an advocate of talking with the enemy before invading.
Yeah, at that point Donny was talking to Saddam about how best to fight Iran. They decided that chemical weapon attacks woudl do the trick.

I completely agree that diplomacy should be outlawed:rolleyes: I though you were an advocate of talking with the enemy before invading.

That pic was taken while Saddam was busy gassing kurds with weapons we were selling him. You said we've never supported terrorists. We did. Plenty of times.

That very well may be, but it has a HELL of a long ways to go before women have anywhere near the rights and just basic social respect that women are afforded here. The fact that women post on this board about political matters and that those posts are taken just as seriously and without reservation - hell, when talking with women on this board I generally don't even take their gender into account - is world's away from what they have in Iran.

But it's getting better. However, if we invade, so much for that.

That's why I mentioned her.
Yeah, but your point was that an article in the Iranian constitution and teh lack of one in the US's made Iran a better place for women. I called you on it and you used a woman who won a Nobel Prize for her work in Iran about how abused women are there to support your point. You said, In fact, to ask her. Well, I think if I ask her she'll say women are horribly abused in Iran.

Just admit it was a bad point. Women are better off almost anywhere else in the world than in Muslim countries. Especially in theocratic Muslim countires. In the US, despite its sordid past, women are respected at all levels of public life. We may not have had a women president yet, but I think Hilllary would agree that one isn't far away even if it isn't here.

That's why I mentioned her.


And you also implied that Iranian women have MORE rights than those in the US. She seems to disagree.

But it's getting better. However, if we invade, so much for that.

Is anyone besides a couple of news pundits talking about "invading"? Sure doesn't seem like it. Is the US the only country opposing Iran in this situation? No.

The US has supported terrorists, and their governments. For example, the British government under Thatcher in the early 1980s tried to oppress nationalist aspirations in Northern Ireland. My own father (Irish Catholic) was forced to lie on the ground at gunpoint by British troops, and told if they saw him about again they would either should to kill or land him in jail.

This was commonplace at the time. Is this not a calculated attack on the government's subjects, and hence, state terrorism?

That pic was taken while Saddam was busy gassing kurds with weapons we were selling him. You said we've never supported terrorists. We did. Plenty of times.

Would you also say that the person who sold the 9/11 hijackers their knives(assuming they bought them from a dealer in the U.S. and had no knowledge of their future actions) supports terrorism?

Would you also say that the person who sold the 9/11 hijackers their knives(assuming they bought them from a dealer in the U.S.) support terrorism?
Oh, c'mon. The picture showed that the US gov't had a diplomatic relationship and history shows that the US gov't sold weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran. They used WMD in those wars while we were supporting them militarily. You cannot equate that with walking into walmart andbuying box cutters. That's a really bad analogy.

Oh, c'mon. The picture showed that the US gov't had a diplomatic relationship and history shows that the US gov't sold weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran. They used WMD in those wars while we were supporting them militarily. You cannot equate that with walking into walmart andbuying box cutters. That's a really bad analogy.

It is a good analogy in that we sold them the weapons but not so that they could gas their own people. Just like they sold the knives but not so they could hijack an aircraft. We sold them for the purpose of defeating iran. We can't be held responsible for the actions of saddam who, by the way, we paved the way to be prosecuted in a court of law.

I dont know ..Iraq is getting kinda boring... "missles at dawn" on tv news ..along with some " shock and awe "...thats what we need .
We have the perfect villian ..a dude with a crazy beard who WANTS a culure war..( his version has Islam winning..we have to edit that part )..

Whats not to bomb ?? The guys nuts ..he wants nukes ..and he hates us..

So what else do we spend all that GNP money for ??? Besides it makes for good TV . Might even make me stop playing battle field two for a few minutes .

Oh, c'mon. The picture showed that the US gov't had a diplomatic relationship and history shows that the US gov't sold weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran. They used WMD in those wars while we were supporting them militarily. You cannot equate that with walking into walmart andbuying box cutters. That's a really bad analogy.
we didn't give them the WMDs they most likely got them from the wreakage of the USSR, we may not have followed the money well enough but we didn't sell them gas, assuming we have any to sell at all.

I dont know ..Iraq is getting kinda boring... "missles at dawn" on tv news ..along with some " shock and awe "...thats what we need .
We have the perfect villian ..a dude with a crazy beard who WANTS a culure war..( his version has Islam winning..we have to edit that part )..

Whats not to bomb ?? The guys nuts ..he wants nukes ..and he hates us..

So what else do we spend all that GNP money for ??? Besides it makes for good TV . Might even make me stop playing battle field two for a few minutes .
the problem is that you may enjoy it and I may enjoy it, but the rest of the world would be upset, anyway you could say the exact same thing about Saddam, and I don't think everyone is appreciating him not being in power anymore.

The US has supported terrorists, and their governments. For example, look at what the state of Israel (given its 1967 borders) has done to the Palestinians. There was NO "islamic terrorism" pre-1967. Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together in countries like Tunisia, Turkey and even Afghanistan. The problem has arisen because the US sponsors Israeli terrorism, which in turn has caused Muslim terrorism, and contributed to its subsequent spread. The US is the most powerful country in the world, rightly or wrongly, and is seen by many Muslims as being anti-Islamic - an easily feasible argument given its invasions on Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Syria and Iran.

Are Israeli tactics not a calculated attack on the government's subjects, and hence, state terrorism?

the problem is that you may enjoy it and I may enjoy it, but the rest of the world would be upset, anyway you could say the exact same thing about Saddam, and I don't think everyone is appreciating him not being in power anymore.

It's better to just not acknowledge people like that.

The US has supported terrorists, and their governments. For example, look at what the state of Israel (given its 1967 borders) has done to the Palestinians. There was NO "islamic terrorism" pre-1967. Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together in countries like Tunisia, Turkey and even Afghanistan. The problem has arisen because the US sponsors Israeli terrorism, which in turn has caused Muslim terrorism, and contributed to its subsequent spread. The US is the most powerful country in the world, rightly or wrongly, and is seen by many Muslims as being anti-Islamic - an easily feasible argument given its invasions on Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Syria and Iran.

Are Israeli tactics not a calculated attack on the government's subjects, and hence, state terrorism?

Who set up Israel as a nation?

How many times were they attacked first?

Who didn't accept the displaced people making them refugees?

It's better to just not acknowledge people like that.
In retrospect I think your right.

Who set up Israel as a nation?

How many times were they attacked first?

Who didn't accept the displaced people making them refugees?
The West after WWII
somthing I like to call the 6 day war...yeah how many countries attacked them?
pretty much all the nations that attacked to destroy them

It is a good analogy in that we sold them the weapons but not so that they could gas their own people. Just like they sold the knives but not so they could hijack an aircraft. We sold them for the purpose of defeating iran. We can't be held responsible for the actions of saddam who, by the way, we paved the way to be prosecuted in a court of law.
It's besides the point. You were saying that the US doesn't deal with people like that and they clearly did and Donny was a key guy in those dealings.


By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01


High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29)

If you sell WMDs, you are accepting that the new owner may use them. What difference does it make who they are used against? They are bad, bad....

On the other hand, every country has the right to develop modern technology...without having to buy it at enormous prices from those who already have it. This was the reason for the US war of independence with England, if I read history correctly....

I am much more worried about the US using their bombs than Iran. First, they have already proved they are willing to use them for their country's interest - Hiroshima etc. Second, anyone else would be committing suicide to use such against the US - the US have the biggest arsenal in the world.

In fact, the US can probably only get away with invading whichever country they feel like because they have the bomb. Using fear for political reasons is called terrorism?

Interesting question - what would the world do if the US invaded.....Switzerland....?

It's better to just not acknowledge people like that.
People like me? Why? Because I take the time to have reasoned approach and don't let rigid ideology decide my positions over reality? If our current administration would do that Iraq would be a much better place today.

It's besides the point. You were saying that the US doesn't deal with people like that and they clearly did and Donny was a key guy in those dealings.
So you are saying that it is bad to deal with those kinds of people? So you would also say that we should just abandon all diplomatic efforts with iran and head straight for the military option

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29)
It was a mistake to sell them weapons. We didn't intend what happened to happen. We are now in iraq trying to fix our mistakes. But according to you argument, you should never fix your mistakes.

People like me? Why? Because I take the time to have reasoned approach and don't let rigid ideology decide my positions over reality? If our current administration would do that Iraq would be a much better place today.

No, people like this:Ultraextreme Sanity
I dont know ..Iraq is getting kinda boring... "missles at dawn" on tv news ..along with some " shock and awe "...thats what we need .
We have the perfect villian ..a dude with a crazy beard who WANTS a culure war..( his version has Islam winning..we have to edit that part )..

Whats not to bomb ?? The guys nuts ..he wants nukes ..and he hates us..

So what else do we spend all that GNP money for ??? Besides it makes for good TV . Might even make me stop playing battle field two for a few minutes .

So you are saying that it is bad to deal with those kinds of people? So you would also say that we should just abandon all diplomatic efforts with iran and head straight for the military option

Hhahahahahahha!
There is a world of difference between diplomacy and supplying a country with WMD's

Interesting question - what would the world do if the US invaded.....Switzerland....?
We wouldn't invade Switzerland, their banks have been very helpful in the past

So you are saying that it is bad to deal with those kinds of people? So you would also say that we should just abandon all diplomatic efforts with iran and head straight for the military optiontalking to enemies diplomatically to try to resolve differences is a far cry from supporting brutal dictators and selling them weapons when you know they are daily using poison gas on the battle field.


It was a mistake to sell them weapons. We didn't intend what happened to happen. We are now in iraq trying to fix our mistakes. But according to you argument, you should never fix your mistakes.
No, I'm saying you shoudl fix your mistakes intelligently so you don't make them into bigger mistakes. Saddam wanted to go into exile. There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Think of all that could have been avoided had we let him go into exile and then just let the inspectors look around.

No, I'm saying you shoudl fix your mistakes intelligently so you don't make them into bigger mistakes. Saddam wanted to go into exile. There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Think of all that could have been avoided had we let him go into exile and then just let the inspectors look around.
Saddam wanted to go into exile???

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]talking to enemies diplomatically to try to resolve differences is a far cry from supporting brutal dictators and selling them weapons when you know they are daily using poison gas on the battle field.
QUOTE]
Your right it is a far cry. There are options inbetween that, namely we do the dirty work ourselves, which is what we did

Saddam wanted to go into exile???
He tried to go into Exile in the UAE just a few days before the war but they would not accept him. the point, however, is that he was trying. The US initially said it would not invade if he did go into exile, but he was turned down by a few countries. The point remains, howvere, that he was trying. If the US had actually tried to broker an exile deal for him rather than just giving him a deadline it is sure that his exile would have been accomplished and war would have been averted.

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]talking to enemies diplomatically to try to resolve differences is a far cry from supporting brutal dictators and selling them weapons when you know they are daily using poison gas on the battle field.
[QUOTE]
Your right it is a far cry. There are options inbetween that, namely we do the dirty work ourselves, which is what we did
And a bang-up job we did! :)

If the US had actually tried to broker an exile deal for him rather than just giving him a deadline it is sure that his exile would have been accomplished and war would have been averted.
War with Saddam maybe, but he had a couple of nutcase sons running around in case you forgot. So once Saddam goes into exile who takes over the country. Us, we would have the same problems we are having now except that the terrorist networks wouldn't be disrupted by the war and general destruction.
One of Saddam's people, then we have the same problem as we did with saddam, except this guy is younger.
The UN, it would still be mostly our people one the ground.
The Arabs, Oh if you thought what we had before was a war wait till you see what would happen if the arabs tried to rule iraq

No, people like this:Ultraextreme Sanity
I dont know ..Iraq is getting kinda boring... "missles at dawn" on tv news ..along with some " shock and awe "...thats what we need .
We have the perfect villian ..a dude with a crazy beard who WANTS a culure war..( his version has Islam winning..we have to edit that part )..

Whats not to bomb ?? The guys nuts ..he wants nukes ..and he hates us..

So what else do we spend all that GNP money for ??? Besides it makes for good TV . Might even make me stop playing battle field two for a few minutes .


:) :) Dude please.....wake up and smell the sarcasm ....;)

:) :) Dude please.....wake up and smell the sarcasm ....;)

lol, sarcasm doesn't travel well in text. Ya gotta include a couple rolleyes or something of the sort.;)

War with Saddam maybe, but he had a couple of nutcase sons running around in case you forgot. So once Saddam goes into exile who takes over the country. Us, we would have the same problems we are having now except that the terrorist networks wouldn't be disrupted by the war and general destruction.
One of Saddam's people, then we have the same problem as we did with saddam, except this guy is younger.
The UN, it would still be mostly our people one the ground.
The Arabs, Oh if you thought what we had before was a war wait till you see what would happen if the arabs tried to rule iraq
Yeah, I think it can reasonably be assumed that any such deal would have included his whole family and his senior leadership. After his exile there would have had to be a new government formed.

Yeah, I think it can reasonably be assumed that any such deal would have included his whole family and his senior leadership. After his exile there would have had to be a new government formed.
And who would form it??

Yeah, I think it can reasonably be assumed that any such deal would have included his whole family and his senior leadership. After his exile there would have had to be a new government formed.

Can you please provide evidence that saddam attempted to exile himself.

You are repeating Eutrusca question. (the very same question I answered in the Post you are quoting)

So, You request has been denied. (I wont explain)

But I do encourage you to use the NS-Forums search function ;) good luck.

Be that as it maybe. I honestly don't care since most of us know differently.

We don't know they aren't doing it for weapons, but the thing is, they could also be doing this in good faith. And until they break faith, you have no right to do anything to them. Also, Iran has offered to allow the IAEA back in if they are allowed enrich uranium.

With conditions. Well that's typical. If they have nothing to hide then why allow for conditions?

Now I feel stupid. Scratch that last one. Race is not something I know much about, and I shouldn't talk about what I don't know.

Sensible.

And who would form it??
Probably pretty much teh same people that are now only not after having some 20 off thousand people killed and turning the place into a burgeoning terrorist traing ground and the central focus of hatred of the west in the Muslim world. The fact is that diplopmatic channels were wide open and there were a myrad of options that the exile of saddam would have opened up. What would have happened exactly had that option been taken? Who knows, but what did happen with the option that was taken has been an unmitigated disaster to the Middle East and America's standing in the world, not to mention our perceived military dominance. Why do you think Iran is so defiant now? It's because they look next door and think, "These guys are idiots. We don't need to be afraid of them."

Also, even if other avenue's weren't taken at least get some people to run it that know what they're doing. This administration's complete ineptitude at prosecuting this war has been complete and indefensible. At every turn, from ignoring calls for more troops to occupy the country to allowing mass scale looting in the days after the initial invasion while we guarded oil infrastructure to actually arming the insurgency by allowing untested and untrained Iraqi security forces to finnish the invasion of falujah over the protests of brass actually on the ground in Iraq has shown that these people in power here now have no clue what the hell they are doing.

Can you please provide evidence that saddam attempted to exile himself.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates, but the deal fell through, a UAE government senior official told CNN.

The reported offer came before an emergency Arab League meeting in Egypt in discussions between UAE officials and a Hussein aide, said the senior official, who was then a member of the UAE delegation to the Arab League.

Ok, so lets say he wanted to become Jewish, what does it takes?

In my religion all it takes is some priest drops some water on your head.. and BINGO!!

Its one thing to be baptized with water, its another to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Just because you are baptized does not make one a Christian unless he fully accepts Jesus as his savior.

Probably pretty much teh same people that are now only not after having some 20 off thousand people killed and turning the place into a burgeoning terrorist traing ground and the central focus of hatred of the west in the Muslim world.

So you do agree that taking the option of allowing Saddam to go into exile would not have changed much of anything. After all if the same "inept administration" was in charge what would the difference be?

You do realise the US is the only country ever to explode such a bomb. And since when did the US/CIA stop sponsoring terrorism?

Actually, we're the only nation to use them in War and that was to prevent millions of people dying in an invasion. We are not however the only nation to ever have exploded a bomb.

And since when did the US/CIA stop sponsoring terrorism?
Since they stopped being on our side.

Who set up Israel as a nation?

Israel

How many times were they attacked first?

three times.

Who didn't accept the displaced people making them refugees?

Various Arab states.

So you do agree that taking the option of allowing Saddam to go into exile would not have changed much of anything.
What a dumb thing to say.
After all if the same "inept administration" was in charge what would the difference be?
They are inept. This is the most incompetent administration in the history of the US bar none. George Bush is the stupidest moron ever to hold the White House and his inner circle have proven themselves completely incompetent at every available opportuninty - no more so than in their prosecution of this war. Anyone who doesn't agree is a rigid ideologue who spends more time spinning the little knowledge they do have of the world to fit their ideology than they do actually getting informed and making reasonable decisions about current events.

The West after WWII

Actually they did it themselves. We just recognized them.

somthing I like to call the 6 day war...yeah how many countries attacked them?

There were three wars. The Israeli War for Independence, The 6 Days War and the Yom Kippor War.

War number 1 had 5 armies. War number 2 had 3 nations and the Yom Kippor War had at least 2 nations fighting Israel though apparently more arab states fought in it.

pretty much all the nations that attacked to destroy them

And they failed utterly.

What a dumb thing to say.

They are inept. This is the most incompetent administration in the history of the US bar none. George Bush is the stupidest moron ever to hold the White House and his inner circle have proven themselves completely incompetent at every available opportuninty - no more so than in their prosecution of this war. Anyone who doesn't agree is a rigid ideologue who spends more time spinning the little knowledge they do have of the world to fit their ideology than they do actually getting informed and making reasonable decisions about current events.
it very possibly was a dumb thing to say, answer my question.
I am not asking whether or not they are inept I personally don't think so but after all "everyone is entitled to be stupid sometimes" But what I asked was, do you agree that accepting Saddam's exile would not have effectively changed anything? The fact that you are spouting leftist rhetoric at me says to me that you don't want to answer the question. (possibly because you know your wrong?)

it very possibly was a dumb thing to say, answer my question.
I am not asking whether or not they are inept I personally don't think so but after all "everyone is entitled to be stupid sometimes" But what I asked was, do you agree that accepting Saddam's exile would not have effectively changed anything? The fact that you are spouting leftist rhetoric at me says to me that you don't want to answer the question. (possibly because you know your wrong?)
I'm not a leftist, I'm a conservative that is deeply concerned that this administration, which is anything but conservative, is hurting my country. I didn't answer your question because it was a stupid question, but I will now.

EVERYTHING would have been different. We would not have thousands of dead troops, we would not have tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and all the bitter feelings that those deaths have produced. The formation of a new government and support of Iraq's infrastructure would have included the participation of the international community rather than just the US and would have probably been much more peaceful than it has been. There never would have been an insurgency and security would have been much better because existing Iraqi police and army personel would not have been disbanded and would have been shored up with international cooperation. The US would not have destroyed its standing in the international community, our allies would still be our allies, the price of oil wouldn't be as high, we'd have a military presence that was still strong enough to diswade Iran and North Korea from persuing nuclear weapons, Afghanistan woudl have many more US forces so the Taliban would not be regaining a foothold, we wouldn't have as bad a national debt although this "conservative" adminitsration has shown absolutely no restraint in spending at all and has, in fact, spent more on credit than every other administration in history combined... If I keep typing I can think of more but my fingers are getting tired.

it very possibly was a dumb thing to say, answer my question.
I am not asking whether or not they are inept I personally don't think so but after all "everyone is entitled to be stupid sometimes" But what I asked was, do you agree that accepting Saddam's exile would not have effectively changed anything? The fact that you are spouting leftist rhetoric at me says to me that you don't want to answer the question. (possibly because you know your wrong?)
BTW - It was also a stupid question because even if we would have been in exactly teh same boat at least we would have been in that boat without the dead bodies of 2000+ dead Americans and 20,000+ dead Iraqis.

EVERYTHING would have been different. We would not have thousands of dead troops, we would not have tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and all the bitter feelings that those deaths have produced. The formation of a new government and support of Iraq's infrastructure would have included the participation of the international community rather than just the US and would have probably been much more peaceful than it has been. There never would have been an insurgency and security would have been much better because existing Iraqi police and army personel would not have been disbanded and would have been shored up with international cooperation. The US would not have destroyed its standing in the international community, our allies would still be our allies, the price of oil wouldn't be as high, we'd have a military presence that was still strong enough to diswade Iran and North Korea from persuing nuclear weapons, Afghanistan woudl have many more US forces so the Taliban would not be regaining a foothold, we wouldn't have as bad a national debt although this "conservative" adminitsration has shown absolutely no restraint in spending at all and has, in fact, spent more on credit than every other administration in history combined... If I keep typing I can think of more but my fingers are getting tired.
That is one possibility. Another is that after Saddam was exiled, some of the Republican guard, might have decided that they liked running the country. That is assuming that Saddam could convince his family to leave the place where they had absolute power, to go into exile in the first place. So as soon as someone objects, the Guard backs them, and we have an Iraq war anyway. Our "allies" immediatly jump ship and we arfe left with the same mess. And this mess is especially exacerbated if you leave the old Iraqi police and military forces in place. So we are left with the same situation.
Meanwhile Iran is still making plans to annihilate Israel and kill off all those heretics that live over in Saudi Arabia. Daryaei is not exacty the sanest leader out there.
Korea goes on its merry way content in the knowledge that we will never USE what military force we have.
The Taliban could could on support from the entrenched police and military force in Iraq

Gotta agree with you on the national Debt though

And of course all this violence drives up the price of oil. The idiots who set "world opinion" would slam us for our poor handling of the situation. The administration would get criticism from all corners on its inept actions. And we are back at square one Except of course for the fact that now we still have to deal with Iraq.
And incidentally a large portion of that 2,000 US dead, came from insurgents after the main force of the country was subdued. And the insurgency would come whatever.

Actually spreading around the 2,000 dead to other countries, might not be such a bad Idea. You might have somethin here. But then what would the all important world opinion of US be then

That is one possibility. Another is that after Saddam was exiled, some of the Republican guard, might have decided that they liked running the country. That is assuming that Saddam could convince his family to leave the place where they had absolute power, to go into exile in the first place. So as soon as someone objects, the Guard backs them, and we have an Iraq war anyway. Our "allies" immediatly jump ship and we arfe left with the same mess. And this mess is especially exacerbated if you leave the old Iraqi police and military forces in place. So we are left with the same situation.
Meanwhile Iran is still making plans to annihilate Israel and kill off all those heretics that live over in Saudi Arabia. Daryaei is not exacty the sanest leader out there.
Korea goes on its merry way content in the knowledge that we will never USE what military force we have.
The Taliban could could on support from the entrenched police and military force in Iraq

Gotta agree with you on the national Debt though
Why woudl you leave the Republican Guard in place? They get disbanded, the regular army and police forces stay but under enforced civilian control not from just the US but from the United Nations, the UN picks delegates from the different ethnic groups and you have the same process you havetoday only without the kidnappings, political assassinations, suicide bombings, infrastructure decay, unemployment, drop in oil production and resultant decrease in Iraqi revenue and increase in world oil prices, flood of terrorists across Iraqi borders...

Why woudl you leave the Republican Guard in place? They get disbanded, the regular army and police forces stay but under enforced civilian control not from just the US but from the United Nations, the UN picks delegates from the different ethnic groups and you have the same process you havetoday only without the kidnappings, political assassinations, suicide bombings, infrastructure decay, unemployment, drop in oil production and resultant decrease in Iraqi revenue and increase in world oil prices, flood of terrorists across Iraqi borders...
You know I have this thought for you. most of the kidnappings, political assassinations, suicide bombings etc. are done by muslims who are NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ. We have pretty much exterminated the homegrown terrorists, and there seems to be this natural process that cuts down on repeat suicide bombers. But the insurgents in Iraq are nut cases who come from all over the muslim world, they sneak into the country and then they make havoc. They are to quote you the "flood of terrorists across Iraqi borders..." About the only way to eliminate them, short of nuking most of the muslim world, is to totally blackage the country which take about ten times as many troops as we have in the military, and even then, no blockade ever made has been perfect. And the insurgents attacks will causeinfrastructure decay, unemployment, drop in oil production and resultant decrease in Iraqi revenue and increase in world oil prices, etc. etc.
The point is this is a perfect world scenario your spinning here and we don't live in the perfect world.

And of course all this violence drives up the price of oil.
Especially when part of the strategy is to drive up oil prices by targetting oil infrastructure.

The idiots who set "world opinion" would slam us for our poor handling of the situation.We woldn't have been handling it. It would have been an international situation with the UN at the helm. The administration would get criticism from all corners on its inept actions.See above. And we are back at square one Except of course for the fact that now we still have to deal with Iraq.No, we wouldn't The world would.
And incidentally a large portion of that 2,000 US dead, came from insurgents after the main force of the country was subdued. And the insurgency would come whatever.I absolutely disagree. A destroyed infrastructure, the indignity of US occupation and, most of all, a 60+% unemployment rate are fertile grounds for an insurgency and the whole of the international community would be less likely to draw the ire of potential terrorsist into Iraq and woudl also have greater numbers so would be more equipped to actually enforce border control.

Actually spreading around the 2,000 dead to other countries, might not be such a bad Idea. You might have somethin here. But then what would the all important world opinion of US be then
It wouldn't be the US that would be the focus. If you remember correctly, immediately following 9/11 we had the sympathy of the world and they were willing to help us deal with Iraq and other states on the terrorism watch list. It was our refusal to use diplomacy and our snubbing of the international community that turned world opinion against us. Hell, the UN was more than happy to send in its diplomats and weapons inspectors. It was us that kicked them out before the war. If we had done all this through the UN we would have had the backing of the world which, at the time, was more than willing to do just that.

You know I have this thought for you. most of the kidnappings, political assassinations, suicide bombings etc. are done by muslims who are NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ. We have pretty much exterminated the homegrown terrorists, and there seems to be this natural process that cuts down on repeat suicide bombers. But the insurgents in Iraq are nut cases who come from all over the muslim world, they sneak into the country and then they make havoc. They are to quote you the "flood of terrorists across Iraqi borders..." About the only way to eliminate them, short of nuking most of the muslim world, is to totally blackage the country which take about ten times as many troops as we have in the military, and even then, no blockade ever made has been perfect. And the insurgents attacks will causeinfrastructure decay, unemployment, drop in oil production and resultant decrease in Iraqi revenue and increase in world oil prices, etc. etc.
The point is this is a perfect world scenario your spinning here and we don't live in the perfect world.Not true. There is a huge Domestic Sunni insurgency. In fact they are far more active these days than Zarqawi's AQ faction. See my other post for an answer to everything else you said here.

What I am saying is HOW WOULD THAT STOP THE INSURGENCY. Most of the Mujahideen do not distinguish between America and Rest of the western world. They don't even have the concept of a difference between the difference between the UN and the US. They call Russia the Lesser Satan and the US the Greater Satan. IT WOULDN'T MATTER TO THEM IF THE ENTIRE WORLD BACKED US. And make no mistake backing us it would be, 90% of all UN forces are still american, effectively it would still be us and Hezbollah does not quibble over what a force calls itself.

What I am saying is HOW WOULD THAT STOP THE INSURGENCY. Most of the Mujahideen do not distinguish between America and Rest of the western world. They don't even have the concept of a difference between the difference between the UN and the US. They call Russia the Lesser Satan and the US the Greater Satan. IT WOULDN'T MATTER TO THEM IF THE ENTIRE WORLD BACKED US. And make no mistake backing us it would be, 90% of all UN forces are still american, effectively it would still be us and Hezbollah does not quibble over what a force calls itself.
No one there wanted Saddam in power. All segmenst of society, including the Sunnis wanted his gone. What they did not want was the destruction of their infrastructure, looting of their cities and towns and a lack of security that resulted in wide spread criminal behavior. All of these things are direct results of the way in which he was removed. Had the transition happened without a shot fired would they have hugged and kissed? Probably not, but they'd be arguing with each other after they got home from work and in a room lit by light bulbs rather than candles. Beyond that you and I are going around in circles. Suffice it to say I think there is more than ample reason to believe that, with the UN behind a peaceful regime change, something pretty much everybody in Iraq wanted, then the social institutions left in tact and the infrastructure left operational would have made Iraq a much less chaotic place with which to get on with the work of building a new, democratic and peaceful Iraq.

No one there wanted Saddam in power. All segmenst of society, including the Sunnis wanted his gone. What they did not want was the destruction of their infrastructure, looting of their cities and towns and a lack of security that resulted in wide spread criminal behavior. All of these things are direct results of the way in which he was removed. Had the transition happened without a shot fired would they have hugged and kissed? Probably not, but they'd be arguing with each other after they got home from work and in a room lit by light bulbs rather than candles. Beyond that you and I are going around in circles. Suffice it to say I think there is more than ample reason to believe that, with the UN behind a peaceful regime change, something pretty much everybody in Iraq wanted, then the social institutions left in tact and the infrastructure left operational would have made Iraq a much less chaotic place with which to get on with the work of building a new, democratic and peaceful Iraq.
And I think that is unrealisticly optimistic expectation of how things would have worked out. But you are right we are going in cricles.

Guerilla-A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Terrorist- the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

We've supported plenty of guerillas but i don't think we ever have terrorists. Bin laden wasn't a terrorist when we dealt with him. We used a nuclear weapon when MAD didn't exist b/c we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, as has been said so often, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Find me a guerilla who hasn't also been called a terrorist, and I'll be quite surprised.
Something tells me this may have gone slightly off-topic.

Unfortunately, as has been said so often, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Find me a guerilla who hasn't also been called a terrorist, and I'll be quite surprised.
Something tells me this may have gone slightly off-topic.

A guerilla is something completely different than a terrorist or a freedom fighter. A guerilla targets military targets exclusively. Terrorists AND freedom fighters actually goes after civilians to sway public opinion. You are using that saying extremely incorrectly.

A guerilla is something completely different than a terrorist or a freedom fighter. A guerilla targets military targets exclusively. Terrorists AND freedom fighters actually goes after civilians to sway public opinion. You are using that saying extremely incorrectly.
It's hard to think of any modern example of guerrilla warfare sans terrorism. I can't - I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Also, most if not all guerillas fit into the category 'freedom fighter' - there's little need for guerilla warfare if you've got a large standing army, after all...

It's hard to think of any modern example of guerrilla warfare sans terrorism. I can't - I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Also, most if not all guerillas fit into the category 'freedom fighter' - there's little need for guerilla warfare if you've got a large standing army, after all...

In afghanistan, bin laden only attacked soviet military forces. Not afghani civilians. That is why our support is justified.

In afghanistan, bin laden only attacked soviet military forces. Not afghani civilians. That is why our support is justified.
Wrong. For one, they attacked Afghanistani military forces too. More importantly, they regularly attacked civilian areas. Rockets and the like.

Can you please provide evidence that saddam attempted to exile himself.I remember seeing that on BBC.. it was right after the Azores Photo-op (summit).
Saddam offered to Surrender his presidency and leave Iraq (he said that he knew that once he leaves Iraq, he was probably going to be make it to an US jail).. In exchange for a Non-invasion guarantee.. The US simply ignored the offer and Invaded shortly after. I don't have Links..(and no I did not tape it)

..most of us know differently.wanna bet?

Its one thing to be baptized with (Holy)water, its another to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Just because you are baptized does not make one a Christian unless he fully accepts Jesus as his savior.wanna bet?

Wrong. For one, they attacked Afghanistani military forces too. More importantly, they regularly attacked civilian areas. Rockets and the like.
Civilian areas and civilians are two very different things.

wanna bet?

Speaking from personal experience, yea I would.

Civilian areas and civilians are two very different things.
Civilians happen to live in civilian areas, and attacking civilian areas with rockets is tantamount to attacking civilians in person - you know you're going to kill them.
Also, as far as I can remember (please don't ask for sources, because I cannot find them - this new Afghanistan war makes it difficult to track down the old one) the mujahideen also attacked Soviet supporters in villages - especially the Soviet-installed headmen.

COMMENTARY: Although I'm glad that Russia doesn't think military options are necessary at this point, I'm glad to see that they find the possession of nuclear weapons by a rogue state that supports terrorism unacceptable. Perhaps now Iran will realize that they are playin with fire ... literally! Your thoughts?


Russia, China slam Iran's nuke plans (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-121845-5181r.htm)


April 13, 2006
From combined dispatches
TEHRAN -- The world's leading powers, including Russia and China, joined the United States in expressing heightened concern yesterday over Iran's advancing its nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Washington, urged the U.N. Security Council to take unspecified "strong steps" to preserve its credibility. The Russian government repeated its assertion that force could not resolve the dispute.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton went in more detail than Miss Rice, saying that Washington would seek a Chapter 7 resolution at the council. The chapter deals with threats to peace and allows the use of military force as a response.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran for the first time had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale, a key step in generating fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. He warned yesterday that forcing Iran to suspend its enrichment program would "cause everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians."

The U.N. Security Council has set April 28 as a deadline for Tehran to halt enrichment activity, although no consequences have been specified.

Miss Rice reiterated those demands yesterday.

"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power. ... The world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon," she said, during a welcoming ceremony for President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea in Washington.

Asked whether the council would impose sanctions on Iran, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "That's a possibility as well, that's one option that's available."

Russia and China, key players to the Iran issue with veto rights at the Security Council, have thus far opposed sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that the use of force was no answer to the standoff with Iran.

"If such plans exist, they will not be able to solve this problem. On the contrary, they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes," he said.

Russia and China rejected a Chapter 7 resolution yesterday, indicating that they are not ready to condemn Iran as a threat to international peace and security. "There is no reason for punitive measures yet," Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov said at the United Nations.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060413-121845-5181r_page2.htm). ]


But remember, it's only due to America being evil.