NationStates Jolt Archive

In the BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

And several other rumors and news articles lately...I am sure you have seen them

So what are your toughts?

When Bush and Ahmadinejad are no longer in office, things should return to a semblance of sanity.

Until then...keep your fingers crossed. :eek:

When Bush and Ahmadinejad are no longer in office, things should return to a semblance of sanity.

Until then...keep your fingers crossed. :eek:

Thats pretty much it. Once we have Democratic majority and a Democrat in the office things should stabilize. Once Ahmadinejad is voted out of office by the increasing number of secularists and itellectuals, things should settle down almost completely.

There are always plans.

I remember seeing a plan that involved nuke strikes on Japan if the USSR ever invaded it.

There are plans for all considerations in a situation.

I wouldn't freak just yet.

Thats pretty much it. Once we have Democratic majority and a Democrat in the office things should stabilize. Once Ahmadinejad is voted out of office by the increasing number of secularists and itellectuals, things should settle down almost completely.
What intellectuals? The brain boyz left ever since Khomeini seized power.

What intellectuals? The brain boyz left ever since Khomeini seized power.

Ahmadinejad has been calling for the exile (or death, I'm not sure) of intellectuals for some time now.

When Bush and Ahmadinejad are no longer in office, things should return to a semblance of sanity.

Until then...keep your fingers crossed. :eek:

wow..that is some positive thinking....thanks.

i leave it at that...positive juju for me.

your blessed.

This is a game of who blinks first and backs down. The problem is the lack of clarity in when push comes to shove, who will call the shots in Iran. Even the clerics are divided into radical, conservative and reformists/moderates. Hard to get a finger on what actually goes on in Qom.

I hope there is no showdown, but I fear a false step in this brinkmanship may lead to a conflict which can quickly escalate.

USN is moving many assets there including another carrier group (read that last week, I think)

Maybe, it depends.

When Bush and Ahmadinejad are no longer in office, things should return to a semblance of sanity.

Until then...keep your fingers crossed. :eek:
Well I agree that Bush may get voted out, but remember that Ahmadinejad is only the President, and the Supreme Leader of Iran shares his views, and he's the one calling the shots.

Why go to war with these people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLX9ChtWBGo)?

Listen to a BBC interview with Iranian young people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA9ACvXz_gs)

Take a flight through some interesting sites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9oIZpFFyIY)in Iran

Do Ahmadinejad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ8pkIRwws8) and Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis) really differ that much?

The spectacle of Persian Shia getting the crap bombed out of them might actually calm the Iraqi Sunnis down. But that would be a temporary thing, in the long run intervening on both sides would be disasterous for the US.

My low opinion of the US Administration doesn't quite stretch to "deliberately make a godawful mess to make the next Admin look bad."

Nope, it won't happen.

Thats pretty much it. Once we have Democratic majority and a Democrat in the office things should stabilize. Once Ahmadinejad is voted out of office by the increasing number of secularists and itellectuals, things should settle down almost completely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

According to the Brits it looks more and more like Bush wants to make blunder number...?

No.

People have been claiming that we've been prepping for a war with Iran since the Summer of 2003. It's another one of those retarded internet meme's like Iraq having WMD's and the US Government blowing up the World Trade Center. It's not worth the text that people pump into it.

As much as I would love to see the world descend into ww3 and chaos and destruction. The US doesnt have the manpower of the resources or the balls to launch the kind of a campaign, and it knows it. No, there wont.

As much as I would love to see the world descend into ww3 and chaos and destruction. The US doesnt have the manpower of the resources or the balls to launch the kind of a campaign, and it knows it. No, there wont.

Amen to that.

In the BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

And several other rumors and news articles lately...I am sure you have seen them

So what are your toughts?

No the US is not going to war with Iran.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/6731007003/inlineimg/Y/Trident_II_missile_image.jpg

Well I agree that Bush may get voted out,

He leaves office in 2009 :rolleyes:

but remember that Ahmadinejad is only the President, and the Supreme Leader of Iran shares his views, and he's the one calling the shots.

And yet, he's not happy with Ahmadinejad either. Neither is the Iranian parliment nor the Iranian people.

And yet, he's not happy with Ahmadinejad either. Neither is the Iranian parliment nor the Iranian people.

Once Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, he'll be really popular in Iran - for about 15 minutes.

After that, there won't be an electorate.

Once Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, he'll be really popular in Iran - for about 15 minutes.

After that, there won't be an electorate.

...sounds about right.

Where's the "resigned to utter fuckitude" smiley??

Once Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, he'll be really popular in Iran - for about 15 minutes.

After that, there won't be an electorate.


Nuking Isreal would be really stupid, that would give Bush all the reason he needs for a US attack on Iran.

Nuking Isreal would be really stupid, that would give Bush all the reason he needs for a US attack on Iran.

Read your history, and tell me how often countries have done the stupid thing.

Read your history, and tell me how often countries have done the stupid thing.


To often unforuntely, but hopely Iran can't Nuke " anybody " because they aren't trying to build a nuke, rather just provide power to their country.

To often unforuntely, but hopely Iran can't Nuke " anybody " because they aren't trying to build a nuke, rather just provide power to their country.

That's not the conclusion of the EU report by Solana.

I'm not quoting a US official there.

As much as I would love to see the world descend into ww3 and chaos and destruction. The US doesnt have the manpower of the resources or the balls to launch the kind of a campaign, and it knows it. No, there wont.

We accually do have the man power and resources to but with a nation divided we cannot. If a strong majority of congress and of course our president and the backing of the people it would be too easy. But with the way politics are now. Congress is afraid to send more troops over and want to chisel our own troops to pieces. Of course we cannot win with this government we currently have. But do not be fooled. We could easily win this.

Ahmadinejad has been calling for the exile (or death, I'm not sure) of intellectuals for some time now.

Bullshizzle.

That's not the conclusion of the EU report by Solana.

I'm not quoting a US official there.
Not true (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9222452a-bb66-11db-afe4-0000779e2340.html), and he certainly doesn't (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4240261.stm) support any kind of military action in turn.

We should nuke the whole middle east. That way the intense heat will turn all the sand dunes into glass so people can go skiing there by putting velvet on their feet (think of the tourism), plus if you want to find more oil just walk around looking down.

Not true (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9222452a-bb66-11db-afe4-0000779e2340.html), and he certainly doesn't (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4240261.stm) support any kind of military action in turn.

Sorry, he was quoted on NPR this week as saying Iran is six to 12 months away from having a nuke.

Read your history, and tell me how often countries have done the stupid thing.

Almost never.

All states (with sizeable enough ruling classes) act in an entirely rational way and in lieu of their short term tactical and long term strategic goals.

Actions that are condemned as stupid would have been deemed as genius if they had succeeded. Sometimes states take risks, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Nuking Israel isn't a risk. It's suicide.

Bush needs to get himself a much better reason to go to war then he currently has. I can't rule out it happening sometime in the future though. He still has nearly two years to do some more insanely stupid things before leaving office after all.

Judging from the Iranians ( Persians ) historial romance with war and things of war I wouldn't doubt they are trying to build a nuke. However
I don't think it is the average Iranians fault, but rather their government officals. Politians will be the downfall of us all it seems. :(

We should nuke the whole middle east. That way the intense heat will turn all the sand dunes into glass so people can go skiing there by putting velvet on their feet (think of the tourism), plus if you want to find more oil just walk around looking down.

No, if you just wait a while, they'll do it all by themselves.

Almost never.

All states (with sizeable enough ruling classes) act in an entirely rational way and in lieu of their short term tactical and long term strategic goals.

Actions that are condemned as stupid would have been deemed as genius if they had succeeded. Sometimes states take risks, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Nuking Israel isn't a risk. It's suicide.


I have to agree with you.

Here you go:

EU report says that Iran is on track for a nuclear bomb:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

I have to agree with you.

Gosh, look how intimidated Saddam Hussein was when he invaded Kuwait.

He had to know that the US would get involved, yet he didn't think it would happen, and was very surprised when it did.

Gosh, look how intimidated Saddam Hussein was when he invaded Kuwait.

He had to know that the US would get involved, yet he didn't think it would happen, and was very surprised when it did.


He knows better now huh? hehehe :D

Here you go:

EU report says that Iran is on track for a nuclear bomb:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

Even if Iran does build a nuke, using it in a world where many counties have thousands of them isn't the thing to do. Iran will quickly find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Even if Iran does build a nuke, using it in a world where many counties have thousands of them isn't the thing to do. Iran will quickly find themselves on the short end of the stick.

In a country where the majority of people (including all of their leaders) are willing to believe the Holocaust is merely a myth, I'm counting on their stupidity.

Here you go:

EU report says that Iran is on track for a nuclear bomb:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html
No. That says Iran could obtain the material to build a nuclear bomb if it wanted to. Canada could obtain the material for a nuclear bomb, if it wanted to. Does it mean they are about to nuke someone? No.

In a country where the majority of people (including all of their leaders) are willing to believe the Holocaust is merely a myth, I'm counting on their stupidity.
Oh come on. Do you seriously think all Iranians are holocaust deniers, and there has ever been a free and fair poll/survey to prove one way or the other?

Gosh, look how intimidated Saddam Hussein was when he invaded Kuwait.

He had to know that the US would get involved, yet he didn't think it would happen, and was very surprised when it did.

EO, I love when you make it so easy. Do yourself a favor and read your own advice of "read your history and then get back to me."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4911reality.htm

Oh come on. Do you seriously think all Iranians are holocaust deniers, and there has ever been a free and fair poll/survey to prove one way or the other?

They elected Ahmadinejad, and he makes that a constant screed in his speeches.

Do you suppose that people who believe the Holocaust was real would elect such a jackass?

Sounds like a free and fair poll to me.

EO, I love when you make it so easy. Do yourself a favor and read your own advice of "read your history and then get back to me."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4911reality.htm

Oh, I guess you missed the speeches by the first Bush about how Saddam had better not invade Kuwait - how Saddam had better get out of Kuwait.

You're making this too easy for me.

Oh, I guess you missed the speeches by the first Bush about how Saddam had better not invade Kuwait - how Saddam had better get out of Kuwait.

You're making this too easy for me.

Did you read the links? Did you check out the dates? Does Bush Senior's ambassador not speak for him? I'd be making it to easy for you if I asked you to melt ice in Pheonix. We all know our history here now EO don't we? The last time we saw a pussy get pounded that hard was when Tucker Carlson took it from John Stewart. Can you deny the fact that Bush 41's ambassador told Saddam that the US would not get invovled with Arab-Arab disputes? Please deny it, oh please oh please.

I'm not denying what the ambassador said. I'm saying that whatever the ambassador said is moot, since Bush was quite clear in public about Kuwait, and what would happen.

After hearing Bush's speech, Saddam was pretty stupid to think that the US would not invade.

He even said he was surprised later, and in the lead up to the war, he said the US would not have the will to do so.

Try again.

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_bush41_tricked_saddam.pdf

Don't let my facts get in the way of your opinion, it never stopped you before.

Did you read the links? Did you check out the dates? Does Bush Senior's ambassador not speak for him? I'd be making it to easy for you if I asked you to melt ice in Pheonix. We all know our history here now EO don't we? The last time we saw a pussy get pounded that hard was when Tucker Carlson took it from John Stewart. Can you deny the fact that Bush 41's ambassador told Saddam that the US would not get invovled with Arab-Arab disputes? Please deny it, oh please oh please.

I'm not denying what the ambassador said. I'm saying that whatever the ambassador said is moot, since Bush was quite clear in public about Kuwait, and what would happen.

After hearing Bush's speech, Saddam was pretty stupid to think that the US would not invade.

He even said he was surprised later, and in the lead up to the war, he said the US would not have the will to do so.

Try again.

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_bush41_tricked_saddam.pdf

Don't let my facts get in the way of your opinion, it never stopped you before.

A little more for that ass

http://richardminiter.pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/03/did_bush_41_lie_us_into_war_to.php

They elected Ahmadinejad, and he makes that a constant screed in his speeches.

Do you suppose that people who believe the Holocaust was real would elect such a jackass?
So, because Americans elected George W. Bush, and the UK elected Tony Blair, both creationists, that makes all Americans and Britons creationists, and all who voted for them creationists?

I very much doubt that every person who voted Ahmeniejad, let alone every Iranian, is a holocaust denier. His election was more likely a conservative (in the Iranian context) response to current foreign affairs.
Sounds like a free and fair poll to me.
Iran is not a country with free elections or media in which such a poll could take place.

I'm not denying what the ambassador said. I'm saying that whatever the ambassador said is moot, since Bush was quite clear in public about Kuwait, and what would happen.

After hearing Bush's speech, Saddam was pretty stupid to think that the US would not invade.

He even said he was surprised later, and in the lead up to the war, he said the US would not have the will to do so.

Try again.

ahh, but had he not invaded already by then? I wonder what gave him the idea that it would be OK. Please don't fast-forward until the point what you say might be valid. The bottom line is that Saddam invaded because he thought we wouldn't get involved. That and the fact that Bush 41, Reagan and he were so in love during the 1980's. But hey, 10 years before is ancient history and has nothing to do with CONTEXT now does it?

Yes, I think we will end up going to war with Iran, though this time I hope Britian will stay out. The two reasons that have been set out are quite impressivly vague and interpretable, menaing that just about any attack on US forces involving Iranian built weapons could begin a war...

Oh fuck me.

ahh, but had he not invaded already by then? I wonder what gave him the idea that it would be OK. Please don't fast-forward until the point what you say might be valid. The bottom line is that Saddam invaded because he thought we wouldn't get involved. That and the fact that Bush 41, Reagan and he were so in love during the 1980's. But hey, 10 years before is ancient history and has nothing to do with CONTEXT now does it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/country_profiles/2391051.stm

Here's a timeline to help you. We waited a fricken year to attack Iraq for their misdeeds with Kuwait. Context boy, context.

ahh, but had he not invaded already by then? I wonder what gave him the idea that it would be OK. Please don't fast-forward until the point what you say might be valid. The bottom line is that Saddam invaded because he thought we wouldn't get involved. That and the fact that Bush 41, Reagan and he were so in love during the 1980's. But hey, 10 years before is ancient history and has nothing to do with CONTEXT now does it?

He was warned by Bush before he invaded.

He was warned by Bush before he invaded.

This might help as well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/737483.stm

http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_bush41_tricked_saddam.pdf

Don't let my facts get in the way of your opinion, it never stopped you before.

It's pretty clear to most everyone involved, save for kooky conspiracy nuts, that what Ambassador Glaspie was trying to convey was a desire of the US for the Iraqis and Kuwaitis to work out their differences in a peaceful fashion, not giving a free-hand for the Iraqis to invade Kuwait. She was saying "work it out and we won't interfere".

If anything, Hussein read way too much into what Glaspie had told him. It's clear that US policy regarding border disputes of this kind (i.e. Between friendly states who are not currently at war with each other) is to let them sort it out without US interference.

It's a policy designed to maintain existing relationships between both states, without causing damage to the American reputation as a neutral on the issue. To avoid the creation of ill feelings between the states involved towards the United States.

Sorry, he was quoted on NPR this week as saying Iran is six to 12 months away from having a nuke.

Can we believe him though?

It's pretty clear to most everyone involved, save for kooky conspiracy nuts, that what Ambassador Glaspie was trying to convey was a desire of the US for the Iraqis and Kuwaitis to work out their differences in a peaceful fashion, not giving a free-hand for the Iraqis to invade Kuwait. She was saying "work it out and we won't interfere".

sure, very clear. It's always clear because the "deciders" speak in clear languages that every good God-fearing Christian man. Listen, the bottom line is that all politicians lie, and if you're name is Bush you can triple it.

ahh, but had he not invaded already by then? I wonder what gave him the idea that it would be OK. Please don't fast-forward until the point what you say might be valid. The bottom line is that Saddam invaded because he thought we wouldn't get involved. That and the fact that Bush 41, Reagan and he were so in love during the 1980's. But hey, 10 years before is ancient history and has nothing to do with CONTEXT now does it?

Which is also a misrepresentation.

The US loathed Mr. Hussein, but we weren't above attempting to play with him and Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War, the US covertly supplied intelligence information to Iraq and weapons to Iran, in an apparent attempt to stalemate the two. The US sought to get both Iran and Iraq to grind on each other into dust.

After all, what's better when you've got two enemies going at it?

sure, very clear. It's always clear because the "deciders" speak in clear languages that every good God-fearing Christian man. Listen, the bottom line is that all politicians lie, and if you're name is Bush you can triple it.

So, wait, your entire argument is based on the axiom that politicians lie?

That's pretty lame-tastic.

So, wait, your entire argument is based on the axiom that politicians lie?

That's pretty lame-tastic.

No, my argument is based on the idea that the Bush family doesn't have a very good record of truthfulness leading back to dear old Prescott. Read that as I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and my back sure hurts. Playing both sides of the card as a standard is what they do best as their best interest (financially) is all they have in mind. Once again I use the word context to state that you must look at the situation in its entirety and not in incy wincy little parts. Thou sound like a puppet, thou walks like a puppet, are thou a puppet? Further, the United stated played their hand with Iraq in that contest as Iran was their sworn enemy. You know, since they had to stick their noses in with the Shah and Khomeini etc. It just seems as the CIA (hmm, who was director if the CIA when all that Iran business went down... ooooooooooh pick me pick me!!!!!!!) like delivering weapons, money, and WMD to Iraq to use against Iran. We create a mess and try to get others to clean it up for us. That sounds like the Bush family in a nutshell, if not certainly pertains to 43. You give too much credit where it is not due.

Thus bringing us back to the crux of this thread and hopefully ending a hijack (sorry OP). The bottom line is we've seen this hype before say about 2002-2003. We're not buying it as can be sen by the majority of the US public. We've already (not me) eaten the Bushit one time and refuse to do it again. The US would be ill advised to attack Tehran as we have neither the military capability or political will to do so. Bush wants to F things up so bad he cane blame a successor for his problems like he has done all his life. Sorry Charlie, clean this shit up yourself.

IMO, i think the leaking of the op-plan and the possible triggers is just a beautiful diplomatic manuever. You lay out the consequences of their actions before they do them and you make the consequences grave. This gives the U.S. and the world much more bargaining room b/c unlike sanctions that are formed and agreed to after a country has taken an action this gives us something. Its still neocon policy but it's a bit more intelligent.

Read your history, and tell me how often countries have done the (lets nuke them) stupid thing.2 times.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Thats pretty much it. Once we have Democratic majority and a Democrat in the office things should stabilize. Once Ahmadinejad is voted out of office by the increasing number of secularists and itellectuals, things should settle down almost completely.

God forbid that should ever happen. We saw what an all Conservative Federal Goverment did. Put the Libs in charge and we'll be bowing to Allah while we try to scrap out a living because we all know that Liberals LOVE to tax you for no reason and handicap the average Americans Pursuit of Happiness with trivial and intrusive laws into our private life. God I can't wait for that!

2 times.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

So you would rather have millions dead in an invasion instead of a couple hundred thousand in 2 bombs?

Put the Libs in charge and we'll be bowing to Allah

Christ is OK, but Allah isn't, eh?

We "libs" like to keep government out of religion, and vice versa.

while we try to scrap out a living because we all know that Liberals LOVE to tax you for no reason

No reason? Did you drive today? Are you retired?

Or...we can keep cutting taxes, and fuck over every 8 year old you see...because The Greatest Generation (*gags*) couldn't cut back a bit.

and handicap the average Americans Pursuit of Happiness

You meant...

"BUY MORE SHIT! BUY MORE SHIT! BUY MORE SHIT!"

Right?

with trivial and intrusive laws into our private life.

I'd look long and hard at the current administration for plenty of examples. I fail to see how "libs" would be any worse.

God I can't wait for that!

I know! :D

2 times.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

*PSST*

Not the same.

It was a declared war between two nations. If you can show how war is moral then you have an argument.

Possibly, it may be too early to tell.

No. A war of words, but nothing more.

The US is not in a position militarily to make any rash moves. Its government is in too precarious a position to fight with a state with a proper army, with reserves, and a history of fiercely defending itself, which will cost a great many lives.

So nothing will occur.

That's not the conclusion of the EU report by Solana.

I'm not quoting a US official there.
You're mis-quoting it.
Sorry, he was quoted on NPR this week as saying Iran is six to 12 months away from having a nuke.
The he was misquoted or you're mistaken. Either way, it's a pity you can't back it up...
He had to know that the US would get involved, yet he didn't think it would happen, and was very surprised when it did.
He thought it would be accepted.
Oh, I guess you missed the speeches by the first Bush about how Saddam had better not invade Kuwait
I know I missed them - link please?
He was warned by Bush before he invaded.
Link?

God forbid that should ever happen. We saw what an all Conservative Federal Goverment did. Put the Libs in charge and we'll be bowing to Allah while we try to scrap out a living because we all know that Liberals LOVE to tax you for no reason and handicap the average Americans Pursuit of Happiness with trivial and intrusive laws into our private life. God I can't wait for that!

let me translate the single Arabic word in your message

God forbid that should ever happen. We saw what an all Conservative Federal Goverment did. Put the Libs in charge and we'll be bowing to God while we try to scrap out a living because we all know that Liberals LOVE to tax you for no reason and handicap the average Americans Pursuit of Happiness with trivial and intrusive laws into our private life. God I can't wait for that!

makes even more sense now :)

In a country where the majority of people (including all of their leaders) are willing to believe the Holocaust is merely a myth, I'm counting on their stupidity.

Believing that the holocaust is a myth is stupidity in western countries. For, we have access to the data and have heard the stories first-hand. To many living in Middle Eastern countries however, the holocaust seems too farfetched to be true; this makes perfect sense.

But one small radical reformist political party, the Islamic Revolutionary Mujahadin Organisation, has complained that Iran's drive to produce nuclear energy has endangered national security, the national interest and the destiny of the Iranian people.

"The [Iranian] officials should open talks before [UN] Resolution 1737's deadline runs out and accept its sensitive requirements to prevent the adoption of new resolutions against our country," the party was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

"This nation has other more important and undeniable rights which should not be sacrificed for this one," it said in a statement.

When Bush and Ahmadinejad are no longer in office, things should return to a semblance of sanity.

Until then...keep your fingers crossed. :eek:

And they get rid of that Ayatolla (assahola) Khameni or whatever the hell his name is. Dont forget, the Grand "Ass-a-hola" is the one who decides going to war, nuclear weapons procurement and production, and other policies. Ahmadinejad is just the puppet who guides the everyday matters in the government. But when the Great Ass-a-hola speaks, he listens and repeats, and no dares counter his wishes.

This is nothing new, goverments always plan how to succesfully wipe out a country tactically despite not having an immediate intention to, usually to save time in a possible what if scenario.

Bush isn't that stupid. Then again...

Either way, my family's long-planned trip to Iran isn't going to happen now. Thanks a lot, Ahmadinejad! (Ya jerk...)