NationStates Jolt Archive

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention division, economic chaos, and police state measures at home), now have their eyes on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13067).

If you are a U.S. citizen, contact your representative without delay, and tell them to vote "No!" on Congressional Resolution 362 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:) and Senate Resolution 580 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580).

With both McCain and Obama (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944) fully subordinated to the Israel Lobby, chances of preventing war are very slim indeed. But we have to try.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

Yeah, 'cause no one saw that one coming for about eight years.

I wrote a letter to Barbara Boxer once in, maybe sixth grade? She never wrote back. Then she moved her office to a building like six blocks from my house, and now it's just awkward.

Wait, I thought Obama worked for the Muslims. Or was it the Black Panthers? It's so hard to keep up week to week.

A war in Iran will be the death of America, simple as that. Any chance of improving relations with the Muslim world will probably be gone. The inevitable depression will be hastened by the cutting off of mid-east oil supplies. A draft will be nessissary, leading to wide-spread civil unrest. Martial Law is a real possibility.

And this is an optimistic senario. Alternatively, Putin could have meant it when he said that an attack on Iran will be considered an attack on Russia. Welcome to World War 3.

Not that I think most Congressmen are seeking a war. Certainly not Obama, who has so stridently opposed Iraq and would be committing political suicide to endorse a war in Iran. In fact, having skimmed the resolutions I can see that at least one specifically says that it does not authorise force. But enough saber rattling could escalate things to the point where we blunder into a war, and find its to late to draw back.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

Except for the whole the last thing we need is Iran with a nuke part.

Its unlikely America will bomb Iran. It is quite possible however, that Israel will bomb Iran with American backing (be it overt, covert or both). We can open betting on what oil will hit, should that happen, based on market fear alone.....

How long have they been talking about War with Iran?

At this point, they should either put up, or shut up. I am tired of hearing about it.

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Monsters? Really? They might not have the same viewpoints as you, and their viewpoints might not be right, but I'd bet even money that you don't know what the neo-con platform is, or why it is structured that way.

Whatever, I agree that going into Iran right now would be a major mistake, if for no other reason than we'd have absolutely no (useable) army after a few years. The fact that we only have a few hundred thousand soldiers in a country of over 300 million people is just shameful and is showcasing its weaknesses right now. Iran would push those weaknesses against a foe (the people of Iran, not their armed force) which we cannot reasonably expect to submit any time soon. This won't happen before November, and after then no one is going to accept it for at least a few years.

Come on, people. Does anyone really think the US would bother going in to Iran?

I mean, let's be honest here. No matter what the US does, half of Europe is going to scream "no, no, no, bad, bad, bad", as will a whole bunch of bandwagon leapers. So, there is no reason for the US to do the "right thing" here - which is to help rebuild a country after you've annihilated it.

The US would just reduce Iran to shattered wreckage from the air. With no infrastructure, industry or government left to speak of, it stops being a problem to it's neighbours. With no occupation, there can be no guerilla war. And the US doesn't have to fund anything.

Major harsh on the poor population, of course, but clearly that doesn't matter, or more countries would be helping out rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah. It would be so much better if Iran could develop nuclear weapons and bomb Israel wouldnt it? That would solve the Jew problem that Israel’s neighbours have.

The best approach I believe would be to subsidize energy alternatives. If Iran was really concerned about global warming (lol like hell they are) they may have gone the nuclear approach as an alternative. Why not subsidize the alternatives? This can be said loudly and clearly to the Iranian government just to show what their true goal it. Surely something can be done about the wind or solar industry over there.

But the simple fact is that Iran is developing nuclear power to produce nuclear bombs. I have never heard an official from that county murmur one word about climate change or global warming. I would be surprised if they even had a minister who was responsible for it.

Iran is being aggressive and Israel should be able to defend itself before Iran has succeeded in its goal to "wipe Israel from the map".

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention division, economic chaos, and police state measures at home), now have their eyes on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13067).

If you are a U.S. citizen, contact your representative without delay, and tell them to vote "No!" on Congressional Resolution 362 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:) and Senate Resolution 580 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580).

With both McCain and Obama (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944) fully subordinated to the Israel Lobby, chances of preventing war are very slim indeed. But we have to try.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

Hmmm, and no reply post?
I haz a theory...

Major harsh on the poor population, of course, but clearly that doesn't matter, or more countries would be helping out rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh come on. You know the Iraq case has no others doing the rebuilding because the CPA awarded everything on no-bid contracts to Haliburton.

Yeah. It would be so much better if Iran could develop nuclear weapons and bomb Israel wouldnt it? That would solve the Jew problem that Israel’s neighbours have.

The best approach I believe would be to subsidize energy alternatives. If Iran was really concerned about global warming (lol like hell they are) they may have gone the nuclear approach as an alternative. Why not subsidize the alternatives? This can be said loudly and clearly to the Iranian government just to show what their true goal it. Surely something can be done about the wind or solar industry over there.

But the simple fact is that Iran is developing nuclear power to produce nuclear bombs. I have never heard an official from that county murmur one word about climate change or global warming. I would be surprised if they even had a minister who was responsible for it.

Iran is being aggressive and Israel should be able to defend itself before Iran has succeeded in its goal to "wipe Israel from the map".

Every war we start is a pre-emptive war. Every war they start is a barbaric act of aggression :rolleyes:

How long have they been talking about War with Iran?

At this point, they should either put up, or shut up. I am tired of hearing about it.

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

That's a true statement. Anyone with a brain knows that there is not going to be any war with Iran anytime soon.

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention division, economic chaos, and police state measures at home), now have their eyes on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13067).

If you are a U.S. citizen, contact your representative without delay, and tell them to vote "No!" on Congressional Resolution 362 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:) and Senate Resolution 580 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580).

With both McCain and Obama (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944) fully subordinated to the Israel Lobby, chances of preventing war are very slim indeed. But we have to try.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

1) The resolution is for more sanctions on Iran. Considering what Iran has been up to, this is prudent. Thank you for the link there for it shows that this is not just a Republican effort.

2) Your Senate one was written by an Indiana Democrat

3) Get a new link.

4) This is old news.

Every war we start is a pre-emptive war. Every war they start is a barbaric act of aggression :rolleyes:

Very well put.

That's a true statement. Anyone with a brain knows that there is not going to be any war with Iran anytime soon.

America directly, probably not.

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq <snip>

While people might think that Iraq was a big fucking mistake, Afghanistan had it coming.

If you're going to allow training camps for al-Qaeda to be run on a very large scaled (100,000 men at a time) in your country, then see al-Qaeda attack the US and take credit for it, and then refuse to hand over any of them, you're going to get your country blown up.

They're lucky that nuclear weapons weren't used. By any measure of the absolute capability of the US, a lot of restraint has been used. So it's not "immense destruction and slaughter" in Afghanistan - not by any measure.

Anything that destroys the Iranian regime (http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005july/2101.htm), I am in favor of.

Every war we start is a pre-emptive war. Every war they start is a barbaric act of aggression :rolleyes:

QFT. Gotta love double standards. It's hard being this pure and virtuous in a world filled with so many evil barbaric fundamentalists.

Anything that destroys the Iranian regime (http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005july/2101.htm), I am in favor of.
You really think bombing the shit out a country, killing thousands and making more homeless, and possibly starting a civil war, is going to be helpful for the Iranian gays?

The problem isn't their regime per se, it's their cultural and social norms. Remove the government and the imams aren't going to stop putting teens to death for no other reason than their refusal to obey the strict unjust laws their interpretation of religion birthed.

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention division, economic chaos, and police state measures at home), now have their eyes on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13067).

If you are a U.S. citizen, contact your representative without delay, and tell them to vote "No!" on Congressional Resolution 362 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:) and Senate Resolution 580 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580).

With both McCain and Obama (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944) fully subordinated to the Israel Lobby, chances of preventing war are very slim indeed. But we have to try.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

This moment of insane babble has been brought to you by the makers of Ritalin, because do you really want to sit through THIS shit again?

This moment of insane babble has been brought to you by the makers of Ritalin, because do you really want to sit through THIS shit again?

Why read it here, when you can go to the blogs on the Obama campaign site, and read it in its entirety?

You really think bombing the shit out a country, killing thousands and making more homeless, and possibly starting a civil war, is going to be helpful for the Iranian gays?
If the power of the clerics is destroyed in the process.

The problem isn't their regime per se, it's their cultural and social norms. Remove the government and the imams aren't going to stop putting teens to death for no other reason than their refusal to obey the strict unjust laws their interpretation of religion birthed.
By the "regime" I mean, precisely, the imams; I want them all dead, just as intensely as they want me dead.. I do not think the Iranian society at large supports the imams' viewpoints any more, but the people have learned to feel helpless to change anything.

As always, I'd like more than merely the retreaded conspiracy theories of Sy Hersh and his wannabe contingent as evidence. I'd like to see the deployment of additional carrier battle groups to the region, a radical increase in US forces in Iraq, a massive Israeli callup of the IDF, massive fuel stockpiling, Air Force National Guard Deployments to the region, the resignation of the American military command and many, many, many other signs. None of which I have seen in evidence.

Not the first time Hersh and his wannabe contingent made his "special forces" claim, not now. There is no evidence, because there is no strike, no war planned.

At most, American-Iranian proxy combat will continue in Iraq, preferably at a decreasing pace over the next year, permitting a nice, clean withdrawal once Obama is President.

As always, I'd like more than merely the retreaded conspiracy theories of Sy Hersh and his wannabe contingent as evidence. I'd like to see the deployment of additional carrier battle groups to the region, a radical increase in US forces in Iraq, a massive Israeli callup of the IDF, massive fuel stockpiling, Air Force National Guard Deployments to the region, the resignation of the American military command and many, many, many other signs. None of which I have seen in evidence.

Not the first time Hersh and his wannabe contingent made his "special forces" claim, not now. There is no evidence, because there is no strike, no war planned.

At most, American-Iranian proxy combat will continue in Iraq, preferably at a decreasing pace over the next year, permitting a nice, clean withdrawal once Obama is President.

If you wanted your conspiracy theory, then just have Bush turn the key on a Trident submarine full of missiles aimed at Iran.

He doesn't need permission from Congress to do this. All he has to do is turn to the person near him who is holding the "football", open it, and give a few orders.

Everything else will take place within 20 minutes. The first notice that the Democrats will get that anything happened will be the nuclear blasts on the targets.

Oh sure - they could try him for it - but the damage will have been done, and Iran will have been utterly destroyed. Utterly.

The fact that this hasn't happened makes me think all of this conspiracy theory bullshit I hear on this forum is just that - bullshit.

O I'd believe they've special forces in there, but for recon/possible target marking for somebody else....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Remember, it being a fucking stupid idea with a good likelihood of horrendous economic fallout is no barrier to some....

O I'd believe they've special forces in there, but for recon/possible target marking for somebody else....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Remember, it being a fucking stupid idea with a good likelihood of horrendous economic fallout is no barrier to some....

CBS News is not a credible news source. Considering their use of a talk show hostess as their anchor, the pending outsourcing of most of their old school news reporters, and the inane crap they recently had on the air about the Second Amendment (citing, for instance, that 30,000 people died a year from gunshot wounds when it's averaging around 16,000), I can't believe a WORD that CBS News puts on the air.

I won't even mention Rathergate....

Oh yeah. That Israel Lobby, controlling the world like that. They control congress and the entire U.S. government! As a matter of fact, everybody in government who wants to prevent the madman in charge of Iran getting nukes is bought off by the Israel Lobby. nod.

Reading that article stinks like last weeks catch. Sorry, but anybody who can try to make a valid point using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion)-wait, sorry, the Israel Lobby-isn't worth my time.

On a different note, I think Israel has proved they don't need U.S. military aid...when they want to get something done, they do it (see 1981 Osirak raid).

CBS News is not a credible news source. ....

Poisoning the well....

CNN ran with it....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

Independent of the Hersh story....
The meeting at the home of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was not supposed to be public. The man invited into Olmert's official residence in Jerusalem was Aviam Sela, architect of Operation Opera in 1981, when Israel launched a long-range strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Regarded as a brilliant aviation tactician, in particular in the field of in-flight refuelling, Olmert's office tried to play down the meeting. But the rumours in Israel's defence establishment were already flying.

Sela, according to sources close to the meeting, had been called in so that Olmert could ask his opinion on the likely effectiveness of a similar raid to Opera on the nuclear installations of Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

Now try addressing the content this time. You can do that, can't you?

While people might think that Iraq was a big fucking mistake, Afghanistan had it coming.

If you're going to allow training camps for al-Qaeda to be run on a very large scaled (100,000 men at a time) in your country, then see al-Qaeda attack the US and take credit for it, and then refuse to hand over any of them, you're going to get your country blown up.

They're lucky that nuclear weapons weren't used. By any measure of the absolute capability of the US, a lot of restraint has been used. So it's not "immense destruction and slaughter" in Afghanistan - not by any measure.

"Yeah, hi, this is the President of the U.S. Remember those 36 relatives of yours we put on special jets and sent back to Afghanistan even though every airport in the nation was shut down? Yeah, big mistake... we're gonna need them back. No? What do you mean, no?"

Yeah. It would be so much better if Iran could develop nuclear weapons and bomb Israel wouldnt it? That would solve the Jew problem that Israel’s neighbours have.

The best approach I believe would be to subsidize energy alternatives. If Iran was really concerned about global warming (lol like hell they are) they may have gone the nuclear approach as an alternative. Why not subsidize the alternatives? This can be said loudly and clearly to the Iranian government just to show what their true goal it. Surely something can be done about the wind or solar industry over there.

But the simple fact is that Iran is developing nuclear power to produce nuclear bombs. I have never heard an official from that county murmur one word about climate change or global warming. I would be surprised if they even had a minister who was responsible for it.

Iran is being aggressive and Israel should be able to defend itself before Iran has succeeded in its goal to "wipe Israel from the map".

Two problems here. Firstly, nuclear power does not necessarily have to be to help prevent global warming, and assuming that a lack of commentary on the second has something to say about the first is silly. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, Israel already possess nuclear weapons. There is no way in hell that Iran would nuke them, and I consider it only fair for them to have equal weaponry to their opponents.

Having said that, there is no proof that the Iranian nuclear programme is for the purpose of weapons, although that does seem likely.

If you wanted your conspiracy theory, then just have Bush turn the key on a Trident submarine full of missiles aimed at Iran.

He doesn't need permission from Congress to do this. All he has to do is turn to the person near him who is holding the "football", open it, and give a few orders.

Everything else will take place within 20 minutes. The first notice that the Democrats will get that anything happened will be the nuclear blasts on the targets.

Oh sure - they could try him for it - but the damage will have been done, and Iran will have been utterly destroyed. Utterly.

The fact that this hasn't happened makes me think all of this conspiracy theory bullshit I hear on this forum is just that - bullshit.

And you think the OP doesn't make sense? That's every logical fallacy rolled into one, and then some. You invent a conspiracy theory, rightly mention it hasn't happened, and then use that to argue that anything people who disagree with you say is also bullshit. Truly ridiculous.

Come back when you learn some logical thinking skills, and possibly some sense.

Anything that destroys the Iranian regime (http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005july/2101.htm), I am in favor of.

Wow, they really need to work on that website...

And you think the OP doesn't make sense? That's every logical fallacy rolled into one, and then some. You invent a conspiracy theory, rightly mention it hasn't happened, and then use that to argue that anything people who disagree with you say is also bullshit. Truly ridiculous.

Come back when you learn some logical thinking skills, and possibly some sense.

The problem is that Sy Hersh and his Wannabe contingent have been proclaiming that such a war is on our doorstep since 2005 at the latest, that American special forces have been spotting targets in Iran for an imminent strike, and that the only way to stop it is that we ought to haul down the Bush administration and hang every last one of them.

Hell, we've had war rumors on these boards since 2005 at least.

Heck, here's a thread in which I celebrated my correctness from a previous thread that a war wasn't imminent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430142

That's right. 2005.

This sort of lunacy has been floating since forever and a half ago, so, why should I take any of it seriously now?

"Yeah, hi, this is the President of the U.S. Remember those 36 relatives of yours we put on special jets and sent back to Afghanistan even though every airport in the nation was shut down? Yeah, big mistake... we're gonna need them back. No? What do you mean, no?"

Just to clarify: The bin Laden family members were flown out of the country eight days after the attacks, well after the airports had been reopened. They were flown on a jet that the bin Laden family, not the US government, privately chartered. Further, there were 25 civilians on the plane, and three security guards. Also, they were flown to Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

Convoluted memories from Michael Moore's shittiest movie are nothing on which to base an argument.

The problem is that Sy Hersh and his Wannabe contingent have been proclaiming that such a war is on our doorstep since 2005 at the latest, that American special forces have been spotting targets in Iran for an imminent strike, and that the only way to stop it is that we ought to haul down the Bush administration and hang every last one of them.

Hell, we've had war rumors on these boards since 2005 at least.

Heck, here's a thread in which I celebrated my correctness from a previous thread that a war wasn't imminent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430142

That's right. 2005.

This sort of lunacy has been floating since forever and a half ago, so, why should I take any of it seriously now?

I know. I was calling Hotwife on his nonsense, not much else.

I know. I was calling Hotwife on his nonsense, not much else.

Ah, understood. I owe you a drink. Cheers!

Tally ho!

There is no way in hell that Iran would nuke them, and I consider it only fair for them to have equal weaponry to their opponents.

Having said that, there is no proof that the Iranian nuclear programme is for the purpose of weapons, although that does seem likely.




Equal weaponery in the cold war stopped the superpowers from going to war
ergo Israel and Iran both need nukes to stop the other attacking it.

This idea falls over rather badly since both the USA and the USSR were relatively sane. if it went to WW3 both sides would lose, if one side tried something, both sides would lose, if the balance went too far one way and they got the inkling they could win, both sides would lose.

The Israeli government is relatively sane(relatively.... for the region), what happens when the clerics in Iran get their hands on a bomb small enough to fit onto one of their missiles, it only takes a minor incident to touch off something nuclear, and the religious nutters wont give a shit who dies because they attacked Islam's enemies and therefore get 75 virgins when an Israeli nuke sends them all to meet allah.
This is why the cold war example falls over...because one side may not even care they lose so long as their enemy does.

As for 'Iran not working on nukes' bit..... ask Dr Khan of the Pakistan nuclear bomb project exactly who he sold enrichment and weapons plans to...
Iran was one of those customers................................

Just to clarify: The bin Laden family members were flown out of the country eight days after the attacks, well after the airports had been reopened. They were flown on a jet that the bin Laden family, not the US government, privately chartered. Further, there were 25 civilians on the plane, and three security guards. Also, they were flown to Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

Convoluted memories from Michael Moore's shittiest movie are nothing on which to base an argument.

Not based on that, actually, 'cause I don't think I saw it. Just my own laziness and memories. But noted. (36 was a totally random number)

Do I think Israel will defend itself against a perceived act of aggression, possibly preventative in nature? Sure. Will the US get directly involved? Doubtful. Another war will be political suicide for whoever is in office, even if it is to defend an ally. Politicians care too much about their career to do it even if it is the right thing to do.

Two problems here. Firstly, nuclear power does not necessarily have to be to help prevent global warming, and assuming that a lack of commentary on the second has something to say about the first is silly. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, Israel already possess nuclear weapons. There is no way in hell that Iran would nuke them, and I consider it only fair for them to have equal weaponry to their opponents.

Having said that, there is no proof that the Iranian nuclear programme is for the purpose of weapons, although that does seem likely.

Well i never said I believed iran was developing nuclear power for climate change did I? I doubt they even have a minister for it

And secondly Irans leader believes a holy war is coming. People with that kind of belief do irrational things. If he dies he will become a martyr and go to heaven with virgins.

The leader of Iran cant be persuaded by logic. He dosnt even believe the holocaust ever occurred. The fact that Iran is outnumbered in nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to the belief of the God has given him the right and power to destroy Israel

There is no logic in developing nuclear power in Iran if not for climate change reasons (wether it works or not). The cheapest options for Iran are coal and oil. THis would be the type of power used unless there were other reasons.

Like the reason to develop nuclear weapons

Iraq is almost done, America needs a new enemy to keep up military spending. Obviously, it's going to be Iran. The question in whether they'll use them as the bogeyman or actually engage in war. At this point I'm gonna' say bogeyman unless Iran does get too heated with Israel, in which case... yikes.

There is no logic in developing nuclear power in Iran if not for climate change reasons (wether it works or not).

Only because you are divorced from logic to begin with.


The cheapest options for Iran are coal and oil. THis would be the type of power used unless there were other reasons.

Namely, buyers in Russia and China. Iran's oil brings in a lot of foreign money. Money they can use to develop their own energy independence that won't dry up in a decade or three.

But short sighted people like you apparently can't see beyond your own phobias.

Iran's official leader may be a nut, but the ones who hold the reigns of power aren't. The more vicious a political clime, the shorter lived nuts last in any position of power, and Iran's political clime is very vicious. You never see the likes of the Iranian clerics actually going forth and strapping on an AK-47, and that's because they enjoy their earthly power a little too much to give it up for some oddball promise of the afterlife.

I find it ironic that those so willing to beat the drums of war on the grounds that "MAD doesn't work on martyrs" are also as equally willing to make their bogeymen martyrs while pretending that they can ignore the consequences of MAD.

Well i never said I believed iran was developing nuclear power for climate change did I? I doubt they even have a minister for it

And secondly Irans leader believes a holy war is coming. People with that kind of belief do irrational things. If he dies he will become a martyr and go to heaven with virgins.

The leader of Iran cant be persuaded by logic. He dosnt even believe the holocaust ever occurred. The fact that Iran is outnumbered in nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to the belief of the God has given him the right and power to destroy Israel

There is no logic in developing nuclear power in Iran if not for climate change reasons (wether it works or not). The cheapest options for Iran are coal and oil. THis would be the type of power used unless there were other reasons.

Like the reason to develop nuclear weapons
Ahmadinejad is not a foolish man, he couldn't be to get into his position of power if he was. Does he do a lot of dickwaving? Absolutely, but while he may shoot his mouth off he can use logic. He's power hungry and playing on the Iranian people's fears and hatred towards America and Israel is his best way to gain power. But going to a war that would diminish the Iranian's quality of life would cost him. As long as this is true he'll probably stick to rhetoric and skip significant action.

Iran's official leader may be a nut, but the ones who hold the reigns of power aren't. The more vicious a political clime, the shorter lived nuts last in any position of power, and Iran's political clime is very vicious. You never see the likes of the Iranian clerics actually going forth and strapping on an AK-47, and that's because they enjoy their earthly power a little too much to give it up for some oddball promise of the afterlife.

I find it ironic that those so willing to beat the drums of war on the grounds that "MAD doesn't work on martyrs" are also as equally willing to make their bogeymen martyrs while pretending that they can ignore the consequences of MAD.

Precisely.

Namely, buyers in Russia and China. Iran's oil brings in a lot of foreign money. Money they can use to develop their own energy independence that won't dry up in a decade or three.

But short sighted people like you apparently can't see beyond your own phobias.

Iran's official leader may be a nut, but the ones who hold the reigns of power aren't. The more vicious a political clime, the shorter lived nuts last in any position of power, and Iran's political clime is very vicious. You never see the likes of the Iranian clerics actually going forth and strapping on an AK-47, and that's because they enjoy their earthly power a little too much to give it up for some oddball promise of the afterlife.

I find it ironic that those so willing to beat the drums of war on the grounds that "MAD doesn't work on martyrs" are also as equally willing to make their bogeymen martyrs while pretending that they can ignore the consequences of MAD.

Yeah I know they sell oil. It dosnt mean that they cant use oil themselves. For the purpose of money it makes no sense to sell oil at a cheaper price then nuclear power and then buy nuclear power.

Iran has cheap oil due to the fact that is dosnt need to be shipped around the world. Why wouldnt they use oil? Why are they developing nuclear power that is more expensive?

There is no economic sense in Irans current situation of building a more expensive alternative

The only reasons I can think of are 1) the nuclear bomb or 2) climate change (if anyone is foolish enough to believe that)

There is no doubt that Iran has nuclear facilities. They admit to it. The question is why in hell would they be building them when there is a cheaper alternative

Ahmadinejad is not a foolish man, he couldn't be to get into his position of power if he was. Does he do a lot of dickwaving? Absolutely, but while he may shoot his mouth off he can use logic. He's power hungry and playing on the Iranian people's fears and hatred towards America and Israel is his best way to gain power. But going to a war that would diminish the Iranian's quality of life would cost him. As long as this is true he'll probably stick to rhetoric and skip significant action.

That is one way of looking at it. Prehaps he wished to follow the line of North Korea and use it as a black mail card. But really why should the western world wait for him to have a black mail card or the capacity to destroy Israel whichever way it is.

Yeah I know they sell oil. It dosnt mean that they cant use oil themselves. For the purpose of money it makes no sense to sell oil at a cheaper price then nuclear power and then buy nuclear power.

Iran has cheap oil due to the fact that is dosnt need to be shipped around the world. Why wouldnt they use oil? Why are they developing nuclear power that is more expensive?

There is no economic sense in Irans current situation of building a more expensive alternative

The only reasons I can think of are 1) the nuclear bomb or 2) climate change (if anyone is foolish enough to believe that)

There is no doubt that Iran has nuclear facilities. They admit to it. The question is why in hell would they be building them when there is a cheaper alternative


Because the rest of the world is still hooked on oil. Think about how much profit they make on oil that they can sell to other people. It's easily in their economic interests to switch power sources now, and be ahead of the uranium jump when that happens (which it will, unfortunately).

The world price of oil is into hundreds of dollars a barrel, and climbing daily. It would be economic stupidity to not capitalise on this as much as possible, and export what they can of their oil stocks.


That is one way of looking at it. Prehaps he wished to follow the line of North Korea and use it as a black mail card. But really why should the western world wait for him to have a black mail card or the capacity to destroy Israel whichever way it is.

Because the western world already have the capability to wipe them off the map in minutes. Both sets of politicians are sane enough to not blow themselves to pieces, and both are also sane enough to see that having nuclear weapons ensures they won't be attacked by the others.

No-one can take out Israel because Israel have nukes. Similarly, given the current climate, it makes sense for Iran to be pursuing the same goals.

(Incidentally, I'm actually anti-nuclear weapons, and favour unilateral disarmament. But I also recognise that while any nation possess them, especially one such as the US or Israel, other nations should also have the right to especially if they are enemies of the west. Nuclear weapons held by only one side of any ideological conflict is a bad thing, in general)

The more vicious a political clime, the shorter lived nuts last in any position of power, and Iran's political clime is very vicious.
So was the political clime in 1930's Germany, but people who bet that Hitler must be just play-acting and couldn't possibly be as crazed as he appeared turned out to be sadly mistaken. I have also heard people say that Bush couldn't possibly be as dumb as he appears and still have gotten where he is, but I think that is mistaken also. As far as I can see, Ahmadinejad is genuinely very stupid, and the ranking clerics in Iran are genuinely very delusional.

Clearly, Grandma missed the last line of the Senate Resolution that prompted such outrage. It's a really important line.

"asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran."

False alarm. No war. Just a resolution full of that economic boycott, sanction, bank pressure kind of arm twisting.

You know. Diplomacy. The sort of thing we're supposed to be doing.

Similar wording from the House of Representatives, BTW:

"Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran:"

I humbly request that you apologize to monsters everywhere for the insulting comparison to neocons. :(

Ehrm... yeah, the US may not like Iran, but a full-scale ground invasion just isn't in the cards people - US groundpounders are stretched as far as they can go between Afghanistan and Iraq. At most, Israel will blow something up and there'll be a furor of some kind, a call for sanctions against Israel that will be blocked by the US, and so forth.

The idea that Iranians are all crazy religious people who would invite death because of their wacky religious beliefs is ridiculous. Anyone's afterlife beliefs can be used to justify suicidal behavior. I mean, hell, every US president since we've had the bomb has been an avowed Christian of some denomination or other, and we never deployed nuclear weapons against the Soviets or the Chinese on the grounds that we'd be welcomed into Heaven by Jesus for opposing communism. Likewise, despite their atheistic disregard for life and human freedom, the Soviets never deployed their own nukes in their unstoppable quest for world domination.

I mean Pakistanis have nuclear weapons, and are predominantly Muslim, why don't they nuke longstanding rivals India and thereby gain entry into Heaven? Or hell, why don't the Indians nuke the Pakistanis and thereby accelerate the cycles of reincarnation that we may all achieve Nirvana sooner?

So why wouldn't Iran just nuke Israel?

For one thing, Israel contains Islamic holy sites that Islamists would be loathe to desecrate with nuclear fire and fallout.

For another thing, Iranians happen to be people. As much hope as they have in an afterlife, they, like many theists everywhere, still take care of day-to-day needs and consider Earthly survival a high-priority goal. The threat of retaliation works just as well on them as it would on any other state of vaporizable, cancer-prone humans. Even the members of the Iranian regime have a vested interest in not being the targets of nuclear retaliation. Remember that Iranians love their children too.

San Blanco;13804217']The idea that Iranians are all crazy religious people who would invite death because of their wacky religious beliefs is ridiculous.
Nobody is talking about "all" Iranians, just their leaders. The Iranian populace at large has been increasingly dissident from the views of the leadership but unable to do much about it.
San Blanco;13804217']I mean, hell, every US president since we've had the bomb has been an avowed Christian of some denomination or other
But none of them have been from the Westboro Baptist Church or the Branch Davidians. The Iranian leadership is from the extreme end of the religious spectrum.

The same neocon beasts who brought immense destruction and slaughter to Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention division, economic chaos, and police state measures at home), now have their eyes on Iran (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13067).

If you are a U.S. citizen, contact your representative without delay, and tell them to vote "No!" on Congressional Resolution 362 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:) and Senate Resolution 580 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-580).

With both McCain and Obama (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944) fully subordinated to the Israel Lobby, chances of preventing war are very slim indeed. But we have to try.

Another war is the last thing we, or anyone else, needs.

The monsters are the terrorists not the good guys fighting them!

San Blanco;13804217']despite their atheistic disregard for life and human freedom,

So atheism is inherrently disregarding of life and freedom? If only such stupidity was not widespread, I could just ignore it. It doesn't really deserve a response, beyond an upyours smily. However, since this is a typical slander against athesits, it unfortuately needs to be argued against.

Atheism is simple the lack of religious beliefs such as belief in a God. It says absolutely nothing about what values the atheist actually holds. Atheism has no set code of beliefs, because the term only refers to the absense of something, not what's actually there. One can be an atheist who believes in brutal totalitarianism, like Stalin, or one can be an atheist who believes in freedom and the value of human life. Indeed, given the manner in which theocratic organizations have supressed human liberties and justified killing any who dont agree with them in the most brutal fasion, its probably atheists, on average, who hold the greater respect for human life and freedom.

I have literally heard it argued that an atheist cannot tell right from wrong. My opinion is that religious individuals who argue this are probably self-projecting, and it is really they who can't judge right from wrong, except in the context of blindly following orders.

The comment you posted was false, slanderous, and border-line hate speech. I've never been one to support censoring hate speech, but I do believe in pointing it out and ridiculing it whenever possible.

Yeah I know they sell oil. It dosnt mean that they cant use oil themselves. For the purpose of money it makes no sense to sell oil at a cheaper price then nuclear power and then buy nuclear power.

Because their oil reserves are dwindling a lot faster than nuclear power ever will. If you can't see beyond your nose, you have no business leading a nation, much less dictating policy to other nations. And they aren't buying nuclear power. They're making their own.


Iran has cheap oil due to the fact that is dosnt need to be shipped around the world. Why wouldnt they use oil? Why are they developing nuclear power that is more expensive?

Because it's more lucrative to sell it to foreign governments who will pay high sums to have it than sell it locally. And oil, as I have mentioned, but you ignored, is a dwindling resource.

No doubt you'd be happy if Iran's oil ran out and they had to go back to horses, carts, and candles.


There is no economic sense in Irans current situation of building a more expensive alternative

You don't see the economic sense because clearly, you have no economic sense. I've outlined the issues, but you clearly refuse to even acknowledge them. This tells me that either you are intellectually deficient, or have an axe to grind against Iran.


There is no doubt that Iran has nuclear facilities. They admit to it. The question is why in hell would they be building them when there is a cheaper alternative

It's cheaper for you to live in a cardboard box than a house made of wood and concrete. Why aren't you living in a cardboard box?


That is one way of looking at it. Prehaps he wished to follow the line of North Korea and use it as a black mail card. But really why should the western world wait for him to have a black mail card or the capacity to destroy Israel whichever way it is.

When the Western world does not pander to the lobbyists from military industrial complexes and other war profiteering corporations, you might have a point. Until then, you don't.

So was the political clime in 1930's Germany, but people who bet that Hitler must be just play-acting and couldn't possibly be as crazed as he appeared turned out to be sadly mistaken.


Hitler was vicious. A lot more so than his contemporaries. I'll admit I forgot to add that caveat, since I figured being a nut would preclude the viciousness needed.

And Bush has the backing of some very powerful, and vicious, people. It offsets his nuttiness. Besides, American political climes are far less vicious than Irans.

"He who kills one person, it is as if he kills everyone, and he who saves someone, it is as if he saved everyone." -- the koran

Obviously terrorists aren't muslim, but a degenerate mockery.

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

If anything, the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet, and the deployment of a significant naval force to the Caribbean is sufficient evidence that the US is investing its military resources in places that are not capable of reaching the Middle East all that rapidly.

@ Skyland:

Since it's the internet, I realize there's a bit of a tone-of-voice problem there. Allow me to clarify:

(1) I'm an atheist.

(2) The point was that the caricatured view one takes of Muslims with nuclear weapons ("They'll use them because they'll just go to their 72 virgins") is no more valid than any caricatured view one might apply to the US's traditionally Christian leadership or the Soviet Union's atheist leadership.

Sure, CPSU was never the authoritative body on atheistic morality, and US propaganda was never the authoritative body on the CPSU either. The point is that despite genuine and perceived differences in ideology and outlook, people seem to share an aversion to incineration by nuclear fire. Moreover, these caricatures of our metaphysical beliefs did not result in their supposed real-world consequences. A US-USSR nuclear exchange has not happened. A US-Russia, US-China, or Pakistan-India nuclear exchange has not happened. Is an Israel-Iran exchange more likely than a US-USSR one was or a Pakistan-India exchange might be? I don't think so.

San Blanco;13804938']The point is that despite genuine and perceived differences in ideology and outlook, people seem to share an aversion to incineration by nuclear fire. ... Is an Israel-Iran exchange more likely than a US-USSR one was or a Pakistan-India exchange might be? I don't think so.

When you've got a madman at the helm who can't be reasoned with, you can't rule out an illogical response. I deal with the clinically/criminally insane at work every day, and believe me, they do some pretty destructive things even when it's obvious and certain they are going to get a beatdown if they do it.

How about we agree to joint military resolutions with Israel if we just raze the fucking mount?

Non Aligned states this has nothing to do about the Iranian people. It has everything to do with their dictator.

Its because I care about the Jews in Israel (that you must prefer dead) that I dont want a dictator whom uses his power to attack the jews by funding terrorist goups.

I wish for a nuclear stike against Iranian reactors which are very large targets. Altho I will admit the map of Israel is much larger that a building.

As for the comment of why I dont live in a cardboard box well it comes down to health reasons. Nuclear technology isnt done for health reasons as health related technology is not the reason stated for their reactor. The people are too poor to afford most of the advanced medical benifits technology nuclear power may provide.

And despite your false claims its not done for economic reasons either. Mining Uranium (if that exists in Iran) sells for a much higher price then oil. Selling Uranium is therefor much more viable then selling oil when it is removed from the ground.

So going by your assertion that it is Iranian Uranium this even further enforces the point that it isnt for economic reasons as the economically responsible thing for Iran to do with Uranium supplies is sell it. They could even sell it using black mail to artificially inflate the price even furthur.

Non Aligned states this has nothing to do about the Iranian people. It has everything to do with their dictator.


Which is why you want to condemn the Iranian people to a dwindling energy resource while ensuring that they'll never have an alternative. How very humanitarian of you.


Its because I care about the Jews in Israel


While clearly not caring about the Iranian people because of:


I wish for a nuclear stike against Iranian reactors


How peculiar that you speak of nuclear strikes against other people, yet:


And secondly Irans leader believes a holy war is coming. People with that kind of belief do irrational things. If he dies he will become a martyr and go to heaven with virgins.

The leader of Iran cant be persuaded by logic.

Look in the mirror much? It's not alright for other people to develop nuclear technology, who may or may not use it to develop weapons but it's quite alright for you to use nuclear weapons against those people who aren't even there yet.

How very hypocritical of you.

How about we propose killing you today, on the off chance that you might go on a rampage tomorrow?


that I dont want a dictator whom uses his power to attack the jews by funding terrorist goups.

To be quite frank, so long as the situation does not escalate into a full scale war, I hardly give a damn what goes on there anymore. State actors from practically every corner in the Middle East has their own agenda, including Israel, and they have a great deal of blood on their hands. Unless you have magic powers to suddenly make every single power monger, Israeli, Iranian, Syrian, Palestinian, etc, etc, disappear overnight, there is no solution to the problem.

Don't even try to pretend the Israeli's are blameless in this. You want to say Iran funds terrorist groups? Then Israel has Mossad. And the IDF when they don't care about public opinion, which is frequent.

You have a magic plan to ending the bloodshed, go ahead. If not, you clearly place non-Jewish human lives as subhuman given the value you add to them as opposed to the non-value you give to others.


Altho I will admit the map of Israel is much larger that a building.


This is a blatant lie. Nothing more.


As for the comment of why I dont live in a cardboard box well it comes down to health reasons. Nuclear technology isnt done for health reasons as health related technology is not the reason stated for their reactor. The people are too poor to afford most of the advanced medical benifits technology nuclear power may provide.

Peaceful nuclear technology isn't for health reasons either. It's for power generation reasons. Something you can't seem to wrap your head around.


And despite your false claims its not done for economic reasons either.


So you are Ahmadinejad? Or are you one of the power brokers in Iran? Are you a mind reader, able to see what they are thinking and what they plan for nuclear technology? How can you say my claims are false when you can't prove your claims? You just keep on hammering on your blather without proving one iota of what you say.

And I'll bet you didn't know that Iran's nuclear power program began in the 1950s. With American assistance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran)


Mining Uranium (if that exists in Iran) sells for a much higher price then oil. Selling Uranium is therefor much more viable then selling oil when it is removed from the ground.

Really? Then mind explaining why America SOLD THEM REACTORS (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html) hmm? And that was 30 years ago. And uranium can be recycled, and fissile material made with FBR reactors. But oh no. Can't have sustainable energy. Everything's got to be burned.


So going by your assertion that it is Iranian Uranium this even further enforces the point that it isnt for economic reasons as the economically responsible thing for Iran to do with Uranium supplies is sell it. They could even sell it using black mail to artificially inflate the price even furthur.

Ahahahahaha. Energy independence from a dwindling resource from which the primary value comes from burning it is not economically responsible? You clearly never took economics class, or slept through it. You have no business talking about what makes economic sense when you can't even put together a working economic model that makes logical sense.

uranium is a dwindling resource. And there would be far less of it in Iran then oil. Are you unaware Uranium is limited? It may not even last 2 decades if the world uses it as a step before building renewable resources.

Oil will run out quicker yes but nuclear power is not in Irans best economic interest. Nor is it in the worlds interest to allow nuclear weapons to be in the hands of a dictator. The fact remains the Iran dosnt wish to negotiate at all about nuclear power. Because there is a big difference between nuclear power and other types of power

Its called the Atomic Bomb.

Even if you are right that Iran is building nuclear power solely for economic reasons :rolleyes: (oil is in Irans favourite position, the world hasnt ditched oil for even higher prices then Iran pays) I still would never trust a dictator with the power of a weapon of mass destruction

Hopefully you can tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. I question if you can

uranium is a dwindling resource. And there would be far less of it in Iran then oil. Are you unaware Uranium is limited? It may not even last 2 decades if the world uses it as a step before building renewable resources.

You can recycle uranium. You can create fissile material in FBRs. You can't do that with oil.


Oil will run out quicker yes but nuclear power is not in Irans best economic interest.

It is when you bother to look at the numbers. Nuclear energy can generate more power than oil. And it lasts a lot longer on smaller stocks of uranium than it does oil.


Nor is it in the worlds interest to allow nuclear weapons to be in the hands of a dictator.

Call me when the US takes them away from Putin and Kim Jung Il. Until then, don't bother. In fact, it isn't in the world's interest that the United States have them either, given that you can get war mongering religious nuts literally with their fingers on the button.


The fact remains the Iran dosnt wish to negotiate at all about nuclear power.


Because none of the proposed agreements on nuclear power actually allow it energy independence other than waving a scrap of paper at the supplying nations if they decide to stop fissile shipments. The Iranians aren't stupid.


Because there is a big difference between nuclear power and other types of power

There's also a big difference between energy independence and energy dependence. Not that you seem to be capable of understanding it.


Even if you are right that Iran is building nuclear power solely for economic reasons :rolleyes: (oil is in Irans favourite position, the world hasnt ditched oil for even higher prices then Iran pays) I still would never trust a dictator with the power of a weapon of mass destruction

Blah, blah, blah, more fear mongering. And of course you're totally forgetting the point that Iran had it's own brand of dictator which the US supplied nuclear reactors to. He was called the Shah of Iran. Nobody made noise about it then.


Hopefully you can tell the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. I question if you can

When there's a real democracy, I'll tell you. So far, all we've had is circus shows with the elite dictating policy. Same rubbish, different coat.

Why don't we look at this from the Iranian point of view? They've been living in a backwards theocratic ditch for going on thirty years, they could use a break. Let's invade 'em.

Why don't we look at this from the Iranian point of view? They've been living in a backwards theocratic ditch for going on thirty years, they could use a break. Let's invade 'em.

The worst part of arguments on NSG is never knowing when someone is being sarcastic, or being just another Ann Coulter wannabe.

The worst part of arguments on NSG is never knowing when someone is being sarcastic, or being just another Ann Coulter wannabe.

I'm really somewhat of a creamy middle. I really couldn't care less what happens. We invade Iran, life goes on. We don't invade Iran, life goes on. Well, except for Iranian homosexuals, that must suck.

Iran dosnt have any homosexuals or at least open homosexuals. They are killed just like any other unfavoured group or religion other then Islam in their country. Some believe Iran should be supported to continue to allow this type of thing to go on

Time is running out to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons. I hope for a strike against their reactors destroying the material soon

Others would fuel much safer risking the lives of the israeli people and to a lesser extent the rest of the world

Oh and by the way some nuclear power stations do use the material inside for health reasons. Australia for example had the Lucas heights reactor that is now closed. The main reason it was designed was for medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_reactor

Still behind closed doors it is easy to gather the right material to create a nuclear weapon for a nuclear reactor. This is the reason that Iran should not be allowed to build its nuclear "power" :rolleyes: stations. Whilst electricity will be generated it has a risk of a nuclear war

And as I expected my normal critic dosnt see the diference between the US and a dictatorship. How sad. If you wish you could live in Iran for a while and actually get to know what the difference is.

Time is running out to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons. I hope for a strike against their reactors destroying the material soon

Don't try to hedge it now. You said


I wish for a nuclear stike against Iranian reactors

You want to stop possible nuclear weapons, by using them. It's clear what kind of hypocrite you are. A blood thirsty one.


Others would fuel much safer risking the lives of the israeli people and to a lesser extent the rest of the world

And some, like you, think that destroying everything that in their imagination, could pose a threat, will bring peace to the world, turning them into the biggest threat in the world.

So live up to your words. Kill yourself. Now. Before you become that threat.


Still behind closed doors it is easy to gather the right material to create a nuclear weapon for a nuclear reactor. This is the reason that Iran should not be allowed to build its nuclear "power" :rolleyes: stations. Whilst electricity will be generated it has a risk of a nuclear war

There's a risk in everything. Given your war mongering nature, there might be a risk that you'll start a war that will give everyone grief in the near future. This is the reason you should not be allowed to continue existing as a living entity.

You want to pretend otherwise? Then you've got hypocritical double standards.


And as I expected my normal critic dosnt see the diference between the US and a dictatorship. How sad.

In Iran, the clerics decide what goes. In America it's the special interest groups. What's the difference?


If you wish you could live in Iran for a while and actually get to know what the difference is.

Do you live in a country that has secret police? A country that arrests its own citizens, even human rights groups, under fabricated charges, holds them indefinitely in secret prisons without trial, kidnaps and murders inconvenient people to the higher ups, where the mere mention of homosexual relationships, regardless of the truth, is enough to have even high ranking politicians who don't toe the line disappeared into said secret prisons? Where the public mention in local, government controlled media of the inequalities and injustices of the government is enough for them to have you thrown into jail indefinitely. A country that treats the minorities like 2nd class citizens and talks proudly talks about oppressing them further?

Do you?

I do, and I am of that minority. So don't you even think of trying to get on that high horse of yours. You don't know anything at all.

The claim that Iran just wants a reactor for electrical generation is a front for building a weapon. If this was not the case why did they refuse offers of being given lightweight reactors that can produce electricity but can not create matierial for nuclear weapons? It makes the Iranian arguement empty and noone is buying the bullshit. They want nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons means respect. Look how the US kisses every single nuclear capable countries ass including North Korea? Iran wants that international fear and respect and are deep into the process of doing just that. Its time to break out the cruise missiles and the Israelis.

Hitler was vicious. A lot more so than his contemporaries. I'll admit I forgot to add that caveat, since I figured being a nut would preclude the viciousness needed.
Iranian clerics are also a lot more vicious than contemporary Iranians. This does not preclude them being utter lunatics. Delusion and viciousness quite often go together, in fact.
Do you live in a country that has secret police? A country that arrests its own citizens, even human rights groups, under fabricated charges, holds them indefinitely in secret prisons without trial, kidnaps and murders inconvenient people to the higher ups, where the mere mention of homosexual relationships, regardless of the truth, is enough to have even high ranking politicians who don't toe the line disappeared into said secret prisons? Where the public mention in local, government controlled media of the inequalities and injustices of the government is enough for them to have you thrown into jail indefinitely. A country that treats the minorities like 2nd class citizens and talks proudly talks about oppressing them further?

Do you?

I do, and I am of that minority. So don't you even think of trying to get on that high horse of yours. You don't know anything at all.
What country are you posting from?
In Iran, the clerics decide what goes. In America it's the special interest groups. What's the difference?
In America, I am still alive. In Iran, I wouldn't be. Come on, get real.

Iranian clerics are also a lot more vicious than contemporary Iranians. This does not preclude them being utter lunatics. Delusion and viciousness quite often go together, in fact.

When you have a pot of deluded, vicious people, they're too busy fighting each other to threaten another country. The only exceptions are when the pot gets empty save for one, or somebody makes a big and hairy threat of themselves to intrude in that pot.


What country are you posting from?


EDIT: I'll TG it to you


In America, I am still alive. In Iran, I wouldn't be. Come on, get real.

Insofar as who controls power, America and Iran share quite a few similarities in terms of structure.

when did I ever say to use a nuclear strike against Iran? Short answer is never
oh and ill rest my case on this one point

In Iran, the clerics decide what goes. In America it's the special interest groups. What's the difference?

What kind of fool believes the clerics make the decisions in Iran. Its the dictator. If you cant even undersand the difference between a democracy and dictatorship their is no hope for you

going down your path of blisssful ignorance is horrible. Gambling upon the lives of a nation is the worst thing possible. The fact that you cant tell the difference between a stike against a building in a dictatorships country and open nuclear war really is sad.

I hope you one day learn the difference but I wont hold my breath.

What kind of fool believes the clerics make the decisions in Iran.

You aren't really too well read on Iran.

What kind of fool believes the clerics make the decisions in Iran. Its the dictator.

You really need to learn the history of Iran. They ayatollas run the country and make all the true decisions. Not the person who is theoretically head of government.

If you cant even undersand the difference between a democracy and dictatorship their is no hope for you

You are right here. Iran is not a democracy.

when did I ever say to use a nuclear strike against Iran? Short answer is never


Then you are a liar.


I wish for a nuclear stike against Iranian reactors

Your words. Word for word. Exactly as you said. It's clear that you are playing the two faced game here.


What kind of fool believes the clerics make the decisions in Iran. Its the dictator.


No fool. Only the ignorant believe Iran is not run by the clerics. The clerics decide who comes into power, and who leaves. But go ahead, display some more ignorance. Just like your ignorance of economics.

Something you might want to read. Iran's power structure, from themselves.

http://www.iranchamber.com/government/articles/structure_of_power.php

But you won't read it. Because like all other sources I posted earlier, you will not read anything that threatens your oh so precious world view. So go ahead. Surprise me.


If you cant even undersand the difference between a democracy and dictatorship their is no hope for you

True lack of hope is only reserved for those unwilling to learn, blatant in their ignorance which they treat as truth. Much like Flat Earthers, the YEC, and you.


going down your path of blisssful ignorance is horrible. Gambling upon the lives of a nation is the worst thing possible.


And here you are going "BLOW UP THE IRANIANS WITH NUKES!"

Who exactly is gambling? Oh, I see. By choosing not to initiate violence, I am "gambling" on the chance that they will not choose to play a game of nuclear Russian roulette. A position which is somehow morally inferior as to "definitely killing them with nuclear weapons."


The fact that you cant tell the difference between a stike against a building in a dictatorships country and open nuclear war really is sad.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between reality and your laughable notions as to who holds power in Iran, much like your unfortunate lack of economic sense which you supplement with arrogance and high pretensions that the consequences of nuclear weapons use does not apply to you but to everyone else.


I hope you one day learn the difference but I wont hold my breath.

I hope that one day you will actually learn a little more about the world around you before mouthing off, but your attitude is clearly not one of learning.

Meh, we or Israel will eventually hit Irans reactors. Its inevitable. I frankly dont see the big deal. Israel took out Syrias reactor and people forgot about it 2 days later. We took out Iraqs reactor in the 80s. They got over it. We will take out Irans reactor sites, they will whine bitch and raise a fuss and 12 months later it will be business as usual and no more nukes in radicals hands. On to the next problem.

Meh, we or Israel will eventually hit Irans reactors. Its inevitable. I frankly dont see the big deal. Israel took out Syrias reactor and people forgot about it 2 days later. We took out Iraqs reactor in the 80s. They got over it. We will take out Irans reactor sites, they will whine bitch and raise a fuss and 12 months later it will be business as usual and no more nukes in radicals hands. On to the next problem.

Iran has learned lessons from Iraq though. They have diffused their facilities throughout numerous locations as I understand it, which means any crippling blow will require a massive air strike. And a lot of flying through a number of airspaces not exactly happy to the idea of Israeli air assaults. Iran, will likely be forewarned of any such attempt, and will not take too kindly to it.

Since any airstrike is an act of war, Iran would be well within its rights to touch off its stockpile of MRBMs, notably the Shahab-3s which have enough range to strike Israel. Yes, Israel has invested greatly in anti-missile defenses, but it is too optimistic to think that they will get it all, especially since the B variant of the Shahab-3s are built with AMS evasion in mind. And unless Iran comes under crippling sanctions, unlikely given their lucrative relationship with Russia and China, Iran will recover from any losses incurred by the airstrike, with a much bigger axe to grind this time.

Iran has learned lessons from Iraq though. They have diffused their facilities throughout numerous locations as I understand it, which means any crippling blow will require a massive air strike. And a lot of flying through a number of airspaces not exactly happy to the idea of Israeli air assaults. Iran, will likely be forewarned of any such attempt, and will not take too kindly to it.

Since any airstrike is an act of war, Iran would be well within its rights to touch off its stockpile of MRBMs, notably the Shahab-3s which have enough range to strike Israel. Yes, Israel has invested greatly in anti-missile defenses, but it is too optimistic to think that they will get it all, especially since the B variant of the Shahab-3s are built with AMS evasion in mind. And unless Iran comes under crippling sanctions, unlikely given their lucrative relationship with Russia and China, Iran will recover from any losses incurred by the airstrike, with a much bigger axe to grind this time.

Nothing you wrote changes what will happen. You cant stop cruise missiles and if the US attacks Iran whats the point of Iran attacking Israel? And even if they do, shitty rockets with poor aim hitting Israel < a nuke hitting Israel.

Nothing you wrote changes what will happen.

Will happen? You seem very sure. We shall see in the next few months shan't we?


You cant stop cruise missiles and if the US attacks Iran whats the point of Iran attacking Israel? And even if they do, shitty rockets with poor aim hitting Israel < a nuke hitting Israel.

If the US attacks. While I certainly could believe such an act under the current administration, the next might be more likely to resort to words and treaties than airstrikes, depending on who becomes the leader of course. In that, the matter is up in the air.

And I would hardly call the Shahab-3 and Fajr-3, "shitty rockets with poor aim". Especially the C and D variants of the Shahab-3, and the Fajr-3 is a MIRV, which certainly reduces any argument against missile accuracy.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that Iran is a technologically backwards that makes cheap rockets. It isn't.

Will happen? You seem very sure. We shall see in the next few months shan't we?



If the US attacks. While I certainly could believe such an act under the current administration, the next might be more likely to resort to words and treaties than airstrikes, depending on who becomes the leader of course. In that, the matter is up in the air.

And I would hardly call the Shahab-3 and Fajr-3, "shitty rockets with poor aim". Especially the C and D variants of the Shahab-3, and the Fajr-3 is a MIRV, which certainly reduces any argument against missile accuracy.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that Iran is a technologically backwards that makes cheap rockets. It isn't.

Correction: super awesome rockets < Israel being nuked.

And you want to open dialogue with Iran? The same Iran that says the nuclear cycle process is off the negotiation table period? Good luck with that.

Correction: super awesome rockets < Israel being nuked.

And you want to open dialogue with Iran? The same Iran that says the nuclear cycle process is off the negotiation table period? Good luck with that.

Tell me, have you ever considered that the clerics in Iran might not have a hive mind? Let's look at it from your basic geo-political aspect.

The clerics hold ultimate power in Iran. But they aren't necessarily unified, and they have their own host of local problems to keep tabs on if they want to keep the population pacified. For the most part they've been minding their own business, insofar as the usual bloody politicking and backstabbing goes in that region of the world. Then along comes America, on trumped up charges, smacks down one of their neighbors, and makes a lot of noise about how Iran could be next.

Congratulations, America has provided a flashpoint which the clerics can gloss over all their domestic problems.

Then on the other side of the world, another country in the "bad boys" club starts off a small nuclear device. All of a sudden, they get all sorts of goodies, and positive attention. What kind of message do you think is being sent here?

Dialogue works simply because it takes away that flashpoint. As long as you aren't running around waving a chainsaw and screaming "YOU'RE NEXT!", metaphorically speaking, you no longer give them an excuse to bunker down and use your wild eyed character as a rallying point.

But if you really don't want to consider the alternatives, I suppose you can keep pushing a square peg in a round hole. You know, a little like Mr. "Stay the course."

Besides, as I've pointed out time and time again, nuclear weapons use is grounds for MAD, and you don't quite see the clerics of Iran risking their wrinkled asses by donning vests, AK-47s and charging their "enemy" do you?

Tell me, have you ever considered that the clerics in Iran might not have a hive mind? Let's look at it from your basic geo-political aspect.

The clerics hold ultimate power in Iran. But they aren't necessarily unified, and they have their own host of local problems to keep tabs on if they want to keep the population pacified. For the most part they've been minding their own business, insofar as the usual bloody politicking and backstabbing goes in that region of the world. Then along comes America, on trumped up charges, smacks down one of their neighbors, and makes a lot of noise about how Iran could be next.

Congratulations, America has provided a flashpoint which the clerics can gloss over all their domestic problems.

Then on the other side of the world, another country in the "bad boys" club starts off a small nuclear device. All of a sudden, they get all sorts of goodies, and positive attention. What kind of message do you think is being sent here?

Dialogue works simply because it takes away that flashpoint. As long as you aren't running around waving a chainsaw and screaming "YOU'RE NEXT!", metaphorically speaking, you no longer give them an excuse to bunker down and use your wild eyed character as a rallying point.

But if you really don't want to consider the alternatives, I suppose you can keep pushing a square peg in a round hole. You know, a little like Mr. "Stay the course."

Besides, as I've pointed out time and time again, nuclear weapons use is grounds for MAD, and you don't quite see the clerics of Iran risking their wrinkled asses by donning vests, AK-47s and charging their "enemy" do you?

So your suggestion is to let them have nukes and maybe talking to them may or may not stop them from using it or more likely sell it to someone else who will? Ill stick to what we know works with historical facts. We took out Iraqs nuclear capability. It solved the Problem. We took out Syrias nuclear capabilities. It solved the problem. Iran? I see no compelling reason to believe this wouldnt also solve the problem.

So your suggestion is to let them have nukes and maybe talking to them may or may not stop them from using it or more likely sell it to someone else who will? Ill stick to what we know works with historical facts. We took out Iraqs nuclear capability. It solved the Problem. We took out Syrias nuclear capabilities. It solved the problem. Iran? I see no compelling reason to believe this wouldnt also solve the problem.

Because aside from the United States making a hidden message clear when it invaded a nukeless Iraq and flip-flopped on concessions to a nuclear North Korea branding a "Get Nukes or Get Invaded" message to the Iranians, all the really important nuclear research facilities are going to be hardened deep underground. You might get some of the nuclear capabilities but you can't get them all.

So your suggestion is to let them have nukes and maybe talking to them may or may not stop them from using it or more likely sell it to someone else who will? Ill stick to what we know works with historical facts. We took out Iraqs nuclear capability. It solved the Problem. We took out Syrias nuclear capabilities. It solved the problem. Iran? I see no compelling reason to believe this wouldnt also solve the problem.

You ever hear the story of the Hydra? But don't mind me. Keep attacking people, alienating everyone. Eventually, you might find yourself without friends, allies, all alone with the world now against you. I'm sure you would enjoy that.

Typical shallow mentality really. You aren't solving any problem with this. Those acts were just attacking the symptoms, while contributing to the cause. Please, foment more hatred and anger, get it to that nice frothy boiling point, pull in every big player with an atomic penis to dangle. Let's burn the world in nuclear fire in the name of "solving problems".

And who's this "we"? Are you a part of the IDF now?

A.) I do not think there will be a war/campaign/police action/your mom in Iran. I would not support one which was based solely off of "potential risk".

B.) I do not think that if Iran gained nuclear weapons, they would detonate them in anyone's territory. Their leadership, especially the clerics, are a touch to rational, and they know the cost that a nuclear detonation would carry.

C.) They would use their nuclear weapons if they were to get them, though. The added leverage and power that even a limited nuclear arsenal would provide would be immense, and permit them to throw around their power in the region with virtually no concern for the repercussions. They could easily press their influence, especially amongst disenfranchised common people in neighboring states, and expand their policy goals and influence. The potential for Iran to serve as a destabilizing force is far, far too great.

D.) I do not think that Iran should have nuclear weapons. The outcome could prove to be awful.

When you have a pot of deluded, vicious people, they're too busy fighting each other to threaten another country.
Tell that to Poland.
Insofar as who controls power, America and Iran share quite a few similarities in terms of structure.
I have my complaints about America, but I am not delusional enough to think that America and Iran are remotely comparable.

Tell that to Poland.

You clearly ignored my specifications didn't you? I said people, as in plural, more than one. Poland's case had one vicious nut who came to the top and suppressed all the other nuts. I don't see that in Iran just yet.


I have my complaints about America, but I am not delusional enough to think that America and Iran are remotely comparable.

In what sense? That America is a repressive theocratic government? Of course not, that's stupid. But there is no denying where the power of the American government lies, and that's not with its people. It's with the lobbyists and special interest groups, the kingmakers of America.

A US war in Iran is inevitable. So is the aligning of the EU and N. America. Pitch whatever facts you want, it's gonna happen.

C.) They would use their nuclear weapons if they were to get them, though. The added leverage and power that even a limited nuclear arsenal would provide would be immense, and permit them to throw around their power in the region with virtually no concern for the repercussions. They could easily press their influence, especially amongst disenfranchised common people in neighboring states, and expand their policy goals and influence. The potential for Iran to serve as a destabilizing force is far, far too great.


Israel's Samson option may keep things from going too far.

Oddly enough, there are strong parables between the two and the beginning of the Cold War 55 years back. If Iran gets the bomb, Israel and Iran will be forced into a nuclear brinkmanship, and both nations will actually have to try to woo neighboring nations into supporting them. The current geo-political situation makes proxy wars unlikely given the ease of which they could escalate.

It could be a nervous peace, but a peace nonetheless.