FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Iran Issue!





risuarez
Hi:

I was just wondering, how far you think the Iran issue could go???? Personally, I dont think the United Satates will be able to invade them just like they did in Irak. And not because they dont have the strengh to do it, they certainly have it. But because they wouldn't be able to find the required support needed, both externally and internally.

So what do you think???? How far the Iran issue could go and what do you think is the worst that we could expect to happen?
fribee
With the 300+ nuclear warheads of Israel I think they will do the job.
And they won't be responsible to anyone, controlling the american congress anyway.....

If the US are not attacking, the Zionists will do.
No doubt.

Maybe the world is lucky and the Zionists blow themselves up
with their outdated WMDs.

There is no rational to condemn Iran, because its their legal right to
proliferate. But nobody cares. And the western world just counts on
international pressure. thats it.

Fribee
Soulfire
Iran has defied the U.N. multiple times. They are becoming, as it would appear, increasingly aggressive and unpredictible. They are becoming restless and it's making us (at least me) nervous.

Iran has defied the nuclear ban, just as Germany defied the Treaty of Versailles and was responsible in a large part for WWII. So, will Iran be the start of our WWIII?

And is the U.S. just waiting for another Pearl Harbor? Or has our Pearl Harbor already happened. (Think of September 11, 2001). Even though the attacks on September 11th don't directly tie to Iran, they tie to the middle east, and they tie to a growing anti-American sentiment brewing in the middle east.

Now, I'm not really saying it's going to happen... I don't even believe it really will happen, but I just wanted to put a few things out there to see what people thought of them. I know circumstances are different, but it's a comparison I began to make when studying World War II in my U.S. History class.
risuarez
Soulfire wrote:
Iran has defied the U.N. multiple times. They are becoming, as it would appear, increasingly aggressive and unpredictible. They are becoming restless and it's making us (at least me) nervous.

Iran has defied the nuclear ban, just as Germany defied the Treaty of Versailles and was responsible in a large part for WWII. So, will Iran be the start of our WWIII?

And is the U.S. just waiting for another Pearl Harbor? Or has our Pearl Harbor already happened. (Think of September 11, 2001). Even though the attacks on September 11th don't directly tie to Iran, they tie to the middle east, and they tie to a growing anti-American sentiment brewing in the middle east.

Now, I'm not really saying it's going to happen... I don't even believe it really will happen, but I just wanted to put a few things out there to see what people thought of them. I know circumstances are different, but it's a comparison I began to make when studying World War II in my U.S. History class.


The one who has done anything wrong, has nothing to fear. The United States and its citizens fers of Iran because all the damage the american imperialism has done to the middle east.

The rest of the world...has nothing to fear about.
S3nd K3ys
risuarez wrote:



The rest of the world...has nothing to fear about.


Riiiggghhhttt....

Laughing Laughing Laughing

Quote:
The United States and its citizens fers of Iran because all the damage the american imperialism has done to the middle east.


There have been problems with the ME for CENTURIES. LONG BEFORE THE US WAS BORN.


Duh.
ocalhoun
fribee wrote:
their legal right to
proliferate.

What exactly is that right, and who granted it to them?
lyndonray
a military solution to the issue is out of the question. The only reason the U.S. subtly brings it up is to scare Iran. It's just a bluff. they don't have the means to invade the place. The most they can do is air strikes. THATS IT!! Even those are out of the question because Israel would be hit in retaliation. Then from there all hell would break loose. Literally!! So their best bet is sanctions. but sanctions aren't a bright idea when you depend on the oil of the people you are sanctioning. So what does that leave us with? A lot of barking and no biting from all sides!! If the U.S. hadn't bothered with Iraq, their bluff(s) would have more weight! Because even if the army wasn't over-stretched to point of snapping, the U.S. wouldn't be so stupid as to invade Iran. Or would they??? Because hey, you never know with these guys!!
kronso.23
This is why Iran hates our guts, and after every friday prayer they chant, "death to America"...
During the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union was doing anything it could to hinder our plans, so the Soviets had secretly funded the Vietnamese with tanks and weapons and anything they needed, that's why we were defeated. then when Desert Storm came about, when the Soviet Union was trying to invade Iraq and Afganistan, we funded Iraq during the time Iran and the Soviet Union were fighting against Iraq, which was done because we were trying to get back at the Soviet Union for hindering our plans. hundreds of thousands of Iranians died at their "Death March" because they had ran out of bullets so they just started running towards the Iraqies and kill them all with their bare hands... men, women, and children...
That is why Iranians hate our guts.
But, Bush has totally discredited himself and made so many enemies its not likely we'll have enough soldiers for ground patrol in Iran, so it's most likely they'll get bombed all to hell... if we do ever go to war with them.
felisleo
i am not iranian but i dont get one thing.us and his little brother israil keeps saying iran is a thrat to the world.why? historicaly iran has never started a war.unlike usa iran has never killed a single person in vietnam , laos ,nicaragua, cuba, iraq or god knows where.on the other hand israil keeps threatening iran about nuc researches.and they have more than 300 nuc heads.
one thing is clear though.as long as usa keeps staying in ME it will never get peace.
S3nd K3ys
felisleo wrote:
us and his little brother israil keeps saying iran is a thrat to the world.why?


Iran is responsible for MAJOR funding and support of terrorist groups all over the world.
Animal
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Iran is responsible for MAJOR funding and support of terrorist groups all over the world.

I am in no way disagreeing that Iran's current status as a nuclear-weapons developer is a bad thing. However, do you have a source for your argument that they fund terrorists? I seem to remember a lot of American propaganda that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Quaeda - all of those accusations were either disproved or unproven.
S3nd K3ys
Animal wrote:
do you have a source for your argument that they fund terrorists? I seem to remember a lot of American propaganda that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Quaeda - all of those accusations were either disproved or unproven.


First off, the ties between Iraq and al Quaeda were confirmed numerous times. Those who try to whitewash Saddams record dont dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So lets review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years (feel free to research it for yourself so you can get it from sources YOU trust.):

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddams hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddams mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddams men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraqs mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Janes Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Janes reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaedas No. 2 man.

Secondly, the United States State Department refers to the Islamic Republic of Iran as the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

Iran provides funding, weapons, and training to terrorist groups based in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Iran funding of Islamic terrorist groups include Hezbollah (founded with help of Iran), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Kurdistan Workers Party (among others).

Iran was involved with Hezbollah's attempt to smuggle arms to the Palestinian Authority in anuary 2002

Basra is now dominated by Shiite Muslim warlords and militia currently laying the groundwork for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

The militias are reported (by US and UK officials) to be supported by Iranian intelligence or military units that are shipping weapons to the militias in Iraq and providing training for them in Iran.

Here's some tidbits from the 9/11 Commission Report for you to chew on (with references, of course Wink )

Quote:
Iran and Khobar Towers—1996
On June 26, 1996, a truck bomb ripped through an apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen U.S. servicemen. In 1997, the Washington Post reported that the Saudi Hezbollah operatives suspected of carrying out the attack were associated with Brigadier Ahmad Sharifi, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.[2] In passing, the 9-11 Commission reiterated the likelihood that Iranian officials played a major role in attacking U.S. forces:

In June 1996, an enormous truck bomb detonated in the Khobar Towers residential complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that housed U.S. Air Force personnel. Nineteen Americans were killed, and 372 were wounded. The operation was carried out principally, perhaps exclusively, by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received support from the government of Iran. While the evidence of Iranian involvement is strong, there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown.[3]

Did Iran Train Al-Qaeda?
Between 1991 and 1996, Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan where he was protected by Hassan Abdullah at-Turabi, the leader of Sudan's National Islamic Front, an Islamist movement. According to the 9-11 Commission, Sudanese officials facilitated meetings between al-Qaeda operatives and Iranian officials, a relationship which blossomed into tactical training:

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations.[4]

Did Iran Aid Terrorist Transit?
In 1996, after the Taliban seized power, Osama bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan where he established a number of terrorist training camps. Al-Qaeda training attracted a steady stream of young Islamists, many of whom transited Iran. While Iranian border officials normally stamp passports, they made an exception for many Al-Qaeda terrorists. The 9-11 Commission explained how this facilitated Al-Qaeda operations:

Certain al Qaeda members were charged with organizing passport collection schemes to keep the pipeline of fraudulent documents flowing. To this end, al Qaeda required jihadists to turn in their passports before going to the front lines in Afghanistan. If they were killed, their passports were recycled for use. The operational mission training course taught operatives how to forge documents. Certain passport alteration methods, which included substituting photos and erasing and adding travel cachets, were also taught. Manuals demonstrating the technique for "cleaning" visas were reportedly circulated among operatives. Mohammed Atta [a 9-11 hijacker] and Zakariya Essabar [an Al-Qaeda member whose U.S. visa was rejected, preventing him from participating in the 9-11 hijackings] were reported to have been trained in passport alteration. The purpose of all this training was twofold: to develop an institutional capacity for document forgery and to enable operatives to make necessary adjustments in the field. It was well-known, for example, that if a Saudi traveled to Afghanistan via Pakistan, then on his return to Saudi Arabia his passport, bearing a Pakistani stamp, would be confiscated. So operatives either erased the Pakistani visas from their passports or traveled through Iran, which did not stamp visas directly into passports.[5]

Iranian Support for the 9/11 Terrorists
Iranian support for Al-Qaeda continued to increase, even as Clinton administration officials sought to extend an olive branch to the Islamic Republic.[6] The 9-11 Commission documented at length Iran's continuing assistance to Al-Qaeda and recommended that the U.S. government further investigate Iranian links to Al-Qaeda:

While in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after bin Ladin's return to Afghanistan. Khallad [bin Attash, a high-level Al-Qaeda operative[7]] has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved. Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling—perhaps by coincidence—on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative. Also, in November, Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut.

In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers, Wail al Shehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah.

Later in November, two future muscle hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Majed Moqed, flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border.

KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks who is now in custody[8]] and [Ramzi] Binalshibh [an al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan a year after the attacks who acknowledged a planning role[9]] have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers' travel to Iran. They also deny any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah.

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence—that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers.

We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11. We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.[10]

Notes
[1] 9-11 Commission Report (Washington, D.C.: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 22, 2004).
[2] The Washington Post. June 28, 1997.
[3] "The Foundation of the New Terrorism," 9-11 Commission Report, p. 60.
[4] Ibid., p. 61.
[5] "Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland," ibid., p. 169.
[6] Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, remarks before the American-Iranian Council, Mar. 17, 2000.
[7] The Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 19, 2004.
[8] "Progress Report on the Global War on Terrorism," White House, Sept. 2003.
[9] CNN.com, Sept. 17, 2002.
[10] "The Attack Looms," 9-11 Commission Report, pp. 240-1.
burlster
its my first post and this seems like a deep one to enter, but to the person relying on teh US inquiry into 9/11 for their evidence I ould suggest serious caution about believing ANYTHING the US had to say on the issue. The US and unfortunately my own country have both conspired to manufacture evidence against both iraq and I suspect in the US' case also Iran.

Yes Saddam was a git, and fundamentally i dont disagree with teh decision to remove him. However, to link the secular Iraqi leader with the ultra fundamentalist Al Quadi is pushing the boundries of believability to the extreme.

Saddam Hussein awas an intelligent enough leader to realise that Al Quaida represents almost as much of a threat to his style of Government as it does to the West.
S3nd K3ys
burlster wrote:
The US and unfortunately my own country have both conspired to manufacture evidence against both iraq and I suspect in the US' case also Iran.


Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide proof of said 'manufacturing' of evidence?

Also, perhaps you haven't been paying attention to what IRAN HAS BEEN SAYING/DOING as of late? Shocked
burlster
i believe colin powell's sad statement to the UN piroor to the War on the chemical trucks and the British claim about Iraq being able to fire a missle that could hit the UK in 30 mins is evidence enough.

Dont get me wrong, im not condeming the war. what i am doing is condemning the way it was sold. If bush had just come out and said we want the oil i could have understood, but the pathetic attempts to lie and cheat the public leave a bad taste in the mouth.

The US will never go to war with Iran cbecause it doesnt have the conventional capabilities to do so. Iraq has revealed the terrible short comings in the American Army, and only an idiot could think they woudl fair better against a far superior enemy.

I agree the idea of Iran getting nukes is scary. However, the Israels stole them from the US and Britain and so obtained them illegally. We hear very little criticism of that.
S3nd K3ys
burlster wrote:
If bush had just come out and said we want the oil


Oh. Is that what we're there for?

Then perhaps you'd provide proof of that... (or not Wink )
burlster
if you believe we are there for any other reason than teh enrichment of bush's budies in the oil industry then i truly worry for you. The only people to benefit from this war are teh share holders of companies such as haliburton which have been awarded massive contracts to 'rebuild' post war iraq. Additiononally the companies that make, tanks, APCs, guns ammunition are all doing quite nicely thankyou.

The terrorism hasnt stopped, see Madrid or London (I live in the latter) and going to war in iraq wasnever ever going to stopt teh terrorism. At the same time the US has once again demonstrated an inability to actually occupy a country and win over a sceptical population. The similarities with Vietnam become more apparent every day. massacres and trrops that have no real idea why they are there with an increasingly restful public at home.

Going to war cannot end terrorism. Understanding why these people are so angry is a a better start.goes for Iran. Why does Iran hate America. is it perhaps because they conspired with the British to instal the despotic Shah in the 50's whose regime oversaw a brutal period in Iranian history.. Perhaps its beacuse western companies seek to plunder their only natural resources at every opportunity..

I donbt pretend to know the answers but i o no that shooting them aint going to help to much
Helios
I just hope they'll have the brains and the guts to agree with the peace agreements.

If they'll try to attack us, it won't end very good for them.
Probably, we'll do the same trick as we did to Iraq in the mid 80s.
If that does't work, it will become nuclear. Nuclear always works.
S3nd K3ys
burlster wrote:
iyou. The only people to benefit from this war are teh share holders of companies such as haliburton


I see you conveniently left out the millions of Iraqis that ARE benefitting from this, not to mention the spread of democracy in a land of tyrany. Wink

Quote:
Going to war cannot end terrorism.


Letting the terrorists run ammuck isn't going to stop it either. Rolling Eyes

(You sure you're not from France? Shocked )
kcarring
I find it very interesting how the USA is taking such a strong position against Iran, yet in the past, the USA/Iran controversy has been so hidden/ambiguous. Heres an interesting quote from http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/armsgate.html


Quote:


How some of the world's most shadowy characters say they helped George Bus trade arms to delay the release of American hostages.
By Jani Roberts with John Kelly ©96JR outside Australia.

Champagne corks flew in January 1981 as Ronald Reagan and George Bush celebrated their inaugeration as United States President and Vice-President and the news that simultaneouly American hostages were making their way from Teheran to freedom.

Reagan staffers told the world that the hostages were released because the Iranians were afraid of Ronald Reagan. During the election campaign, their joke was: "What is flat and glows in the dark?" The answer:"Teheran - five minutes after Reagan gains office." The clear implication was that President Jimmy Carter had failed to recover the hostages because he was a wimp.

Right up to election day, Carter and his staff had negotiated desperately for the release of the 52 hostages held since 1979. Polls showed that had he succeeded, he stood a much better chance of winning the election.

Ten years on, a startlingly different story is emergeing. If it is true, then secret and illegal deals were done by the Reagan-Bush election team to delay the release of the hostages in order to discredit Carter. It is claimed that at a secret meeting in Paris, Iran was offered arms worth billions of dollars in lieu of assets frozen when the Shah was toppled. To arrange such a deal would be to violate America's own embargo on arms sales to Iran (as well as to have been an act of treachery unparalleled in US history.)

All of this suggests that the so-called Irangate inquiry that proved Admiral John Poindexter and Colonel Oliver North had traded arms with Iran for hostages in Lebanon could be an elaborate cover-up of a far bigger deal.

It has taken 10 years for a different version of events to emerge. Only now has the official version of events been seriously questioned. It is true that the men making the allegations are (mostly) shadowy characters and all of them have axes to grind, but each week the unofficial version gains momentum.

Even some of the hostages now believe that they were used. Former hostage Charles Scott and others who once appeared with Reagan on the White House lawns are taking legal action against the US Government for delaying their release.

The emerging claim is that the Reagan/Bush team did not trust the arms merchants and Secret Service agents who had put the nuts and bolts of the operation into place. Some have conveniently died while others were jaoiled on what they claimed were trumped-up charges brought by US authorities. Still others have just emerged from prison.

When Bill Hermann, arms dealer and former CIA and FBI operative, walked from a US jail he had a scarcely believable story to tell.


If any of the past dealing with Iran are true, and the US public has not be informed of what truly went on, how can we be sure President Bush is telling us what he is really up to, this time?
kcarring
I find the escalation of dispute with Iran very scary and possibly the start of something much more serious. Check this article out, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5021304.stm

Quote:
Russia to honour Iran arms deal

Iran's military plans are a matter of concern to Washington
Russia's defence minister has confirmed that Moscow intends to honour a controversial deal to supply Iran with surface-to-air missiles.
The contract for up to 30 missile systems would be fulfilled except in "extraordinary circumstances", Sergei Ivanov said, without elaborating.

He stressed that, because of their technical characteristics, the missiles could not be used by terrorist groups.

The $700m (£380m) deal, signed last year, has been condemned by the US.

Washington wants all countries to stop exporting weapons to Iran. Russia insists its short-range Tor-M1 system is purely defensive.

"As far as Russia's position is concerned, we strictly abide by all non-proliferation regimes, and when we hear reproaches that Russia is secretly helping Iran - it is just propaganda," the Interfax news agency quoted Mr Ivanov as saying.

He made the comments following a meeting with his German counterpart, Franz Josef Jung in St Petersburg.

Russia, along with China, is strongly against attempts to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran, which the US accuses of pursuing nuclear weapons.




One thing that does give me hope , though, is this:

Quote:
China tells Iran to cooperate with UN nuke agency
Beijing, May 31 (AP): _ China told Iran on Tuesday to ``resume full cooperation'' with the U.N. nuclear agency and endorsed a European offer of incentives to persuade Tehran to give up uranium enrichment.

``It is imperative to resume full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to restore the international community's confidence in Iran,'' said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

China and Russia have opposed U.S.-led efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on Iran, which Washington and other governments say is trying to produce nuclear weapons.

U.S., Russian, Chinese and European officials were set to meet in Vienna on Thursday to sign off on a package meant to reward Iran if it gives up uranium enrichment, and to punish it if it doesn't.

Beijing hopes the package ``can address the reasonable concerns of Iran in the peaceful use of nuclear energy,'' Liu said.

Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo will attend the Vienna meeting, Lui said.


from: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200605310324.htm
burlster
Quote:
I see you conveniently left out the millions of Iraqis that ARE benefitting from this, not to mention the spread of democracy in a land of tyrany. Wink


i see your forgetting about the hundred thousand or so tht have dies. 6000 thousand i think in Bahgdad alone since the turn of the year.

As for your point about me being French.. If thats all then ammunition you have left then I know Ive won teh argument. I suppose you are one of these yanks who thought it was a great idea to rename french fries freedom fries!!

If you actually bothered to read the post you would have noticed that i generally support the decsion in the UK to go to war. What i dont support is that monkey in the whitehouse telling everyone what to do. He is currently the scariest man alive! Although Rumsfeld and Chaney are doing tehir best to challange for top spot.

And dont me give me rubbish about iraq's enjoying freedom and democracy. Until the US actually discovers the meaning of teh word i think they best leave these kind of things alone. Dont forget Bush did not win the election which allowed him to go to war.

And as for the terrorist runnign amok. One quick question, which c=ountry is most responsible for arming them.. You guessed it my friend, the good old USA followed closely by the Russians, Chinese, French and teh my own beloved countrymen Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
burlster wrote:
Quote:
I see you conveniently left out the millions of Iraqis that ARE benefitting from this, not to mention the spread of democracy in a land of tyrany. Wink


i see your forgetting about the hundred thousand or so tht have dies. 6000 thousand i think in Bahgdad alone since the turn of the year.


Without COMPLETELY tearing your post apart, I'll suffice it to say you need to check your sources concerning who killed whom...

Laughing Laughing Laughing
nopaniers
Quote:
Without COMPLETELY tearing your post apart, I'll suffice it to say you need to check your sources concerning who killed whom...


6,000 is the number of dead received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year. The number of dead has risen each month, and was approximately 1,400 in May. These numbers come from the Iraqi health ministry, and clearly since many of the dead don't go to the mortuary, the numbers are probably higher.
nopaniers
I was extremely encouraged to see that the US have done a backflip and appear to be supporting the negotiations for once, instead of taking an unproductive hard line stance, rubbishing anyone who wanted to try anything constructive.

Iran has a legitimate right to peaceful nuclear activity. If they are asked to give up parts this right, then they need to offer incentives for them to do that. Access to the WTO, security guarantees and help with light-water reactors all seem reasonable. If this can be negotiated out properly, then it can be a win-win situation all around. Iran can save face, continue a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA inspection, and find new markets which will help with their unemployment. The US can save face, claim victory and pretend it was what they wanted all along, and Europe can be happy that their negotiation worked. The rest of the world can breathe a sigh of relief that a situation similar to Iraq doesn't unfold along with the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost.

I think there urgently needs to be a new comitment to the NPT. We should be getting rid of nuclear weapons and stopping their spread. There's no longer a cold war, and nuclear weapons don't serve any purpose apart the fear of from mass slaughter of civilian populations. Nuclear weapons are no use against terrorists, or any modern threat to the nuclear weapons powers. There should be clearer dividing lines between what is, and what is not, allowed in a civilian nuclear program for non-nuclear weapons states, and there should be real penalties for nuclear weapons states if they don't live up to their obligations to disarm.
S3nd K3ys
nopaniers wrote:
Quote:
Without COMPLETELY tearing your post apart, I'll suffice it to say you need to check your sources concerning who killed whom...


6,000 is the number of dead received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year. The number of dead has risen each month, and was approximately 1,400 in May. These numbers come from the Iraqi health ministry, and clearly since many of the dead don't go to the mortuary, the numbers are probably higher.


I'm not doubting the number. I'm saying that the US did not kill all of them. Something you clearly avoided while trying to make your point. What ever it was. Wink

Quote:
Iran has a legitimate right to peaceful nuclear activity.


True. But that's not what they're up to. They don't have a right to use it militarily, which is what most countries (other than the other terrorist and rouge nations) are worried about.

Perhaps if Iran didn't put so much money and effort into supporting terrorism, the US would have a different outlook on their stupid behavior.
burlster
Quote:
I see you conveniently left out the millions of Iraqis that ARE benefitting from this, not to mention the spread of democracy in a land of tyrany. Wink


id really like to see u tear my post apart casue i do enjoy watching poorly informed people,makes fools of themselves.

Where in my previous post did i accuse the US of killing 6000.. My point is if the war hadnt started the vast majority of those people would be alive.

I notice that you have never actually attempted to dispute one of the claims i have made other than a claim that i dint actually make. odd that, bit like US foreign policy.

Iran DOES have the right to use nuclear energy. NO COUNTRY has teh right to use nuclear weapons. The US and teh declared nuclear powers presume they have the right to use them, and even then most countries will not use them as a weapon of first attack. though strangely enough i BELIEVE the US has either changed this approach or is certainly considering the first strike option.

Just out of interest what is your reasoning for Iran not being allowed nuclear weapons.. Personally I dnot want them to have them cause those mullahs are a bitty nutty if you ask me. but i could say the same about North Korea (watch the US fold meekly when it realises it would get its butt kicked if it tried anything other than a nuclear strike on them), and most of the other nuclear powers really.

face reality. the only reason that America and the UK are in Iraq is oil, and the only reason that a war could go ahead with Iran is for the oil. Money makes the world go round. FACT
nopaniers
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'm saying that the US did not kill all of them. Something you clearly avoided while trying to make your point.


I was simply pointing out what the source probably was. 6,000 dead in Baghdad since the beginning of the year.

Quote:
But that's not what they're up to.


You are confusing your fears with reality. Iran says that they are only developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, not military ones. The problem is that the two things are difficult to tell apart. If you want them to give up their right to civilian nuclear power which could potentially be mis-used in the future for more sinister purposes then you can't just tell them "No, don't do that. We don't like it.", you have to offer them something concrete in exchange. Otherwise they have no reason to give up the rights that most countries of the world (with the exception of Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and North Korea) agreed all non-nuclear weapons countries have. If you don't like it then you need to change the international agreement, the NPT, which allows them to have civilian nuclear power.

In the mean-time you are in a bind. Being hardline and saying "Nasty Iranians must be up to no good." gets nobody anywhere. The Iranians are all the more likely to want to develop nuclear weapons, and the US only pushes international hatred and the price of oil up. That's no solution. That's a recipe for a new nuclear weapons power. On the other hand, in a negotiated settlement, everyone wins.
S3nd K3ys
burlster wrote:


Where in my previous post did i accuse the US of killing 6000.. My point is if the war hadnt started the vast majority of those people would be alive.



You're right. I confused this thread with another thread attempting to blame the US for all the deaths in Iraq. My bad.

Quote:

Just out of interest what is your reasoning for Iran not being allowed nuclear weapons..


Iran's public claim that it want's to wipe Isreal off the map and destroy (and has already planned where) "Zion".


Quote:
face reality. the only reason that America and the UK are in Iraq is oil, and the only reason that a war could go ahead with Iran is for the oil. Money makes the world go round. FACT


FACT ??

Kool-Aid ??
burlster
do u seriously believe that america is or was at war with iraq out of any altruistic purposes... Shocked

I truly wish that were believeable. however, history and evidence suggest not. America has never entered a war without any agenda. they turned up late in both world wars, but just about the point in time where the main protaganists were so weak that they were prepared to bend to the whims of american business, especially in the 2nd world war. (note im not denying the impact of the US in thtese wars, and the fact that SOME of the motivation was to preserve democracy)

However, since then American intervention is comletely dominated by money and the pursuit of it. there is a serious argument tht the entire cold war was motivated by teh buiness needs of the west, and in particualr the american military indutrial complex which needed and to an extent still does require a perminient state of war to remain strong.

Perhaps the only possible example of intervention motivated by anything but money is Kosovo, and even tehn it took five years or so of slaughter before the west could pull their preverbial heads out of their arses.

the only motivation for iraq is the immesne amount of money to be made by weapons manufacturers and oil companies, and i would suggest any war in iran would be motivated by the exact same things.

I confess i had forgeton the Iran president's statements on Israel, and i abhore the sentiments. However this does still not give the US, Britain or anyone else the right to go to war with a nation.
busman
S3nd K3ys wrote:
felisleo wrote:
us and his little brother israil keeps saying iran is a thrat to the world.why?


Iran is responsible for MAJOR funding and support of terrorist groups all over the world.


And so is the USA through the IMF (their largest contributor), The World Bank, Black Water ops (not held to the geneva convetions), the propping up of coporately sponsored dictators around the world (Mumbarek, Hussein, Noriega etc) and the funneling of money to charities which support variously evil causes (the guy who wrote the path less traveled was found to have been sending money to Uganda where they have been instituting a death penaltly on homosexuals). So the USA does it too... Whats your point? Because if that's the case, then the world should be at war with us right?
busman
S3nd K3ys wrote:
nopaniers wrote:
Quote:
Without COMPLETELY tearing your post apart, I'll suffice it to say you need to check your sources concerning who killed whom...


6,000 is the number of dead received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year. The number of dead has risen each month, and was approximately 1,400 in May. These numbers come from the Iraqi health ministry, and clearly since many of the dead don't go to the mortuary, the numbers are probably higher.


I'm not doubting the number. I'm saying that the US did not kill all of them. Something you clearly avoided while trying to make your point. What ever it was. Wink

Quote:
Iran has a legitimate right to peaceful nuclear activity.


True. But that's not what they're up to. They don't have a right to use it militarily, which is what most countries (other than the other terrorist and rouge nations) are worried about.

Perhaps if Iran didn't put so much money and effort into supporting terrorism, the US would have a different outlook on their stupid behavior.


Dude wow... are you like a FOX news bot? Baghdad has lost power, running water, sewage function back to pre 1950's era... there's a lot more involved in a war than just casualties. Not only inluding NOW overcrowded hospitals etc. You amaze me. You don't think for yourself it seems like. I'm not a liberal or republican but ya know what I don't like BS and sir you are spouting it everywhere.
Bikerman
The number 1 supporter of terrorism is the US - by a mile. Look at the list:
Muja-hadin - (later split into the Taliban and Al-Queda) - trained and funded by the CIA to harrass the USSR in Afghanistan.
Just about every right-wing terrorist government in South America for the last 40 years has been there with either US tacit support or, more often, direct military intervention. Sometimes this involved removing legitimate democratic government and replaced them with a right-wing Junta. That is why people like me laugh when the US talks about bringing democracy to the world.
Take a look around Guatamala, Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuala, Equador, Honduras, Dominican republic, Haiti, Peru ....the list goes on and on.
Remember Pinochet and the death squads? US put him in power.

Look at the US foreign aid budget. Whoever is top, or near it, will be engaged in some particularly expensive killing. For the last decade it was Turkey gassing and shooting the Kurds with US support. Before that it was Columbia - getting about half of US aid to kill it's own people - at the rate of 7-20 per day, every day. Before that - aid for Indonedia which then went on to commit genocide in East Timor, using US supplied arms. Before that it was Cambodia being bombed into the stone age which allowed Pol Pot and the killing fields.

As Chomsky points out:
Quote:
US aid has tended to flow to Latin American governments which torture their citizens. It has nothing to do with need, only with willingness to serve the interests of privilege. Broader studies reveal a correlation between torture and US aid and provide the explanation: both correlate with improving the climate for business.


If the US is serious about wanting to stop terrorism the answer is easy - stop funding it.
busman
Bikerman wrote:
The number 1 supporter of terrorism is the US - by a mile. Look at the list:
Muja-hadin - (later split into the Taliban and Al-Queda) - trained and funded by the CIA to harrass the USSR in Afghanistan.
Just about every right-wing terrorist government in South America for the last 40 years has been there with either US tacit support or, more often, direct military intervention. Sometimes this involved removing legitimate democratic government and replaced them with a right-wing Junta. That is why people like me laugh when the US talks about bringing democracy to the world.
Take a look around Guatamala, Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuala, Equador, Honduras, Dominican republic, Haiti, Peru ....the list goes on and on.
Remember Pinochet and the death squads? US put him in power.

Look at the US foreign aid budget. Whoever is top, or near it, will be engaged in some particularly expensive killing. For the last decade it was Turkey gassing and shooting the Kurds with US support. Before that it was Columbia - getting about half of US aid to kill it's own people - at the rate of 7-20 per day, every day. Before that - aid for Indonedia which then went on to commit genocide in East Timor, using US supplied arms. Before that it was Cambodia being bombed into the stone age which allowed Pol Pot and the killing fields.

As Chomsky points out:
Quote:
US aid has tended to flow to Latin American governments which torture their citizens. It has nothing to do with need, only with willingness to serve the interests of privilege. Broader studies reveal a correlation between torture and US aid and provide the explanation: both correlate with improving the climate for business.


If the US is serious about wanting to stop terrorism the answer is easy - stop funding it.

Bikerman... I like the way you think sir, or should i say espouse facts? Because that's what they are. From a former U.S. Marine and an ACTUAL fan of freedom and defending the ACTUAL constitution i find your views are often in line with the views of freedom and self-determination. I had actually posted pretty much something similar in an islam thread about how the western world has been doing the same to the middle east for a long time. Thank you for not being so ignorant as to not truely know your history even when its hard to find.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.