| Quote: |
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran is expected to give its formal answer to a U.N. demand that Tehran halt uranium enrichment in exchange for a package of incentives or face a new threat of sanctions.
Foreshadowing Tehran's formal reply to the United Nations on Tuesday, supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei on Monday said his country will continue pursuing nuclear technology.
"And it will experience the sweet fruits of the move," Khamenei said, according to Iran's state-run television, IRIB.
In recent days, Iranian officials have reiterated the country's refusal to dismantle the program and warned against imposing economic sanctions.
"If the Europeans impose sanctions on Iran, they will damage all bridges behind them," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Monday, according to Iran's state-run news agency, IRNA. |
Source:http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.inspectors/index.html
It seems to me that Iran is going to play hardline here, knowing that the US would be reluctant to engange in yet another adventure in the mid-east, both because of budget but also political reasons. Sanctions are the most likely action and thus Theran will continue to pursue its lofty goals.Oh well, let them have their weapons I suppose... It's not like we can do much about it at the moment, trying to stop Iran from using nuclear weapons would only make the world more angry with us.
I agree with soulfire, I don't think that US can take more hate from the world. And this kind of action are what have make countries and people look at US with anger. I don't think in the force I believe in comunication and hopefully Iran will use this power in the good of the people of its country and maybe others around.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Oh well, let them have their weapons I suppose... It's not like we can do much about it at the moment, trying to stop Iran from using nuclear weapons would only make the world more angry with us. |
You're right. Lets just lay down and let them do what they want. So what if they make nukes. They won't use them. They wouldn't really try to wipe Israel off the map.
Would they?
They wouldn't really try to do all the things they claim they want to do.
Would they?
I got news for you, Soulfire... news you should already know. And it has to do with End Times and Iran and Iran's 'prophecy' and constitution. They honestly believe they will conquer all of the ME. It's their destiny. Why do you think they told hesbollah to attack Israel? So they could buy more time to finish their nukes.
| Quote: |
| I believe in comunication and hopefully Iran will use this power in the good of the people of its country and maybe others around. |
Don't we all wish that!Why is it the rest of the world is so reluctant to straighten out terrorism, or at least permit the US to?
I can image terrorism and nukes... and the world complaining among themselves that they didn't stop this earlier.
I agree that the US will only be hated more if/when we take action against Iran but who cares? We are not winning any popularity contests in the middle east anyway. We get blamed for anything that middle easterns do not like. When we help we are accused of occupying a country. When we do not help, we are accused of being rish, selfish, and uncaring. We will never please the masses.
I have little doubt that Iran will attach Israel if given the chance. Their leader is an extremist who thinks Iran is destined to do so. Granted the US mainland is much further than Israel but with nuclear technology, Iran could cause major damage without using missles. Dirty bombs are just one example. And guess who will be blamed for Iran using a nuke? Guess who will be expected to aid those impacted by a nuke?
I don't think IRAN will nuke Israel as long as there are Palestine nearby and more Islam country around.
perhaps Europe/US will first target
| crdowner wrote: |
I have little doubt that Iran will attach Israel if given the chance. |
They already have.I guess I should have been more specific. I have little doubt that Iran will attack Israel using nuclear weaponry if given the chance.
I am not sure that Palestine and other Islam countries will dissuade Iran. It is a wonderful thing to die for their god afterall.
I dont think thatthe US will do anything about Iran. Iran has a bigger military than Iraq and wont give up in 1 hour. And just bombing them wont do much cause they can then ruin all the oil exports and send stuff to Iraq and make it worse for us. they will prabably just get the nuke. oh well 
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Oh well, let them have their weapons I suppose... It's not like we can do much about it at the moment, trying to stop Iran from using nuclear weapons would only make the world more angry with us. |
Why are you conviced that Iran is making Nukes?! Is it because of thier religion?"Czar", I think your sig's too big. 
| The Czar wrote: |
| Why are you conviced that Iran is making Nukes?! Is it because of thier religion? |
Some think they've already got them. As for his religion, he bent it so far out of shape it's hard to understand. His desire to fulfill the 'prophecy' is fanatic at best. If you really want to know why Americans feel the way they do, listen to what that psycho in Iran says about us and Israel. It's not something we just pulled out of our ***es, although that psycho's face does remind me of one. Is it really rational that countries wanting nuclear technology will want to blow us up. Only the US has used nuclear warheads against foreign aggressors. Russia was real close. And Fidel Castro had warheads too. But even he didn't use it.
Personaly i hope Iran gets nuclear plants not necessarily missles. Because it will help their economy. If their economy is growing then their less unstability and less room for fanatics to have influence over the masses.
I belive that having a nuclear bomb can be also a way of not letting to global conflict. Look at this from that way: if both countries of the conflict knows that their opponent have a nuclear bomb, they are too afraid of starting a conflict - just to prevent from a nuclear war. In my opinio the real problem lies in fanatic terrorists, who may want to somehow use the plutonium or any other radioactive products to harm innoctne people...
Hopefully, no nuclear war will start, at least during our lives.
Best way to understand this conflict is to learn from history:
USA developed Nuclear technology
USSR followed it
India did it
Pakistan followed it
Israel did it
Iran is following it
Simple solution to this conflict:
All countries in the region, including Israel, should drop nuclear programs.
| Agent ME wrote: |
Why is it the rest of the world is so reluctant to straighten out terrorism, or at least permit the US to?
I can image terrorism and nukes... and the world complaining among themselves that they didn't stop this earlier. |
Err...probably because the US is both one of the largest terrorists itself and undoubtedly the largest sponsor and supporter of terrorism on the planet.
Have you actually read any histories of the last century; and the part played by the US in it ?
Do Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Afganistan mean anything ? Do you know the extent of Kissinger's crimes against humanity ?
Where do you think the Taliban got their training, weapons and financing ? Where do you think Osama Bin Laden receieved his training and support from ? Yup....the good old US. Of course in those days he was fighting the Ruskies in Afghanistan so that was OK.
More examples ? Remember the ghastly Pol Pot regime in Cambodia ? Where do you think he sprung up from ? Yep, the good old US again. After illegally bombing the country into the dark ages (whilst all the time denying it to the rest of the world and even to Congress - remember this was the Nixon presidency which was elected on the promise to end the Vietnam war - but, instead, decided to expand it to the neighbours under the wise guidance of Henry Kissinger (or as he is known in my circles, KissOfDeath).
By the time they finished trashing the country the situation was perfect for a revolutionary nutcase like Pol Pot to take control. In total around 2.5 MILLION died as a result of that little foreign policy outing. I guess the Iraqis should be thankful.
The US did actually say a few nasty things and rattle a few sabres in Pot's direction, which was nice, since they were responsible for him in the first place. No chance of action though....those Asians fight dirty.
All the while, and at the same moment in history another brutal massacre was going on in another part of the world. This was different, though, since this was being done by US allies and they asked permission first.
The Indonesians were even kind enough to wait until the US President and state department officials got on the plane before launching into their genocide in East Timor.
The US reaction ? It told the Indonesians to try and keep it as quiet and restrained as possible...
Tough words! Still, they must have paid attention because they only killed about 200,000 people. Surely the US at least pretended to be outraged ? At least they must have shouted and postured loudly ? No. Not a word. Not a comment, not a mention - until some journalists from Australia set the story humming on the wires.
Indonesian leader Suharto, the butcher of hundreds of thousands of people (mainly landless peasants) in 1965-66, and the invader, occupier, and mass murderer of East Timor from 1975 to today, is courted and protected by the Great Powers, and was referred to by an official of the Clinton administration in 1996 as "our kind of guy."
Not a terrorist then ?
More ?
Saddam Hussain. Naughty leader - gassed all those Kurds and is now being tried for it.
Ermm....this nastiness occurred between 1980 and 1988 and, at that time, he was a firm ally of the US because of his balancing influence on Iran. How many articles, UN resolutions, threats, comments or other outburst from the US media, politicians and public were made at the time about this terrible crime they now scream about? Have a guess. Hardly a word.
I suppose it's understandable though. As James Baker said at the time: | Quote: |
| Had we attempted to isolate Iraq, we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities. |
Good to see some moral leadership and democratic values in action.
Only when Saddam refused to follow the instructions of the US and dared invade Kuwait did he become a 'nasty man' who suddenly had to go. Before that time (long after he had already carried out most of worst attrocities claimed for him) he was not such a bad chap according to US officials.
In 1984 Rumsfeld met Saddam with instructions to improve relations,
despite chemical weapons use and sanctuary for terrorists.
They seemed to get along fine :
Then, of course, it was decided to invade the country and do what some of you now seem to think is a good idea - 'take on the bad guys'.
The problem was, of course, Iraq had never been home to significant numbers of terrorists because of Saddam's secular and harsh regime. It was also a comparatively modern, safe, stable and wealthy nation in that region (despite the propoganda poured out before the invasion).
Why was Iraq singled out in the search for Osama Bin Laden and the bombers from 9/11 ? For the same reason that Afghanistan was. They had no army of consequence left after the last invasion, they were incapable of putting up a serious fight and they were 'handy'. If anyone can find any other reasons then I'll be happy to listen.
So the country is now completely destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead, the economy trashed, civil uprising verging on civil war and major regional instability which strengthens Iran and Iranian influence across the whole area. Good plan!
Before that, bomb Afghanistan. Great idea. The US and USSR spent most of the last 2 decades destroying the country between then so a few more bombs and bullets don't matter. Ignore the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and not Afghani because Saudi has oil and is an ally. Even though it is one of the most repressive, undemocratic and 'nasty' states in the region, leave them alone. In fact make sure that on 10/11 all the Saudi royals are allowed to fly home before the CIA/FBI can ask them any awkward questions. It's a good job the UK didn't take this new strategy onboard during the IRA campaign or we might have bombed France. (Not that we in the UK have anything to be smug about - the US learned from, and took over from us as the chief terrorist power in the world).
I could go on and on reciting a litany of US inspired and supported attrocity around the globe but what's the point. Those that really see already know and those that don't see don't want to.
Heres a suggestion that might be a bit radical, but, hey, I may as well go the whole hogg now....I'll tell you what I think the US should do on terrorism. Stop training organising and funding them. Simple. You would reduce the number of terrorist in the world overnight by a very large number and the world would suddenly become a much safer place. Added bonus - no countries are destroyed, no civilians killed in huge numbers by bombing and missile attacks.....got to be a win win.
Chris
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in totalI would like to pick up on bikermans excellent post and say that US history is full of these kind of foreign affairs (as is any resonably powerful countrys hisotry). This form of covert state terrorism is rarely mentioned, and when it is, it is explained away with the benign intentions and philanthropic motifs of the perpetrator (US). Therefore western state terrorism, of support thereof is almost a non-topic in public debate, and it is only discussed in honest by "wild men in the wings", or dissidents.
It is often talked about the death toll of communism, and various number are being thrown around to make the point, but such numbers are never mentioned when it comes to western imperialism or neoimperial ambitions - good intentions (regardless of our actions) seems to apologize for the most ruthless behaviour, and the unfortunate death of millions are "regrettable", but not decisive. It is seen as "the white man's burden", to echo Kipling, to police and discipline the savage masses who does not share our enlightened views and understand their place in the world order - namely to provide us wealth.
Indeed the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as we should soon discover.
If they do get nukes, they won't be using them. Why? Because we have more, can shoot thiers down, and we have better delivery systems. If what they are really after is nuclear power, we could make a deal with them like what we did for North Korea in the 1990's. I personally think a firm stance from the rest of the world is what is needed, though the chances of that are slim to none.
This seems to be turning out like the bugs bunny cartoon where he keeps making a line in the sand and sam keeps stepping over it until he walks off a cliff. Only issue with that analogy is that I'm not so sure the one crossing the line is the one going over the cliff 
.
What would really solidify thier regime right about now is a war, they have alot of civil unrest. They are also spineless cowards who hide behind civilians, and us hitting them only makes thier cause seem more just to the average person(sanctions have the same effect). I say we just sit back and try to get the general population of Iran pissed at thier government. As long as we don't go to extremes to do so we should be alright. | Mannix wrote: |
If they do get nukes, they won't be using them. Why? Because we have more, can shoot thiers down, and we have better delivery systems.
|
That's a pretty nice thought, but not much actuality there. WHEN they get them, IF they dont directly use them, they WILL give them to a 'group' that WILL use them, like hesbollah.
These people are not smart enough to realize just how stupid it would be to launch nukes. IF they're lucky enough to hit one or two targets, the entire ME would glow for a thousand years.
| Quote: |
| What would really solidify thier regime right about now is a war, they have alot of civil unrest. They are also spineless cowards who hide behind civilians, and us hitting them only makes thier cause seem more just to the average person(sanctions have the same effect). I say we just sit back and try to get the general population of Iran pissed at thier government. As long as we don't go to extremes to do so we should be alright. |
We've done that in the past. It has gotten us the likes of bin Laden and others who we thought would be better than what we had.
One of two things will happen at this point: (in order of likelyhood)
1) Pre-emptive strike. When Iran gets close enough to a nuke, Israel will destroy it. Completely. ME problems will be temporarily reduced.
2) End of WWIII. Iran will get a nuke and then be destroyed (along with a few others who desperately need destroying) for being stupid with nukes. ME problems will be perminately reduced and the region will thrive
