WAR: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against Iran Over Nukes

It´s ignorant to claim that iran is a dangerous nuclear threat to america. Bear in mind that usa is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons against other nation. Remember also that you armed israel with nuclear weapons. Look in the mirror!
-ap

Originally posted by mwm1331
In reference to oil whoever sad we can't trust the "camel jockeys" with oil is 100% correct. The middle eastern governments as a whole have not shown the maturity necessry to have control of oil. Thier inabiility not to attempt to use oil as a weapon against the west has brought this upon themselves.

The using of goods as a weapon is used by most nations. The US for example uses sanctions, freezes assets, etc... The ME countries have oil as their bargaining chips, just like the US is allowed to use sanctions the Middle Eastern countries have the right to use oil as a threat.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Iran, Syria etc. simply havent shown themselves to be civilised enought to allow thier continued existance.

LOL, and the fact that Iran hasnt started a war in the last few centries means nothing? The fact that civilization itself was created in the region you mentioned means nothing? You dont know anything about civilization or history (speaking to the person not a country).

This all being said, even if the ME didnt show they are civilized it is not your decision who should exist and who shouldnt, you are not God, no matter how much you want to be.


[edit on 18-1-2005 by Sep]

yeah sep civilisaton started in Iran, unfortunatley it hasn't evolved there since.
The fact is what was the achievement of the world three millenia ago is now considered hopelessly barbaric.
But don't worry the US will bring you into the modern age, bleeding and screaming if necessary.

If Syria and Iran are not "civilized" enough to continue to exist then I submit that it's time for the planet to vaporize itself. Islam was founded by satan for one reason, to overcome and destroy Christ. Those that follow Islam even unto judgment day will joint satan in the lake of fire.

Until Islam and all other vile forms of perversion and evil are purged from the planet there will be no peace. GW may be fulfilling the book of Revelation and Daniel. Those that "hate" him, fear the true judgment of their wicked lives.

yeah sep civilisaton started in Iran, unfortunatley it hasn't evolved there since. The fact is what was the achievement of the world three millenia ago is now considered hopelessly barbaric.

This is the quote from Cyrus the Great from 2500 years ago after he librated Iraq:

"I did not allow my troops to terrorize the land. I kept in view the needs of Iraq and all its sancturaries to promote thier well-being. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes"

Yeah that sounds like real barbaric acts. This act is by the way confirmed in the testiments. Now can you civilized people of the west say this about what you did to Iraq? Did you librate them and keep in view their needs? Did you promote their well-being? Did the Iraqis come to you kiss your feet and ask, infact beg you to rule them? I dont think so. Iran 2500 years ago was more civilized than most nations today and is still more civilized than most nations.

But don't worry the US will bring you into the modern age, bleeding and screaming if necessary.

Bombing a country, killing civilians, killing children and women, destroying schools and hospitals, destroying necessary items of living, taking away basic items such as electricity and water will breed nothing but hatred. What you are doing today will be held as "hopelessly barbaric" acts both now and in the future.



[edit on 18-1-2005 by Sep]

No sep because history is written by the winners. And there is no way the US will call itself barbaric.

Originally posted by mwm1331
No sep because history is written by the winners. And there is no way the US will call itself barbaric.

Peacefull people will always win. You cannot win anything if you continue war.

Originally posted by Sep

yeah sep civilisaton started in Iran, unfortunatley it hasn't evolved there since. The fact is what was the achievement of the world three millenia ago is now considered hopelessly barbaric.

This is the quote from Cyrus the Great from 2500 years ago after he librated Iraq:

"I did not allow my troops to terrorize the land. I kept in view the needs of Iraq and all its sancturaries to promote thier well-being. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes"

Yeah that sounds like real barbaric acts. This act is by the way confirmed in the testiments. Now can you civilized people of the west say this about what you did to Iraq? Did you librate them and keep in view their needs? Did you promote their well-being? Did the Iraqis come to you kiss your feet and ask, infact beg you to rule them? I dont think so. Iran 2500 years ago was more civilized than most nations today and is still more civilized than most nations.

But don't worry the US will bring you into the modern age, bleeding and screaming if necessary.

Bombing a country, killing civilians, killing children and women, destroying schools and hospitals, destroying necessary items of living, taking away basic items such as electricity and water will breed nothing but hatred. What you are doing will be held as "hopelessly barbaric" acts in the future.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Sep]

First there was no IRAQ before the end of WWI and the break up of the ottoman empire (a muslim attempt to conquer the world, AGAIN). So the Cyrus "quote" is BS.

Next there are over 7000 rebuilding projects in Iraq that are nearing completion. There are areas that have never had running water and electricity that have it now. Your ignorance of the facts is only outweighed by your hate of America and GW.

Originally posted by mwm1331
No sep because history is written by the winners. And there is no way the US will call itself barbaric.

yes, their own version of history, just like the nazis tried to write their own version in which the jews never existed!

Originally posted by DrHoracid
First there was no IRAQ before the end of WWI and the break up of the ottoman empire (a muslim attempt to conquer the world, AGAIN). So the Cyrus "quote" is BS.

I changed the word Babylone to Iraq for the fools who didnt know the diffrence, thanks for pointing it out. And my quote is from the Cyrus Cylinder, it is in the British Museum you can see it if you want.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Next there are over 7000 rebuilding projects in Iraq that are nearing completion. There are areas that have never had running water and electricity that have it now. Your ignorance of the facts is only outweighed by your hate of America and GW.

First: This has got me very curious, can you post an article that shows the parts of that didnt have water and electricity that have them now?

Second: The 7000 projects are being done because they were destroyed by the US. Us isnt doing them any favours, it is trying to fix what it destroyed. That being said, I respect the people on the ground who are actually there to fix Iraq.

Third: Dont speak to me about deep hatred after your post about how all muslims are evil and follow satan. I dont hate the US. I have my opinions about their recent actions, just like most other people

I have always supported the US and the UK (my own country ) in the War in Iraq. I myself am a reserivist and would in all probability end up bieng called to fight a war in Iran should the UK be asked to take part and the government supports said action against Iran. Even if the UK takes no active part in a War against Iran we will still have to commit more troops to Iraq to cover US action in Iran.
But im unsure as to the Military wisdom of an attack on Iran at this time. The situation in Iraq is far from stable and contrary to President Bush's statement of Mission Acomplished the War in Iraq is far from over. IMO an attack against Iran until the situation in Iraq stabalises would be ill advised.
I think, and i may be wrong, that in order to prosecute a War against Iran the US may have to re-instate the draft, and that would be hugly unpopular in the US wouldnt it? Again i may be wrong.
Realisticly i think Isreal would be the ones to strike Iran and the US Special Forces may be there collecting information for and Isreali strike against Neuclear installations within the Country. Also the flights into Irans airspace that we have heard about recently may have been do to test Irans Anti-Aircraft Radar capabilities for a strike by Isreal.
This kind of action makes more sense as the US could turn around and say " Hey - we didnt know the Isrealis were gonna do that, sorry bud. If we had known we would have stopped it " that way the US gets what it wants without having to commit huge ground and Airforces costing the US in lifes and treasure and the Isrealies get to project power in the region sending a warning to Eqypt, syria etc. The US can then turn around and say to Iran that any moves across Iraq airspace would be punished and as by this time time Irans Nuclear ambitions would be in ruins they would have no more cards to put on the table.
This is of course just my opinion so the US may still invade Iran but to do so may mean another Iraq situation in that Country that could drag on for a very long time.

[First: This has got me very curious, can you post an article that shows the parts of that didnt have water and electricity that have them now?]

"There are decades of limited or no repair of the electrical grid, and that's why we had early problems with the electrical system. It was not simply that the distribution system and the transmission system was being looted, which, by the way has stopped. We've repaired almost all of that now. It is also because the condition of the generating plants -- and I told them myself last year when I was there -- were in horrendous condition. The Iraqi engineers were geniuses at using bubblegum and scotch tape to keep these things together but they were just barely functional. And they would break down quite frequently, and you'd see power outages around the country prior to the conflict on a regular basis. "

www.state.gov...


[Second: The 7000 projects are being done because they were destroyed by the US. Us isnt doing them any favours, it is trying to fix what it destroyed. That being said, I respect the people on the ground who are actually there to fix Iraq.]

" What they said is, what we want to do is get work done. And if we can't get work done, we don't want to go even if there's a conflict going on. If you talk to our staff directly, one to one, without anybody else listening, they will tell you they are getting their work done. The money is being disbursed, the work is getting done. We have 7,000 projects that are either completed or ongoing in Iraq -- 7,000. So it is getting done. And so as we had people who had just come back from Iraq stand up and talk to people, say, yes, we are and we're very proud of the work we've done in all of the areas that I just mentioned. "


[Third: Dont speak to me about deep hatred after your post about how all muslims are evil and follow satan. I dont hate the US. I have my opinions about their recent actions, just like most other people.]

If a person is Muslim they must first deny Christ. Second Allah was and is a pagan God.

www.apologeticsindex.org...

Why is anyone surprized that bush won't rule out miltary action, iran is delevoping nukes with russia help as iran feels it'a being lined up for an invasion, it's seen afghaninstan, and iraq fall beneath the sword of the great satan. so the only way it can see of stopping this is to get nukes, and dear old mother russia is quite willing to sell anything and everything to the highest bidder. why??

Russia is has a poor ecomey, they need hard currency like a pot smoker needs munchies for all sorts of nice things like wheat, gas,oil,and iran is quite happy to pay top $ for the equipment and the knowledge, as im sure a nuke reactor dosen't come with a printed manuel on how your spanking new reactor works and a number to call if things go wrong.

It was mention eariler that iseral has nukes delevoped in secret, well not really that secret as i would put money on the dear uncle sam knowing about it, why did iseral want nukes, because it feels threaten by syria,eygpt, and every other middle eastern state as they see irsael as irsael, a police state, using assination and terror to put down any threat to it's own postion. and backed all the way by america.

Maybe if america didn't come across as the big bad bully of the world who out to steal all their oil.Then all these rouge states might sit down and talk instead of trying to kill each other.

But as george w bush belives he is the leader of the free world and if the rumours are true that us special force are already in iran and playing then we are only weeks away from some sort of attack on iran, maybe a bomber will float over the broader and get shot down by iran, (as it has a right to do, forigen miltary aircraft arn't supposed to be in it's airspace)

Then in you go. but in this strange topsy turvey world who knows what goes on in the mind of george w. and what he thinks about or is planning, you can be sure of this, we will be the last to know if they feel we need to know.

Disturbed Deliverer;
I thought you had some strategic perception but I see that you can also be a dealer in semantics.

"getting away" with something doesn't change the reality and substance of an act.

Claiming that Israel has never instigated a war is something that can be done only by manipulating terms and using double standards or worse.

In 1956, Israel conspired with Britian and France to attack (i.e. START a war with) Egypt in a machiavellian plot that understandably disgusted the world. Nationalizing the Suez Canal was the right of any Egyptian government. Demonizing Nasr for wanting to do that is to deny Egypt the right that any sovereign government takes for granted. Note the word "sovereign", not somebody's neo-colonial lackey.

You can try to claim that attacking the Iraqi reactor was not instigating a war but it was an act of war by any honest definition. If the role was reversed and an Israeli or the US reactor was attacked, would that not be instigating/inviting/asking for war? It would be labelled as such in a flat second.

You can try to wiggle around that but it would only be semantics and it is dishonest. Please, please don't insult both of us by trying. A discussion is not honest when people resort to semantic tricks. Nobody gains a thing except lingering bad attitudes and for me, that is just a waste of time.

The sabre rattling is coming from both directions now:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said, after President Bush said he would not rule out military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying Tuesday.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

In October, Iran announced successful trials of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles, putting parts of Europe, as well as Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, within reach.

Iran

mwm1331 says:

civilisaton started in Iran, unfortunatley it hasn't evolved there since

You obviously don't know a single Iranian person. They are a highly cultured and civilized people. Sadly, their government was dealt a criminal setback in the 1950s by the US / CIA meddling and assassination of a very popular leader who was replaced by the US puppet tyrant Reza Pahlavi. The current deplorable state of Iran's government is a product of US / CIA short-sighted greed induced meddling, murder, and mayhem where they had no right to be. Just like in Iraq and many other places around the world.

Dubya's new crusade to "spread freedom" will turn out to be just more of the same megalomaniacal Bull$hit. And who will carry the burden of this misadventure? The crushingly overburdened American taxpayer. The children of America who will be sent overseas to die. And the foreigners who will be killed by the US military in the process of "spreading freedom". Nice sounding words. In reality a bloodsucking leech salivating to drain the vitality out of this country! And not for the benefit of the vast majority of Americans who are nothing more than dumbed-down pawns in Dubya's and his handlers' ambitious designs.

Bush is a dangerous man. Dangerous to America and dangerous to the world.

[edit on 1/21/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/21/2005 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by mwm1331
yeah sep civilisaton started in Iran, unfortunatley it hasn't evolved there since.The fact is what was the achievement of the world three millenia ago is now considered hopelessly barbaric.

Wow, okay, put down the Rambo DVD and actually take a look at the culture of Iran and other countries. :shk: this is the exact type of world view that is the cause of many of the problems we have and will continue to have.

I find the presidents speech to be one of the most dangerous, I have ever heard. I reminds me of the saying, "Don't write checks your a... can't cash".
The speech has far reaching implications, our relationship with China, Russia and many other nations. To me, it is a lack understanding of fragility of world system. I don't think anyone thought a world war could grow out a single assignation. If the war in Iraq should spill over to Iran and Syria. Many long sliver boxes will be arriving a Dover.

Many long sliver boxes will be arriving a Dover.

And it will be the government's big secret because, as now, the news media will be prohibited informing the public of the truth and will be too timid to mount a viable challenge, again, as now.

Originally posted by FredT
Its an interesting double standard we have hear. Israel has nuclear weapons,

uh no, iran signed the npt treaty, israel didnt so israel is allowed to develop nukes, no double standard here.