WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

Originally posted by yanchek

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?

Not to mention contracts for reconstruction of a country that they previously bombed to smitherine.

Halliburton? What a profitable bunch they are!

BTW, Muaddib, you say its true we havent found the WMD but the evidence says different, what evidence??
The same evidence we have that Osama is still alive and creating chaos but we cant find?
I think it would behoove this government to quickly find one or the other for good posterity.

Rich23, here is a better question.

Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

About the fleet of submarines they really just need one and they just test fired a long range missle from one of there submarines in the gulf. see below link

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Muaddib
The U.S. has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?.... Well, well, well...caught in a lie....

Muaddib, how thoughtful of you to drop by and lower the tone of the discussion, which was pretty civil hitherto, by accusing me of lying. Mods, please take note.

Firstly, we have the survey conducted by The Lancet, which is a venerable and respected journal - the pre-eminent journal of UK medicine, in fact - which estimated the death toll at over 100,000. That was published in October 2004: the data had been gathered earlier, and omitted figures from both battles of Fallujah, in at least one of which, let us recall, White Phosphorous, a chemical weapon, was used against civilians. Recent estimates have obviously increased the totals.

As for Iraq body count, they are known to consistently underestimate the casualty figures: not all deaths are reported by "recognised sources". This is from their website:

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

This sounds great, but it means that a great deal of data are excluded because they don't come from "recognised sources" and it only counts violent death. The results of disruption to clean water supplies and food supplies is not taken into account. I'd go with the estimate by the UK medical establishment and, considering that's two years old, and that security in Iraq is still non-existent for the civilian population, at least doubling that figure is not unreasonable.

So I have certainly not been caught out in a lie. This is, however, the kind of inflammatory language Muaddib watchers will recall from many previous posts.

You also exagerate and apparently would like for people to believe that Saddam was a saint

Now, that's just a gift. You accuse me of exaggeration and then say I'd like everyone to believe Saddam was a saint? Please, please, please point to where I said that. Pretty please with sprinkles on top?

As for the rest of your questions... off topic, I'm afraid, and already dealt with elsewhere. NEXT!

But of course you and your friends from the left would rather claim "oh they are not existant"...despite the tons of evidence which points to the contrary...

It is true that we haven't found the stockpiles of wmd but that doesn't mean they didn't have them, because the evidence shows otherwise....

Muaddib, I'm afraid you're becoming a cariacature of yourself. If you can't see that these paragraphs are frankly laughable, and that the second contradicts itself quite plainly, you need to take a break and lie down in a nice dark room for a while.

So nice for you to try to make another thread just to bash and blame the U.S. government.... Apparently you have no problems with lying trying to bring up an agenda ....

No, I'm actually trying to find solid evidence that Iran really is a threat to the US. People keep dodging this... i note that you too have avoided this question, preferring to accuse me (incorrectly, as it turns out) of lying - twice - and of (ooh!) having an agenda.

Still waiting for any solid evidence....

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
And what would th IIRC be looking for? The inspections for Iran would be to make sure that they are not developing nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons. So what is the connection?

And please give me a resource on the inspections team spies, I hadn't heard of that. thanks.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

edition.cnn.com...
Heres a bit about spies in the Iraq inspection team.

"Speaking at the Foreign Ministry in Paris, Blix acknowledged previous inspection missions "lost credibility by being too closely linked with the intelligence organizations of the West.""

How about the US developing banned biological and chemical weapons, I should have said that instead of nuclear.

Originally posted by tjsteeler
Rich23, here is a better question.

Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Perhaps to stop the imminent invasion by the US and to protect itself from Israel?

Originally posted by tjsteeler
Rich23, here is a better question.

Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Interesting.

First off, I have at no point said that I personally would like Iran to have them. I don't.

Secondly, I think that the whole issue of whether or not they have them is an issue that is being raised by the US and Israel to justify military action and/or regime change. I started this thread because the case against Iran (as I've said before) is so flimsy you wouldn't convict a criminal on it, let alone authorise the invasion of a country. Yet through the repetitive drip-drip-drip of the US propaganda machine, the idea that this tiny, ill-equipped country is actually a threat to the US has become real for many people.

Thirdly, if Israel has 200 nukes, then I can't actually blame Arab countries for trying to get some deterrent for themselves. If, back in the cold war days, Russia had nukes and the US didn't, wouldn't you want your country to develop some, and quickly? I'm not saying it's right, but I understand the mentality.


The US is not just the only country to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population, it is about the only country in the world that now seriously considers a nuclear first strike on another country and publicises the fact. It's interesting to me that so many Americans think their country has a God-given right to throw its weight around in the world and yet that other countries pose a serious threat to it... the US spends almost as much on its military as everyone else in the world combined - and that's without black projects being taken into account. And yet its citizens can get scared by the idea of another little country having a few nukes because the idea of nuclear terrorism is bandied about.

In the unlikely event that a nuclear attack was staged on the US, Iran would be the first to get the blame, and they know there would be horrendous consequences. With the US it's definitely shoot first, ask questions afterwards... and only the "right" questions, too. Look at what happened after 9/11. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, their paymaster was in Pakistan's ISI, but because Osama was allegedly in Afghanistan, that was the country that got invaded. The Afghan government asked the US to provide evidence linking OBL to 9/11 and the US took it as a personal insult rather than a simple legal formality.

Originally posted by rich23
..............
Firstly, we have the survey conducted by The Lancet, which is a venerable and respected journal - the pre-eminent journal of UK medicine, in fact - which estimated the death toll at over 100,000. That was published in October 2004: the data had been gathered earlier, and omitted figures from both battles of Fallujah, in at least one of which, let us recall, White Phosphorous, a chemical weapon, was used against civilians. Recent estimates have obviously increased the totals.

Wow, pre-eminent journal of UK medicine, The Lancet? never heard of it.... and as if people from "pre-eminent" journals and newspapers haven't been caught lying before.... anyways, the "hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the U.S. in Iraq" came directly from you, it was nothing taken out of context or exagerated... and yes, you were caught lying...or at least exagerating...

Why don't you show us this "pre-eminent" journal link that states that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of the U.S.?...

Of note is that you "blame the U.S. for hundreds of thousands of deaths" which is not true...not even that many people have died because of the "coalition" in Iraq, much less because of the U.S....

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by rich23
...............
The US is not just the only country to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population, it is about the only country in the world that now seriously considers a nuclear first strike on another country and publicises the fact.
..............

Humm...could you post a link where the U.S. government has recently said they are considering a "nuclear first strike" on another country?.....

i think you are confusing the U.S. govenrment with what Chirac said earlier this year....

Chirac: Nuclear Response to Terrorism Is Possible

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A12

PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."

www.washingtonpost.com...

The Washington Post is not good enough? ok, here is another...

Chirac prepared to use nuclear strike against terror states

Jon Henley in Paris
Friday January 20, 2006
The Guardian


Jacques Chirac said yesterday that France was prepared to use nuclear weapons against any country that carried out a state-sponsored terrorist attack against it.
In a speech aimed at defending France's €3bn-a-year (£2bn) nuclear arms programme, the president said the country's nuclear strike force was "not aimed at dissuading fanatical terrorists", but states who used "terrorist means" or "weapons of mass destruction" against France.

www.guardian.co.uk...

And btw, you want to blame anyone for Israel having nuclear weapons?... imagine who is responsible for Israel having nuclear weapons?.... I'll give you a hint...think French....





[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]

WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

So... can anyone answer this question for me?

I'm hearing a lot of hype about Iran being such a threat to the US but... I can't quite see how. Do they have nuclear-tipped ICBMs? No. Do they have a fleet of submarines ready to mine the harbours of US ports? Don't think so. Are they massing troops on the Mexican border, ready to invade from the south? Nuh-uh.

So what is it that poses such a threat? Who can tell me?

Sure, I can tell you.

Iran is a known and admitted state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran wants nothing more than to see the US and Israel wiped off the map, and has basically stated this, publicly.
Iran has a history of violence towards Americans.
Iran has nuclear capability.
A suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions is well within their capability. ICBMs are not needed to do this, nor is size of country a factor.

Any other questions or misunderstandings about how Iran is a threat to the US???

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, pre-eminent journal of UK medicine, The Lancet? never heard of it....

This is hardly a surprise. And in your world, a confession of your own ignorance amounts to a dismissal of the facts. In its Wikipedia entry, it is described as

one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, published weekly by Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier. It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as an arched window ("to let in light").

Here is The Lancet's website.

The article is no longer generally available online, but if you want to register with The Lancet yourself to get access to it, you can do so here

Why do I bother even providing these links? You could so easily have googled The Lancet yourself. If you read the article I shall be most surprised.

and as if people from "pre-eminent" journals and newspapers haven't been caught lying before....

I think you must be thinking of the New York Times.

As I have already established, the estimate of deaths is simply in line with The Lancet's figures, and other people are prepared to make the same assertion. Therefore it's not the case that

... the "hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the U.S." came directly from you, it was nothing taken out of context or exagerated... and yes, you were caught lying...or at least exagerating...

No. I simply think that the estimates by scientitst from one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world is likely to be more accurate and comprehensive than that of Iraq Body Count.

As for exaggerating, have you found any post of mine where I state that Saddam Hussein is a saint? You see, psychologically, one could consider this a classic case of projection, where the subject is prone to some mental habit, such as exaggeration, and, unable and unwilling to accept their own faults, they project the problem outside themselves, often distorting the facts to be able to maintain the illusion to themselves that they are free of this trait. I think you should take my advice about having a little lie down. That's three times now you've accused me of lying, and of exaggeration. You're obviously not quite sure which, now, and that must feel rather unsettling and confusing, I'd imagine.

Why don't you show us this "pre-eminent" journal link that states that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of the U.S.?...

Done. Have you found any real evidence that Iran is a threat yet, or are you still determined to drag this off-topic? After this post, I shall not respond to any more of your attempts to derail the thread.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm...could you post a link where the U.S. government has recently said they are considering a "nuclear first strike" on another country?.....

i think you are confusing the U.S. govenrment with what Chirac said earlier this year....

Oh, why waste an opportunity to bash the French? I bet you now call 'em "freedom fries" even if hardly anyone else does.

But of course I was thinking of this:

Published on Saturday, March 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say
by John Hendren


WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Sure, I can tell you.
Iran is a known and admitted state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran wants nothing more than to see the US and Israel wiped off the map, and has basically stated this, publicly.
Iran has a history of violence towards Americans.
Iran has nuclear capability.
A suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions is well within their capability. ICBMs are not needed to do this, nor is size of country a factor.

Any other questions or misunderstandings about how Iran is a threat to the US???

I think if you actually read the thread, I have dealt with each of these points. I'm looking for real evidence here, not supposition (as in the "suitcase nuke" thing).

If you can demonstrate to me that Iran really, really has a bomb - and experts think that it's up to a decade away (see, for example, this link) - can you also be so sure they'd risk annihilation to use it? Nukes - when both sides have them - are a deterrent against aggression, and until quite recently, this formed a plank of US nuclear policy.

Please read the thread. I have answered these points before and I don't want to repeat myself.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]

Regardless of what I stated above, I'm not in favor of a first strike or invasion of Iran. For one thing, it would devolve into guerilla warfare like we are facing in Iraq (which any analyst worth their salt would have easily predicted by the way). Should have toppled Saddam, installed a US friendly but Arab-accepted dictator and been done with it. You can't force democracy on people who don't want it.

The capability and willingness of an attack do not justify a first strike. As you said, it simply isn't enough to go on. The case for Israel doing a strike on Iran however, is certainly mounting, such as Iranian weapons used against them recently, but that's really Israel's call. If they do act, you can bet it will be a decapitation move (i.e. killing the leaders), and leaving the Iranians to pick up the mess, elect new leaders, etc. If they then elect a leader bent on attacking Israel, well, you'll likely then see another eventual decapitation attack.

Don't get me wrong, Israel is no good guy in all of this, it's simply how they're likely to respond if the threat increases. They've got just as much blood on their hands in mideast crises as their foes.

Don't kid yourself though, Iraq wasn't invaded because of terrorism, or weapons of mass distraction, or any of that (imho). It was simple economics. Saddam went to Euros and was trying to persuade the rest of OPEC to do likewise. Obviously, this represented a risk far greater to the US than random acts of terrorism, and of course necessitated his removal from power as a strong message. It would have been nice to see the shadows behind all this make a better WOMD case, if that was the excuse given though. How hard would it have been to plant stuff, jeez!!!

For us to invade Iran, there'd have to be more motivation, and it simply isn't there.
Unless some 911 scale attack can be linked back to Iran, I seriously doubt you'll see a US invasion of Iran. An Israeli attack on the other hand, is a more likely possibility.

The threat is their connection to terror groups and worries that they would give a nuke to a terrorist group. Whether the threat is real is another discussion, but I believe that is the percieved threat.

rich23, why do you consider a nuclear attack against the US mainland unlikely?

there is no reason i think,any countries that dislike you(US),you see them a threat
to youself.like Korea,Venezuela and so on.it just like some kids play games,and the
US is the strongest one,and he intitute rules,and the other kids must play game under the rule.but some naughty kids (Iran...)did not see the rules,they do things what they wish,and it made US angry,and he want to punish them.but some other
strong kids like Russia China and so on say why you punish them,they have right
to play with themselfs.so the US make hard to finds some good reason to punish them all the time,and he not find it yet now.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Iran is a known and admitted state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran wants nothing more than to see the US and Israel wiped off the map, and has basically stated this, publicly.
Iran has a history of violence towards Americans.
Iran has nuclear capability.
A suitcase nuke going off in Manhattan, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions is well within their capability. ICBMs are not needed to do this, nor is size of country a factor.

Any other questions or misunderstandings about how Iran is a threat to the US???

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Gazrok]

Iran is a known and admitted state sponsor of terrorism...
The US set-up the installation of the Shah under who, SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, tortured and killed Iranians. You think those who survived might consider the US "a known state sponsor of terrorism"?

Iran wants to see the US and Israel wiped off the map...
Based on a debatablely poor translation, perhaps. Even if we assume this to be a true statement, considering the treatment the US has rendered unto Iran, is their loathing difficult to comprhend? And is it so difficult to understand that, Israel, viewed as the US's proxy in the region, would share in this ill-will?

Iran has a history of violence against the Americans...
And visa-versa! By the way, the so do the British, the Spanish, the Germans, the Japanese...The list, it seems keeps growing.

Iran has a nuclear capability...
Iran has a nuclear power generating capability. Nothing else has yet to be proven.

A suitcase nuke...is well within (Iran's) capability...
Oh Please! Not even the most rabidly paranoid hawks within the Bush Administration have dared to make this assertion!


But Gazrok, you do bring up an interesting scenario: a small nuke is detonated in an American city, and Iran is blamed.

Might I suggest, by way of a post I made to a prior thread, the same scenario, but with a slightly different, perhaps more plausible, cast of characters?

I call it the "Remember the MAINE" ploy:


What if the "responsible party" is neither OBL/AQ, the Russians, or even the CIA/US gov't? (or Iran)

What if it's the MOSSAD?

Think about it.

Undeniable experts at infiltration, strategy, and military covert operations. The MOSSAD likely has access to what must be assumed to be "state-of-the-art" nuclear technology (in its paranoia, would Israel settle for anything but the best?); technology NOT subject to the strictures of the NPT. Technology which could include suitcase tactical nukes.

How many of Israel's nuclear technologists are immigrants from the former Soviet Union weapons programs? And with the "special relationship" Israel enjoys with the the US, wouldn't it seem likely that Israel would have access to US tactical research?

Does Israel have "mini-nukes"? Unknown, since they have yet to admit having any nukes at all.

Given Israel's geographical location, it would behoove them to have focused on tactical, rather than strategic nuke weapons: more flexible, easier to deploy, and less chance of suicide by fallout if used.

If Israel has developed so-called "mini-nukes", it is not inconceiveable to assume that the MOSSAD would have some access to them. With Israel's special relationship to the US, it seems "covert importation for asset preservation and possible future deployment" (smuggling), by agents of the MOSSAD into the US would be relatively easy.

Why would they do this?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And if I can convince my friend that we share an enemy (OBL/AQ, Iran, etc.), our friendship will be unbreakable.


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Bhadhidar]

Originally posted by TheDoctor
rich23, why do you consider a nuclear attack against the US mainland unlikely?

I know this is getting to be a long thread, but I have already said this: because they're not suicidal. As things stand, if any independent terror group were to carry out such an attack, Iran would almost certainly be blamed regardless - did Saudi Arabia get any of the fallout from 9/11? Most of the hijackers were Saudis. Did Pakistan? One of the high-ups in the ISI was their paymaster, and he was having a power breakfast in Washington as the attacks occurred.

The consequences for Iran would be disastrous. And they know it. However, if there is an attack on them, you can bet they'd draw the attacker into a similar kind of situation to the one now enveloping Iraq: and I think that if the US attacked, they might be able to make good their threat of suicide attackers on US home turf.

My point with this thread is that I think Iran are being built up into this year's Bad Guy and it's all to do with the PNAC guys and their need to make the world safe for Israel: I think they're following more or less the strategy outlined in the paper A Clean Break: Securing The Realm. A similar propaganda campaign has been mounted to the one used to convince everyone that Saddam was Satan (which, as anyone who watches South Park knows, is simply not true: he's just Satan's boyfriend.)

So, in a nutshell, to get back to your question:

a) they don't have nukes, and won't for the best part of a decade by respectable estimates, and
b) they're not suicidal.

Originally posted by American Madman
The threat is their connection to terror groups and worries that they would give a nuke to a terrorist group. Whether the threat is real is another discussion, but I believe that is the percieved threat.

Actually, whether the threat is real IS this discussion.