Maths proves US won't attack: Iran leader

well atleast he makes his own conclutions ,

bush seams to have said numerus times that god is behind his deeds ,


that to me is idiocy

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Seriously, this does seem highlight that those in positions of power or those who possess 'genius' are also usually plagued with insanity.

So true, I can think of many, and look what happened to their empire!

Sigh. Another bizarre utterance from Ahmadinejad.

Yes this guy is as loopy in his own way as Bush is monumentally obtuse, but really, let's step back and gain a little perspective on the fever-pitch of US-orchestrated propaganda and media manipulation currently whirling about him and Iran--and for which he himself seems happy to supply further fuel.

If you can remember a few short years back to the presidency of the moderate Khameni, who Ahmadinejad replaced, analysts agreed that he was essentially a figurehead and a puppet--a secular face devoid of real powers used by Iran's ruling clerics to make their power more palatable to the masses. He was ineffectual and politically impotent.

Well, now he has been replaced by this bizarre, posturing character, and suddenly the Iranian president has become a mortal threat to international stability. I doubt that in the real centers of power in Iran, his utterances are taken with half the gravity we now project upon them.

He is the useful idiot. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by skyblueff0
hmm, I guess he forgot to add bush into the equation....

Yes, Bush only got a C in math...

The big question is why does he want to do any of this stuff? All the threats to their country are self created. Iraq at one time was their biggest threat and since that is long gone they feel they must saber rattle to anyone in hearing distance. Like saying they have reached their goal in making enough 235/238 to make nukes, and the US just calmly states nope…they have many years before they can do that. This seems to be their MO in everything.

I really feel that his math leads him to believe that if by chance he can get the US to attack Iran it would create the largest recruitment of fanatics in history that he will be able to unleash on the worlds. The other plausible reason is he knows that the US will not attack since we know their true capabilities and that they are really not a threat and so he looks big, tough, and strong in the face of the evil Americans…in other words just a political ploy to maintain strong support for his present and future presidency.


[edit on 3-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

it almost sounds like he has an ace in the hole,for a person to be that absolute,he has to know something we dont... (back up maybe?)

reply to post by St Udio


Pardon me, but how exactly is it that we are going to lose by not attacking Iran? Seems to me that if we don't attack we have a chance of leaving the middle east entirely (if Ron Paul wins in 08').

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Seriously, this does seem highlight that those in positions of power or those who possess 'genius' are also usually plagued with insanity.

Aren't they all..

Well... I don't know. My math works out the same...





It is possible the projection of insanity has been misplaced.

Appropriate metaphor, but hard to conjure-up a visual of GWB playing chess...with anyone, let alone winning.

Out-bomb Ahmadinejad?...absolutely. Out-fox him?...I don't think so.

The way I get this, the neocon goal has always been regime change in Iran...but they have avoided direct military intervention...for a reason. They could just as easily have fabricated a justification for invading Iran, and gone straight into Tehran but they chose the weaker, more vulnerable Iraq. The shortsighted strategy was simply; invade, and secure Iraq...establish a bastion of U.S. military bases...and the Iranian Islamic leadership would realize that it was in their best interest to cooperate. Didn't work.

The present strategy appears to be: favorably influence the ongoing U.S./Iran tripartite talks on Iraq with war rhetoric...or intentionally sabotage them. I do believe this administration has what it takes to launch an air assault on Iran...given the proper motivation. Economic strife on the home-front could be a trigger.

I disagree. The reason Iraq was invaded was precisely so it would remain a basketcase for a generation, thereby giving american military bases the rationale they need.

Ditto Afghanistan.

The longrange neocon goal here is actually picking holes and creating chaos along Russia's southern flank, making sure they cannot form an intact alliance with India.

If there is regime change in Iran, odds are it would definitely by anti-american, and probably pro-russian, to boot.

No, the goal is to keep Achmim-nedin-jihad on his electoral throne--as long as he stays, Iranian foreign policy is effectively neutered by his inflammatory rhetoric, which even scares syria. It keeps Iran isolated, the goal of the conservative agenda.

Besides, Iran with nukes isn't really a threat to the USA, or even Israel.

Haushofer-ian geopolitics predicts (ironic mathematic imagery) that an atomic Iran will attack another muslim state; probably syria, turkey, or a russian client-state. Throughout history, dictators expand first by attacking the neighbor that most resembles themselves culturally:

Napolean attacking Austrian vassal-states in northern Italy

Hitler annexing Sudeten and all of Czechoslavakia

Saddam annexing Kuwait

Sa'udi Arabia trying to annex Yemen

Syria trying to take Lebanon (or Israel doing so, for that matter)

The odds are overwhelming: when Iran invades or nukes someone, it will be a muslim state, headed by a conservative, but with a large liberal underground . . . .


History never repeats itself; but sometimes, it rhymes.

Good response dr_strangecraft. I've entertained the contrived chaos theory myself. It could hold some water, but in my opinion, only as a best-of-the-worst-case-scenario strategy. Naturally, the basis for regime change in Iran, as crafted by American military & intelligence intervention would guarantee the instillation of a pro-Western figurehead. Our history in Iranian politics, and elsewhere would bear this out. I believe that control of Iran always was, and still remains a vital necon strategic objective. In this regard, Iraq represents an additional failure for the administration, it's think-tanks, and the American people....but a definite victory for Iran, Syria, and to a certain degree, Israel.

I think most would agree, that Iran remains the great conundrum for this administration in it's effort to establish dominance in the ME. When King Abdullah issued an invitation to Ahmadinejad at last years Arab League in Riyadh, and chastised the U.S. for it's "illegal foreign occupation" of Iraq...he spoke on behalf of a growing faction of Gulf states. Clearly, Iran is not isolated, nor without public and internal support within the Arab nations...a growing burden for Washington. One could actually argue that 'isolation' is a greater concern for GWB, and the U.S.

I don't think the chance of Iran using nuclear weapons on it's neighbors is any more likely than Israel using them on theirs...probably less. Ultimately, I think a nuclear Iran is inevitable.

I appreciate the historical references dr_strangecraft. I'll throw them into the mix & consider them

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't see why one has to wait until Iran builds a nuclear weapon, mass produces it, increase yield, progresses in miniaturization and develops ICBM's in order to strike them...

The US has nuclear weapons.

The US mass produces nuclear weapons; with "increased yeild"

The US has mini nukes and ICBM's.

On your logic... if you were born Iranian... You'd be calling to strike the US.

Sri Oracle

reply to post by Sri Oracle


Except that the US participates in weapons inspections.

And avoids one-line posts.

Originally posted by downtown436


Pardon me, but how exactly is it that we are going to lose by not attacking Iran?

because world preception will say that the USA kow-towed to the Iranians rhetoric & threats...

understand that this is not just about 'power', but the preception-of-power,
and Iran (aka; Persia) is determined to thwart USA hegemony in the M.E.

and is itself, intent--on many levels-- to begin building the Persian Caliphate

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by downtown436


Pardon me, but how exactly is it that we are going to lose by not attacking Iran?

because world preception will say that the USA kow-towed to the Iranians rhetoric & threats...

understand that this is not just about 'power', but the preception-of-power,
and Iran (aka; Persia) is determined to thwart USA hegemony in the M.E.

and is itself, intent--on many levels-- to begin building the Persian Caliphate

OK, so you're saying that if the US doesn't kick the ass of every country that defies it, the US has lost? Where does that path end? total world domination? I think the world would disagree with you there.

As for starting a caliphate government, if that's his prerogative, he can do that with his own country if he so chooses. If other countries want to join him, thats their right aswell.

The world doesn't need your approval if they want to change their political stance. And theres not a thing you can do about it.

The US still isn't learning the one single message the insurgents, Al-Qaeda, and the rest of them have been trying to deliver ever since they were founded... LEAVE THE MIDDLE EAST ALONE.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
On your logic... if you were born Iranian... You'd be calling to strike the US.

The US is "allowed" to have nuclear weapons, Iran is not via it's own choice. The US is also one of the countries tasked with enforcing said principal...

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."'

That is odd, every time I run the above through my calculator, it displays the words "Bomb Iran" as the solution.

Seriously, this does seem highlight that those in positions of power or those who possess 'genius' are also usually plagued with insanity.

Actually I would say it's those who are insane that are more often genius, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

The US has nuclear weapons.

True

The US mass produces nuclear weapons; with "increased yeild"

False

Our nukes are 50s vintage, and when talking explosions bigger is not better for 8 15 kiloton nukes in a pattern will do a lot more damage than a 10 megaton or larger would do.

The US has mini nukes and ICBM's.

True

On your logic... if you were born Iranian... You'd be calling to strike the US.

I’m sure if they did and we didn’t they would… sucks to be second in the arms race.



[edit on 4-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by johnsky
[
OK, so you're saying that if the US doesn't kick the ass of every country that defies it, the US has lost? Where does that path end? total world domination? I think the world would disagree with you there.

The French and many other countries totally disagree with everything the US does, but they do want to kill their own people, takeover every country around them, and make nuke threats towards the US.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Prove that any of those comments are true without quoting a western media source that has an interest in seeing the Middle East destabilized.
I'll bet you can't.
Further, I bet you can't because it is in-fact impossible.

You need to stop swallowing all the corporate media generated propaganda.