US Debates Military Strikes on 'Nuclear Iran'

I'd just like to know how a nuclear power program is meant to equate to a military nuclear program

When you're sitting on a power surplus, yet want to start a nuclear plant, and have a history of warfare with your neighbors, yeah.....it tends to make people edgy, hehe...

Originally posted by Kollapse
Go ahead, attack Iran...one more step towards the end for the US.
Land of the Morons.

Hard for you to deny Ignorace, poor guy(kid). Why dont you have your location up? Oh, I no, you dont want anybody to know that you live in Yemen and not America!

[edit on 9/16/04 by Kidfinger]

- Maybe because the oil won't last forever?

(Especially when the biggest consumers of it insist on consuming ever more and more of it as if there were no finite limits on the quantity of oil there?)

but why not use or ask for help with nuclear material that cant be used in nuclear weapons? and why the hell are icbm's being developed(re: shahab 6) in iran? you know theres only one reason since they are working seperately with rockets for sattelites in a different program so it isnt for space..

- (Iran has recently had the inspectors in again by the way)

How about because it appears that no matter what cooperation Iran gives they are always being accused by those apparantly bent on creating hostilities?

What benefits have cooperating with the IAEA brought Iran? Even when the contamination was tracked down the first thing the USA does is ignore the findings and simply repeat the accusations.

Are you really surprised when they lose any remaining faith in the process?

really? when and what site? i know the iaea recently asked to inspect the parchin base and iran ignored them(its suspected of being a nuclear weapons research site), and whats up with the french, german, canadian, EU, and UN backed resolutions about iran not cooperating with the IAEA, and what contamination are you talking about? and its not about benefit, they signed the npt and are required to accept inspections and they are not cooperating, heck they even banned inspections at one point a few months ago(noones asked to inspect our nuclear sites and we arent banned making nuclear weapons plus already nuclear states arent required to be inspected so dont use the fairness argument).

faith? so what kind of excuse is that, i thought you said iran was cooperating and being faithfull to the npt? are you contradicting yourself now and saying they arent and they dont have to cooperate? boy you make your argument look bad doing that.

- er, you have got to be kidding? Who in their right mind would go to the Russians for their nuclear tech if western tech is available?

BTW the Iranian reactors do not produce enriched weapons grade plutonium.

The debate over enriched uranium is about something quite different and perfectly usual and 'normal' in the more efficient production of energy.

apparently iran because they are getting help from russia developing nuclear technology.

huh? plutonium and/or enriched uranium are required in nuclear weapons, the debate over enriched uranium is because plutonium is a byproduct of uranium being used in fission, enriched uranium produces weapons grade plutonium, nornal uranium does not but iran supposedly needs enriched uranium for power plants? thats suspicious.

- Perhaps because you live in the historically very volitile ME on top of a valuable natural resource next door to Israel (with a history of aggressive first-strike attacks) and have an aggressive USA (with a history of attacking Iran and interfering in Iranian affairs) stomping about the region on the flimsiest of reasons?

Maybe a completely disarmed Iran is what you think reasonable?

Somehow I doubt even that would satisfy some. It appears only occupation and a suitably repressive puppet state is an acceptable 'answer'.......till the whole cycle starts over again.

dont make me laugh, they were attacked by their neighbors and israel only has used first strikes when they were under threat or ike the 67 war where jordan, egypt, syria, lebanon and iran were building up forces to attack israel.

nuclear wise, yea, iran is an enemy so obviously its in our interest to do so.

puppet? our supposed puppet choices lost out to UN backed choice, the arab league supports the iraqi government too, how is the government our puppet? the cycle continues because people like you dont accept anything and attacks anyone who doesnt go by the kill the west,oppose anything not muslim stance(ie: secular governments).

Regardless of your 'what if' debate and however many 'yeah but just imagine if' arguements (or even the 'it's what everyone knows they want' proposition) you put up the fact remains Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and are nowhere near having one.

Not even close....and all the world's intelligence networks will tell you that....barring the Israelis and, of course, the USA.

But for all that I have no doubt that even if it comes to going it alone (and the US can forget any UK cooperation or contribution if they try this one) any war with Iran will be built on lies over their actual capability as happened with Iraq.

As I said Iran has been liberalising (hmm, 'liberal'-ising is that why the US right hate them so much?) the best way to stop that is to increase the tension and threaten them IMO.

There is no Iranian bomb and guessing about 'what ifs' doesn't make it so.

bs, they too are close to nuclear weapons ability, they are developing nuclear power technology, look at the historic pattern, the 2 go hand in hand in 99% of the case.

even russia, france, the uk, etc all think its the case.

iraq has more to do with bad planning, underestimating resistance, and never being in this situation(vietnam was different in many aspects), we are learning and we will apply new tactics if we do go into iran "if" and even so i doubt it would be a war, i think it would be surgical strikes on nuclear sites, missle and military bases only.

I say we send everyone who want to fight Iran to the war first!

Disabled, stupid or not, send them to war!

Originally posted by Gazrok
When you're sitting on a power surplus, yet want to start a nuclear plant, and have a history of warfare with your neighbors, yeah.....it tends to make people edgy, hehe...

Well, how many wars have Iran started in the past? How many US? Which country have used atomic weapons in the past? Now, which one of these two is more dangerous?



[edit on 16-9-2004 by Samiralfey]

Originally posted by namehere
but why not use or ask for help with nuclear material that cant be used in nuclear weapons?

- I take it you are referring to the so-called 'duel use' technology? This is a consequence of a more efficient power producing process, a by-product of this is a plausible 'duel use', however unlikely and (despite being usable and 'better' than the non-enriched alternatives) however far from an actual weapon this material is in itself.

and why the hell are icbm's being developed(re: shahab 6) in iran? you know theres only one reason since they are working seperately with rockets for sattelites in a different program so it isnt for space.

- I think you'll find they are developing IRBMs and satellite launchers.

really? when and what site? i know the iaea recently asked to inspect the parchin base and iran ignored them(its suspected of being a nuclear weapons research site), and whats up with the french, german, canadian, EU, and UN backed resolutions about iran not cooperating with the IAEA, and what contamination are you talking about?

- I suggest you go and read about the IAEA work (and not just the cherry picked bits you're gov and mouth-pieces in your press tell you about).

and its not about benefit, they signed the npt and are required to accept inspections and they are not cooperating, heck they even banned inspections at one point a few months ago

- Of course it's about benefit. It's absolutely all of our about mutual benefit or nothing at all. Wake up.

(noones asked to inspect our nuclear sites and we arent banned making nuclear weapons plus already nuclear states arent required to be inspected so dont use the fairness argument).

- Why should I use that arguement?

It hardly needs to be made when it is so glaring.

faith? so what kind of excuse is that, i thought you said iran was cooperating and being faithfull to the npt? are you contradicting yourself now and saying they arent and they dont have to cooperate? boy you make your argument look bad doing that.

- I think you'll find you make your own points look shallow using this kind of adolescent quibbling 'tack'.

The fact remains it is a matter of record that Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA. Try reading some IAEA reports instead of the spoon-fed propaganda.

Western - or should I say, more accurately, US - bad faith places that cooperation under threat. Sorry this is such a problem for you to grasp....but then that's a major part of what is going on isn't it?

apparently iran because they are getting help from russia developing nuclear technology.

- What is this? You hop from one unrelated point to another. Russian technical staff are assisting Iran but the basic nuclear tech they are using is not Russian it's western......AMERICAN in fact.

I suggest you go read about how it all started, where the Iranian reactors came from and how right-wingers in the 70's were happy to talk 30 or so reactors with the Iranian Shah's gov.

huh? plutonium and/or enriched uranium are required in nuclear weapons, the debate over enriched uranium is because plutonium is a byproduct of uranium being used in fission, enriched uranium produces weapons grade plutonium, nornal uranium does not but iran supposedly needs enriched uranium for power plants? thats suspicious.

- Enriched uranium can produce plutonium only if it is subjected to particular process.....these processes themselves require rare and difficult to acquire technology. One does not 'just' follow the other.

dont make me laugh, they were attacked by their neighbors and israel only has used first strikes when they were under threat or ike the 67 war where jordan, egypt, syria, lebanon and iran were building up forces to attack israel.

- Iran has never first struck anyone.

nuclear wise, yea, iran is an enemy so obviously its in our interest to do so.

- Exactly when did Iran become an actual enemy? This is new.

puppet? our supposed puppet choices lost out to UN backed choice, the arab league supports the iraqi government too, how is the government our puppet?

- Actually my point was that the US would appear to prefer a puppet regime as before....till the necessary repression that regime would use to maintain power inevitably provokes their downfall and the whole cycle starts over. Look it up.

the cycle continues because people like you dont accept anything and attacks anyone who doesnt go by the kill the west,oppose anything not muslim stance(ie: secular governments).

- The 'cycle is as I described above.

....and don't be so childishly absurd. I have done nothing but spoken my mind. Stop putting up these ridiculous 'arguements'. Where did I say anything remotely like that?

I oppose those who use BS arguement and outright ignorant lies to justify their aggression.

If this is meant to be a 'case for war' it is far from convincing......and the reaction of the rest of the world - should the USA persue this - should leave you in no doubt.

But, if you guys insist on becoming a pariah state go ahead. I am just staggered that it has come to this. From the vast well of sympathy following 9/11 to standing on the verge of becoming a pariah. How did Bush 'accomplish' that?

You seem under the impression that I favour a 'kill the west' idea?! LMAO! I can tell you, as a 'westerner', that is absolutely not my position. It may also come as news to you but the USA is not the entire 'west' either, just a part of it.

BTW I think you'll find mis-representation of another posters points isn't tolerated here....particularly a mis-representation as idiotic as you've just made.

bs, they too are close to nuclear weapons ability,

- What is this, an article of faith? No evidence required? Or maybe some more of the fabricated Iraqi-type stuff will suffice?

they are developing nuclear power technology, look at the historic pattern, the 2 go hand in hand in 99% of the case.

- Just because that has been true in some cases does not make it universal. That was the whole point about engagement and inspections - which you lot are in the process of blowing (in a manner you'd be pushed to try harder at) IMO.

even russia, france, the uk, etc all think its the case.

- Well no they don't actually. That simply is not true. Where are you getting this from?

The last announcements by those countries was to attempt to get Iran to agree a series of undertakings to specifically to demonstrate to the world that they were not doing what the USA claimed they were doing.....that is entirely different to your claim.

Then the USA turned round with a load more aggressive rhetoric and demands which in turn provoked Iran to say get lost.

Way to go guys. That really helped. Cor, anyone would think yous didn't want Iranian compliance.

iraq has more to do with bad planning, underestimating resistance, and never being in this situation

- The occupation of Iraq had everything to do with being planned long long before it happened. The actual war was planned - however badly - much later.

(vietnam was different in many aspects), we are learning and we will apply new tactics if we do go into iran "if" and even so i doubt it would be a war, i think it would be surgical strikes on nuclear sites, missle and military bases only.

- I imagine that is how things might start. Whether things remain so neat and tidy will be seen.

I hope you're ready for drafting cos US attitudes certainly seem to point to it being required at some point if you carry on with this kind of 'diplomacy'.











[edit on 17-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Kollapse
Go ahead, attack Iran...one more step towards the end for the US.
Land of the Morons.

Hard for you to deny Ignorace, poor guy(kid). Why dont you have your location up? Oh, I no, you dont want anybody to know that you live in Yemen and not America!

[edit on 9/16/04 by Kidfinger]

sweden

(Especially when the biggest consumers of it insist on consuming ever more and more of it as if there were no finite limits on the quantity of oil there?)

Yeah, Yeah we'll be on empty in 6 months tops-I heard that in the '70's too. (Chant after me, We hate the US, We hate the US)


"What benefits have cooperating with the IAEA brought Iran? Even when the contamination was tracked down the first thing the USA does is ignore the findings and simply repeat the accusations. "

I know, I'm always finding highly enriched weapons grade uranium lying about somewhere. Contamination is such a pesky little issue.

"Are you really surprised when they lose any remaining faith in the process?"

I'd be more surprised if one of these little religous theocracies would progress out of the 7th Century without being...progressed.

"- er, you have got to be kidding? Who in their right mind would go to the Russians for their nuclear tech if western tech is available?"

Russian, French, German, western, whatever. We made the deal with Korea to just this sort of thing. Of course look what we got for playing nicey-nice with Uncle Kim. (and he's not trying to make a bomb either-keeping telling yourself that-you'll sleep better)

There is no logic to your point here at all. Just because they don't buy Russian is no reason to claim it is to produce weapons.

There is a perfet logic. Why reinvent the wheel if all you are trying to do is generate electricity? Why spend all the money when you could buy the technology-unless of course you want to have the capability of producing fissionable material...

"BTW the Iranian reactors do not produce enriched weapons grade plutonium."

Your point?

"quote: Why would you develop fairly inaccurate IRBM's to carry conventional warheads?"

Of what possible military value is an IRBM with a 500# conventional payload with a CEP of 2500'? You'd have to lanch 20-25 to have a 90% kill probability on a fixed target! Then again if you had a low yield nuke on the end of it...

"- Perhaps because you live in the historically very volitile ME on top of a valuable natural resource next door to Israel (with a history of aggressive first-strike attacks)"

OK, exactly which war did Israel start in the Middle East? What is making the region so volitile? (answer that if you dare)

"and have an aggressive USA (with a history of attacking Iran and interfering in Iranian affairs)"

Which history are you referring to? I've been in the military since the Shah was diposed and I don't remember any attack on Iran, unless you want to call Operation Eagle Claw an attack?

"stomping about the region on the flimsiest of reasons?"

Flimsy little reasons like Iraq invading Kuwait and threatening SA? Reasons like being asked by our allies in the region? Reasons like ARAB terrorists flying jetliners into our cities, or bombing military barracks, or Navy ships, or our Embassies....yeah, pretty darn flimsy.


Maybe a completely disarmed Iran is what you think reasonable?

No, unfortunately they need a balance with other players in the region with the exception of Israel. Why does Israel get the special status? Because since thier countries inception, every Arab state in the region has sworn to destroy them. The only possible exception is Egypt, and you can ask Anwar Sadat what that will get you. The only thing that would make the rank and file Arab nation happy is for every Israeli citizen to be marched into the Med. BTW, we shouldn't confuse Arab with Iranian-they don't.

"Somehow I doubt even that would satisfy some. It appears only occupation and a suitably repressive puppet state is an acceptable 'answer'.......till the whole cycle starts over again."

No, a nation that allowed its' citizens reasonable human rights without a fixation on acquiring weapons to destroy its' neighbors would satisfy me just fine.

"Just like the 'everybody knew/knows' line over Iraq turned out to be false I believe this is similar."

We found remnants of Chem/Bio programs and a few weapons-capable of killing 250K or so-everyone seems to ignore that. I'll wager the rest went to Syria. Conversely, the whole mess could have been buried under a good sized sand dune in an area the size of California.

"But for all that I have no doubt that even if it comes to going it alone (and the US can forget any UK cooperation or contribution if they try this one) any war with Iran will be built on lies over their actual capability as happened with Iraq."

True. Blair can't take any more heat on the mideast. Unfortunate-he's a danm fine man. Funny about the "lies" though, British Intel was saying the same thing weren't they?

"As I said Iran has been liberalising (hmm, 'liberal'-ising is that why the US right hate them so much?) the best way to stop that is to increase the tension and threaten them IMO. "

The American "right wing" doesn't hate anyone. I'm part of the American right wing and I don't hate anyone either. I would love to see happy prosperous Iranians going about their own business and minding their own country.

"There is no Iranian bomb and guessing about 'what ifs' doesn't make it so."

You are exactly right-there isn't an Iranian bomb-and there won't be one either under the current regime'. Take that to the bank.

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
Yeah, Yeah we'll be on empty in 6 months tops-I heard that in the '70's too.

- so you think the resource is just infinite then?

(Chant after me, We hate the US, We hate the US)

- Naaa, just a certain 'type' within the US; afterall so many of us have US relations.

I know, I'm always finding highly enriched weapons grade uranium lying about somewhere. Contamination is such a pesky little issue.

- Whatever.

The fact is the specks turned out to be contamination....from a guy from Pakistan....who got it from a nuclear program the US approved of.

Specks of contamination do not equal a bomb.

I'd be more surprised if one of these little religous theocracies would progress out of the 7th Century without being...progressed.

- Well go read about it. It's been happening in Iran until the outside 'pressure' and atmosphere of threat gave the fundys unexpected support.

Russian, French, German, western, whatever.

- Naaa, try American.

The Iranian reactors you are so upset about are AMERICAN.

We made the deal with Korea to just this sort of thing. Of course look what we got for playing nicey-nice with Uncle Kim. (and he's not trying to make a bomb either-keeping telling yourself that-you'll sleep better)

- Yeah, things were working with NK then you wheeled out the aggressive posturing and surprise surprise the wheels came off. Well done US 'right', great results.

There is a perfet logic. Why reinvent the wheel if all you are trying to do is generate electricity? Why spend all the money when you could buy the technology-unless of course you want to have the capability of producing fissionable material...

- Well considering the nuclear tech was sourced in America the type and capabilities of the reator should be well known to you guys.

Why did the US start all this if this is all about 'reinventing the wheel' etc etc. Why was the USA discussing 30 reators with the Shah if they're just all about nuclear weapons?

Your point?

- That weapons from plutonium are far more likely than from enriched uranium.

Of what possible military value is an IRBM with a 500# conventional payload with a CEP of 2500'? You'd have to lanch 20-25 to have a 90% kill probability on a fixed target! Then again if you had a low yield nuke on the end of it...

- I'd have thougt the point of such an IRBM obvious, they're cheap, mobile, they'd be used if Israel attacked and Israel hates and fears them.

OK, exactly which war did Israel start in the Middle East? What is making the region so volitile? (answer that if you dare)

- Iran has never first struck anyone. Israel has struck on several occassions without the 'reason' of there being a war.

Which history are you referring to? I've been in the military since the Shah was diposed and I don't remember any attack on Iran, unless you want to call Operation Eagle Claw an attack?

- The US has been up to all sorts in the ME, as far as Iran itself is concerned they supported the brutally repressive regime of the Shah both militarily and technically for decades.....and here's where all this nuclear stuff began.

Flimsy little reasons like Iraq invading Kuwait

- Yeah like Bush mk1 gave the go ahead to; unwittingly or not.

and threatening SA?

- Yeah right. Still no signs of those satellite photos showing Iraqi troops massing on the SA border, hmm?

Reasons like being asked by our allies in the region? Reasons like ARAB terrorists flying jetliners into our cities, or bombing military barracks, or Navy ships, or our Embassies....yeah, pretty darn flimsy.

- I have not claimed the US was not attacked. But these 'reasons' do not justify the war.

No, unfortunately they need a balance with other players in the region with the exception of Israel. Why does Israel get the special status? Because since thier countries inception, every Arab state in the region has sworn to destroy them. The only possible exception is Egypt, and you can ask Anwar Sadat what that will get you. The only thing that would make the rank and file Arab nation happy is for every Israeli citizen to be marched into the Med. BTW, we shouldn't confuse Arab with Iranian-they don't.

- IMO if the Palestinian issue was settled honourably the threat to Israel would go with it.

No, a nation that allowed its' citizens reasonable human rights without a fixation on acquiring weapons to destroy its' neighbors would satisfy me just fine.

- Iaran has never attacked anyone where is this 'fixation' supposed to be?

We found remnants of Chem/Bio programs and a few weapons-capable of killing 250K or so-everyone seems to ignore that.

- Frankly I don't believe a word of that. The international inspectors have saidd there were none; no one has turned anything up beyond the odd shell and even the final crew of Bush's US hand-picked inspectors say everything was destroyed first time around, having found nothing.

I think there has been a very handy and deliberately encouraged confusing of what happened before and now. No one says there weren't WMDs before...hell the US sold a lot of the tech so how could you not know that? The fact remains not a single WMD has been found to date.....and that's it, game over, anything turned up magically now (just before the US election) would have zero credibility before the eyes of the world....and for many many Americans too ('cept of course the Bush 'believe anything they say' zealot crowd).

I'll wager the rest went to Syria.

- Considering this is based on baseless hearsay and an 'intelligence service' desparate to explain their utter failure to date I'd hang fire on this one myself.

No doubt it'll be part of the attempt to justify an attack on Syria one day. Funnily enough I'd wager with exactly the same result. Zip found at the end of it all.

Conversely, the whole mess could have been buried under a good sized sand dune in an area the size of California.

- Why would anyone do that? If you're describing the 'pre-cursor material' that is not a WMD anyway and that is no way to store them and even if the WMDs themselves existed they be destroyed in that kind of environment anyway. That idea makes no sense.

What are they meant to be doing? Hoping some survive and 'bequeathing' them to the next regime in the hope they'll carry on the fight - and just work out how to handle and deliver them!? As if.

True. Blair can't take any more heat on the mideast. Unfortunate-he's a danm fine man. Funny about the "lies" though, British Intel was saying the same thing weren't they?

- Yeah; there has been a right old 'round robin' of who said what. Handy that. Trouble is we in the UK now now most of it was, at root, US sourced. We even had a House of Commons report on the parlous state of our intelligence services and their reliance on US sourced materials......about 3mths before Hutton etc etc.

We - and Blair - were led by the nose and we now know it.....and the UK public will not forget it in a hurry either you can be assured of that. Blair will win the next election (handsomely) but there'll be no more war for Britain.

The American "right wing" doesn't hate anyone.

- Well I'm sorry but they give a damn good impression of being unable to tolerate anyone with views at variance to their own.

I'm part of the American right wing and I don't hate anyone either.

- That's nice to hear (and I don't doubt you as an individual).

I would love to see happy prosperous Iranians going about their own business and minding their own country.

- I'm glad to hear that and I think you'll find that positive engagement will produce this far far faster and better than pressure and threats which will only serve to keep their deepest conservative elements in power, bombing their country back to a pre-20th century state isn't going to be much of an answer for anyone either.

You are exactly right-there isn't an Iranian bomb-and there won't be one either under the current regime'. Take that to the bank.

- Given your approach I'd suggest that is the one way to make them getting one/some likely.

What then?

Its pretty funny to see how the outside world views iran, take a trip to tehran you might be surprised. For one let me tell you, ARAB terrorists are not Iranian Terrorrist, main reason for tham might have to do with the fact that iranians are not arabs. Why would iran have missles, lets think, casue iraq (killed 1 million Iranians) not to mention every other arab country who dislikes persians and isreal, i guess thats some damn good reason. Iran has never attacked another country first, they have never started a war. I was just looking at pictures of Tehran one picture was of a store there selling shoes, guess what colours they where? Red White And Blue, int he patter of the american flag, they hate you so much they import your shoes and sell them, thats hate at it worst.

All you people who scream for bombs are just scared people, walking around scared of an assualt, if you belive so highly in a war then go to war, see for your self what it like, and then when you have a bullet lodged in your chest and are dying in the sand as mortar shots go off you can really think if you a truly ready to die for your country, how far are you PERSONALLY going to take it.

Iran will kill a hell of a lot more people than iraq did, its almost 4 times the population not to mention has better equipment then iraq. My famiily lives in iran and not one of them hate america, go ahead though start your war, if there is a war i hope every hostile force that sets foot on that land realizes the true power of the persian people, i hope every one is struck to the point where they will suffer nightmares and are scarred for life. Persia defeated the romans, do your worst, you army is not even close to 1.5 million men, how do you expect to fight a force that is willing to use 1 million men as a wall? American always under estimates the enemy, Vietnam,Korea,Iraq and now iran.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by zi2525]

Is it the black gold again or wot !

Iran, Enemy, Nukes = Attack

NK, Enemy, Nukes(possible test) = EEEmmmm Nothing.

Double standards i say.

Forget the countries with nukes its the madmen you need to worry about

did someone shout bush there?

Unfortunatley Sninkey I don't have the time to debate you further on this topic and can put about two minutes into this post.

I glad to hear that we both apparently want the same outcome, but differ on the path to get there. (that's usually true of Conservatives and Liberals)

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the subject.

I will of course remind you that the same type of debate was taking place in 1939-albiet the enemy was of entirely different and I'm not comparing the situation apples to apples-only in theme.

Had it not been for the evil, warmongering US, we would not be having this conversation. You'd be speaking German. We were right in what we did then. Appeasement and negotiations would not/did not stop Hitler. The biggest mistake we made was waiting until 1941 to join our allies. Our enemies declared war on us on September 11th-and we didn't ask for it.

Iraq and Iran openly support terrorists-I hope we can agree on that. Therefore, the regimes are legitamite military targets-IMHO.

fight islam to tame islam


islam

Oey I don't think it is Iran you are fighting. finding the enemy helps if one wants to win the war.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
This is not surprising to me in the least. I have said time and again, and will stick with my belief, Iraq is but a mere stepping stone in the war on Islamofacist terrorism. Those who think the deaths of a thousand U.S. troops are a great and unacceptable number to further the cause of freedom and democracy worldwide ain't seen nothin yet.

Hey, who said that? "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"

The enemy has gravely underestimated the true spirit of the U.S. patriot, and having declared war on the United States, is reaping that which he has sown.

It is clear, either the Iranian cooperate, and shut down the nuke program they currently have, or the U.S. and/or the Israelis, will without question take 'em out.

so war on Islamofacist terrorism is won if Iran stops enriching uranium right?

Originally posted by zi2525
Its pretty funny to see how the outside world views iran, take a trip to tehran you might be surprised. For one let me tell you, ARAB terrorists are not Iranian Terrorrist, main reason for tham might have to do with the fact that iranians are not arabs. Why would iran have missles, lets think, casue iraq (killed 1 million Iranians) not to mention every other arab country who dislikes persians and isreal, i guess thats some damn good reason. Iran has never attacked another country first, they have never started a war. I was just looking at pictures of Tehran one picture was of a store there selling shoes, guess what colours they where? Red White And Blue, int he patter of the american flag, they hate you so much they import your shoes and sell them, thats hate at it worst.

All you people who scream for bombs are just scared people, walking around scared of an assualt, if you belive so highly in a war then go to war, see for your self what it like, and then when you have a bullet lodged in your chest and are dying in the sand as mortar shots go off you can really think if you a truly ready to die for your country, how far are you PERSONALLY going to take it.

Iran will kill a hell of a lot more people than iraq did, its almost 4 times the population not to mention has better equipment then iraq. My famiily lives in iran and not one of them hate america, go ahead though start your war, if there is a war i hope every hostile force that sets foot on that land realizes the true power of the persian people, i hope every one is struck to the point where they will suffer nightmares and are scarred for life. Persia defeated the romans, do your worst, you army is not even close to 1.5 million men, how do you expect to fight a force that is willing to use 1 million men as a wall? American always under estimates the enemy, Vietnam,Korea,Iraq and now iran.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by zi2525]

Superb post.

It's just another example of how many of us Americans really know nothing that is not American. I could go to a high school class here in Georgia and most of them would say Iranians are Arabic.

I still stand by my proposition that we send anybody who wants U.S. to invade Iran to sign up for service today!

Remember: Service Guarantees Citizenship!

Its not the average Iranian I am worried about, I am sure they are good people, hard working, caring.

Its the Iranian government that worries me the most!
links

Rogue governments that support international terrorism
www.infoplease.com...

Iran, terrorists, and nuclear weapons
www.right-magazine.com...

Iran, terrorists and nukes
www.nci.org...

Iran Cosponsors Al-Qaeda Terrorism
www.insightmag.com...

More Terror Expected from Iran-Backed Hizballah Bid for Control of Gaza Strip
www.debka.com...

Tehran government hiding Al Qaeda members
www.cnn.com...

If Iran is not checked, nuclear terror is next
www.iht.com...

Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
www.state.gov...

States That Sponsor Terrorism
www.capmag.com...

Unfortunatley Sninkey I don't have the time to debate you further on this topic and can put about two minutes into this post.

I glad to hear that we both apparently want the same outcome, but differ on the path to get there. (that's usually true of Conservatives and Liberals)

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the subject.

I will of course remind you that the same type of debate was taking place in 1939-albiet the enemy was of entirely different and I'm not comparing the situation apples to apples-only in theme.

Had it not been for the evil, warmongering US, we would not be having this conversation. You'd be speaking German. We were right in what we did then. Appeasement and negotiations would not/did not stop Hitler. The biggest mistake we made was waiting until 1941 to join our allies. Our enemies declared war on us on September 11th-and we didn't ask for it.

Iraq and Iran openly support terrorists-I hope we can agree on that. Therefore, the regimes are legitamite military targets-IMHO

Ok, referring to the previous post of if a "certain" enemy had been developing nukes in 1036.....Germany was. Known fact, just decided they couldn't be arsed, too many things to do, what with all the invading and what not.

Also, chances are, we wouldn't be speaking German, even if they did successfully invade Briitain (which hasn't been done in 1000 years). they never stopped the Dutch or french speaking their own language. In fact, they hadn't even planned on taking those countries (lebensraum was to the east, not west), they just got in the way!

Hitler even stated he wanted no war with Britain (explains his half arsed attempt at Operation See lion), and would have willingly ended the war had it not been for Churchill.


Anyway, onto the present day........

Iraq NEVER openly supported terrorists, in fact quite the opposite. Why would a secular dictator and his ROMAN CATHOLIC Prime Minister support OBL and his crew....they wouldn't, in fact they where sworn enemies.

Our enemies declared war on us on September 11th-and we didn't ask for it.

What enemies are these? NK? Iran? Iraq? Peoples democratic republic of Congo perhaps? No one came forth and declared war, it was a terrorist act, therefore a criminal act not an act of war.
An act of war can only be done by a state, as a group of a few thousand nutjobs does not give you the right to blast every country you dont like back to the stone age. (besides, we all know it was an inside job anyway, to get to where we are today )

You people need to get a grip and start behaving responsibly, and heaven forbid, more nicely to other nations. You have already squandered the good faith of 9/11, and moved 100% in the other direction...pretty soon you wont have any friends left. As Sminkey said, forget pulling us into Iran, I for one do not fancy dying for some half cocked texan cowboy wet dream about being on a mission for God or some BS like that. (And you would lose, without a doubt, that is why i am certain of Britain does you, I will wind up face in the dirt having acquired some extra bodily orrifices where there shouldn't be any)

i have a baby daughter, and want to see her grow up and enjoy life, but I feel the chances of that are slipping away with every day we allow the US to continue its rampage of mindless destruction across the world. Vote Bush for another term, if you want Armageddon, coz thats the way it will go, those Christian Zealots PRAY for that, it is what there BS religion is about, the rapture and other crap.

Get a grip America before it is too late!! Why let a small minority make the rest of you look bad?? Take back your country and do some good....$87 billion for the war in Iraq, or a cure for cancer......your choice Amigo.....



[edit on 21-9-2004 by stumason]

You better watch out, Iran! The UN has passed a resolution! Sixteen more and they might think about condemning something! Like the U.S.!

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I say we send everyone who want to fight Iran to the war first!

Disabled, stupid or not, send them to war!

They'd make great fodder troops, media accuracy in the states would skyrocket, there wouldn't be anybody to take hostage afterward, and the terrorists wouldn't have enough people to behead them all.

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
I glad to hear that we both apparently want the same outcome, but differ on the path to get there. (that's usually true of Conservatives and Liberals)

- Of course.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on the subject.

- As I've said to other posters here it'd be a rum deal if we couldn't.

I will of course remind you that the same type of debate was taking place in 1939-albiet the enemy was of entirely different and I'm not comparing the situation apples to apples-only in theme.

- I'm sorry but I just can't buy into this WW2 comparison.

I don't get it at all. There just is no parallel IMO. WW2 was a clash of what was very clearly the classic nation-based ideologies with the actual nations openly and clearly engaged in the conflict.

This 'war against terrorism' isn't at all. It's a war on a noun, a concept and an idea. I do not see any way one can actually 'fight' that to any clear lasting conclusion.

I will say this though.

Britains fight with Irish 'terrorism' lasted decades (some would say well over at least one century).

Britain got into this whole thing about how 'they' couldn't be negotiated with, how 'they' were justy barbaric animals and how 'their' goals/demands were so preposterous and excessively unrealistic that 'we' couldn't possibly talk etc etc.....and there was also truth in some of that, some of the attacks were barbaric and utterly cruel and inhumane.

Britian believed that 'there were only a couple of hundred of them', 'if you identify and kill the leaders', 'if 'we' just respond aggressively enough it'll stop them' and how in any case 'we' couldn't attempt to talk because that was 'weakness', the demands would only escalate....etc etc....we've heard all this before. We too have had our 'fans' of the ultra-aggressive 'action' answer....except that even that didn't sort things out.

I'm sorry to say it doesn't work. Your every instinct tells you it must (because you are thinking in terms of WW2 type conflicts) but it doesn't against a 'terrorist' organisation.

At the end of the day Britain has reached stability and some kind of settlement with the Irish 'terrorists' by talking to and considering the grievances of the other side. 'We've' been talking for nearly 20yrs and had the fighting stopped for nearly 10yrs.....and whilst it's definitely improving it is still a turbulent situation at times.

Had it not been for the evil, warmongering US, we would not be having this conversation. You'd be speaking German.

- Actually we'd most likely be speaking English with Russian as our 2nd language, I think. I can see no way Germany could have ever won WW2 once they attacked Russia.

We were right in what we did then.

- I agree WW2 was a just war to fight. Even if 'we' didn't know it when 'we' started it ('we' declared war on 'them'....even if 'they' declared war on 'you'....if you see what I mean).

Appeasement and negotiations would not/did not stop Hitler.

- Well (quick debating digression for entertainment purposes only) that's the truth 'we' all believe today....I wonder though. I wonder if Germany had had her previous terroritories returned whether Hitler would then have been deposed by those who saw the dangerous madness of his ideas if he tried to go further. Starting WW2/invasion of Poland was not a popular thing in Germany. Who knows.

The biggest mistake we made was waiting until 1941 to join our allies.

- Yeah well by-gones and all that, who knows maybe in 38, 39 or 40 the strong isolationist element combined with the then state of US arms and technology might have led to and insisted on a state of affairs we'd have really come to regret, huh?

Our enemies declared war on us on September 11th-and we didn't ask for it.

- I agree the USA was attacked on 9/11 but this 'declared war' stuff is unhelpful excessive politicianspeak IMO.

When the IRA attacked Britain the British didn't take it as an attack on the nation because it clearly wasn't intended that way. Even thought time and again regular British people suffered it was widely seen as an attack on Britain's government/establishment/interests because of their policies in Ireland.

9/11 was an attack by a terrorist group. Not an attack by a country, nation or for that matter religion.

I'll agree, of course, that no-one 'deserved' their tragic and terrible fate on 9/11 but I'd also say whether one agrees or not there are reasons for what is going on.

There seems to me to have been precious little consideration of this part of the 'conflict'.

Neither the US nor the 'west' generally have behaved impeccably over the last century in the ME.....and then there is the whole issue of Israel and the Palestinians.

Iraq and Iran openly support terrorists-I hope we can agree on that.

- Parts of their regimes and people have done at times, yes. (Just as 'our' gov.s have, at times in places, done regrettable things too.....up to and including 'terrorist acts'.)

Especially against Israel, which is not the same as the USA or 'the west' , and Israel has fought back herself. Personally I don't consider Israel's fight grounds for 'the west' to go to war with the ME.

Therefore, the regimes are legitamite military targets-IMHO.

- OK, so is Russia entitled to attack the USA given the US's 'state-sponsored' terrorism she supported against them previously.....or has been supporting in Chetchyna?

It gets very murky but I think you are entitled to attack the groups but not the countries themselves....because by and large that actually means the innocent and uninvolved public of that country.

Bombing Iran (or Syria) back to a pre-industrial state is not going to make the ME safer for anyone nor the world safer for any of us....just as doing so in Iraq has not made things better IMO.