CNN. "The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says. Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic weapons by next year"

Where have I heard this song before? A little to the west of there, there is a little country called Iraq. Full to the brim with WMD, I tell ya! They have some many weapons that Saddam has to sleep with a missle just to keep them out of site.

Why don't I believe anything coming from the warmonger boy's administration?

Alex

Alex,

Americans are willing to take over the entire Middle East to preserve the Western World while everyone else stands idly by, twiddling their thumbs, thinking once again - like in the period between 1871 and 1914 that the world is safe for democracies. Islam is a killer religion. Fooled me once shame on me fooled me twice shame on... uhh shame on.. well you know how it goes.

The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well...

It sounds like the same sort of "someone said to somebody that knew a guy who heard about someone who..." sort of non-intelligence that got the US in trouble the last time out. Perhaps they can get someone in South Africa to confirm this one, too.

Alex :salute:

Sorry, Neville Chamberlain resigned. King George is in charge. Get used to it! You have NO choice. :salute:

Alex, you are so out of touch - it's almost scary to try and comprehend.

Iran is a major problem. One that needs to be solved soon. I predicited after Bush's win that they would nuzzle up the the Europeans and make a "deal". The deal would include free nuclear technology and help for power plants in return for stopping weapons program - just like the N. Koreans got from Clinton.

But just like N. Korea, Iran would lie ( shock) and still work on their nukes.

Iran needs to be handled - sooner rather then later.

I am glad we have a President who will take action, not sit on his hands while problem gets worse to appease ignorant people like Alex.

someone will have to do "something" to persaude the iranians that they can't have their own nukes. Over the next decade or more there will be some very hard decisions to make and alex and others might not like some of them but to insure the safety of the world(yes it's our responsiblity) we'll have to.

the question is. How long do we wait untill we take some sort of action?

I have a strong idea who that "someone" will be.

Fortunnately we have Iran surrounded already. :D

The reality is we need to see Iran, Syria and Iraq as the same problem. The people who are fighting us in Iraq, the insurgents are being armed, supplied, encouraged, led by Syria and Iran.

I am sure Syria and Iran's arguement is the same as ours - better to fight them in Iraq then in our own streets.

I don't doubt that Iran is trying to become a nuclear power.

I don't dispute that something needs to be done about it.

I do not believe that the United States has the capabilites (at this time) to make a unilateral military move against Iran in view of our current obligations.

Alex AI - it's not just the U.S. who is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. Even the Bush Administration can be right once in a while.

Raw Mike - Whle we do have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think saying we have them surrounded is a bit overstated.

Can you explain this to me?

I am assuming you mean we do not have the political support of the UN, our allies, France, the Arab street, Bin Laden, etc....

Physical military capabilities, we could move against Iran tommorow and destroy their entire military infrastructure in a matter of months - JUST FROM THE AIR!!!
Do not underestimate the military might of the US.

Now politically, and diplomaticly to have the will to go against UN, and world setiment might be tough to deal with. Fortunately we have a President who does puts OUR interests above "the worlds".

Someone ( US/Israel) better act soon.

Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!

My guess is to "save the world" a great part of it is going to have the shit blown out of it.

IMHO there is no doubt the world is less safe ,rather than safer , since GW came to power.

Chris to compare the US having Nukes to Iran getting them shows how out of touch you are. I just hope not all Canadians are as ignorant as you.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...84-e011cb8fd2fa

After reading some of the comments at the bottom, I think there may be same sane people in Canada.

The world has never been a safe place. It is only an illusion. One that is dissapating quickly because of technology.

With modern weapons, bio, chemical and ease of trasporting them - with the rise of Non State Actors ( al quada, other terrorists groups) the world is much more dangerous.

Bush merely inherited the situation. He also acted decisively, rather then passing the buck as past President's have - as well as the rest of the world - especially Europe. ( canada is too inconsiquental to matter)

rotflmfao..... :wnw: :wnw:

I think I've stated publicly more than once that Iran and/or Syria should have been our first target instead of pussyfooting around with Iraq...
maybe we should just get it over with and launch our nukes already...

I mean, we can't even find Osama Bin Laden, we got lucky in finding Saddam...so, what happens if we fully invade Syria AND Iran (I guess we'll have to destroy North Korea too so they'll shut the fuck up)? We can only put out so many fires at once.

maybe we can dust off old copies of those nuclear scare movies of the 80's...just update them a little with nasty arabs instead of those evil russkies....

US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.

No, Mike ... I wouldn't bother to mention international support to someone who does not consider it important. And just so you know, I consider Iranian nuclear capabilities a grave threat to the stability of the region AND the security of the United States - I just don't think there is a simple solution to it.

We probably could do considerable damage to their military infrastructure from the air (although I suspect at a much higher cost than we faced in Iraq).

I'm talking strictly about military capabilities, but I was assuming you are advocating invading and occupying Iran the way we have Iraq. We do not have the boots to put on the ground for that, and I question the value of a "quick-fix" strike to take out nuclear facilities only (assuming we really know where they are).

BTW ... I am personally of the opinion that the long-term effects of the unilateral intervention will serve the interests of the United States in pretty much the same way isolationism did in the period 1920-1941 ... but we'll both be dead by the time my theory can be proven.

I'm not so sure about that ... the theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will probably come into play between smaller states just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on....

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on.... [/b][/quote]
if you continue to point out facts ,sarettah , Mike and his crowd will have you shot!!

PD you are corect - we are not in posistion to occupy Iran.

We could invade and destroy their military but do not have the man power to occupy.

I think a strategy of what we did with the Kurds in Iraq. We should create some safe zones inside Iran. ( no fly zones) where people can start an orginized resistance. We could enforce an embargo on Iran, cut off their oil revenue, and destroy their offensive military infrastructure - including nuclear.

The more I think about it, Evil Chris you are really losing grasp of reality. To compare the US habing nukes, with a totalitarian dictatorship, whose goal is to spread Islamofascism around the world.... I expect this from Alex....

What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday.

Give the Ayatollahs poison gas ??? Hey worked for us with Saddam...... :awinky:

i was waiting for the post that hey since we have them what's wrong with everyone haveing them. that's just plain crazy<shakes head> Guess it'll take a BIG boom before some folks see this threat.


sare, india pretty much counters pakistan's nukes "for now"


The fact is, once these weapons are in the hands of people that DONT think about others but just themselfs then the world as we know it now will be history and we'll be living in a cold dark world. Do I have a solution? yeah, be proactive, and be ready to do things that might not be populor with some. Sometimes you cant afford to wait and see..........it'll be too late

So you think it would be ok if the US sold nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria, and Libya in the same way that it sells M1A1 tanks? Why or why not?

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on.... [/b][/quote]
some muslim countries / leaders may have a little more restraint than others, but for Chris to compare it to the US having nukes is just plain silly. That was my only point.

If you guys feel as comfortable with Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. having nukes as the US, I don't know what to say.

I'm not so sure about that ... the theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will probably come into play between smaller states just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. [/b][/quote]
uh huh. i thought these were the same folks who get 72 virgins when the die?

ummmmm you mean like giving them to GW Bush?

From a tactical standpoint, I wish everybody would get rid of their nukes but us.

I have to agree that comparing a nuclear U.S. to a potential nuclear Iran is kind of silly.

I think using Pakistan as an example of a Moslem country having nucs not attacking Israel is equally silly, particularly since Pakistan has turned out to be the center of the proliferation circle jerk.

I think that assuming an Islamic state that comes into possession of nuclear weapons would automatically nuke Israel is silly.

I also have to say that trying to have this discussion without bringing up the fact that Israel is a nuclear state is silly.

The ideal solution to the situation in Iran would be to enforce non-proliferation under the moon and stars across the ENTIRE region - not only prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, but force ANYONE who already has them to get rid of them.

Putting presure on Iran is prehaps one of the most important tasks the western world can do... Iran is a crumbling state - there is a "decade of opportunity" in the next 10 years or so, since this when the young people still have hope of change - if we fail them by making deals with their "rulers" or letting the mullahs get "unlimited" military power, then we would have lost prehaps one of the best ways to end the mullah dictatorship... making the mullahs weak, so people will revolt.

I think its good that the US continues with putting presure on Iran... having dialog with fundamentalists is a myth.

I agree, but since that's not really a option. What's your plan B?

What you mean like the resistance to the US troops in Iraq?


Yeah Evil Chris if any looney fucking leader whose goal is to spread his extreme religious and moral views around the world, its gonna be GW!!!!

I mean get with the program.

Mike , you seriously are getting more blinkered and more looney everyday. [/b][/quote]
:wnw: :ph34r:

:blink:

:wnw: :ph34r: [/b][/quote]


Hot air Nick.

I have yet to see any concrete example of how Bush is trying to spread born against Christianity through out the world.

Try dealing in facts, rather then parroting the same breathless propaganda.


Nick, the one getting blinkered is you.

Could it be that alchohol HELPED your vision rather then impare it?

So you think it would be ok if the US sold nuclear weapons to Iran, Syria, and Libya in the same way that it sells M1A1 tanks? Why or why not? [/b][/quote]
Of course not...but you're throwing him a curve ball.....

Buying them from the US isn't the only way they could get them.

Mike,

re: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...84-e011cb8fd2fa

Parrish is an embarrassment to Canada. She SHOULD be banished from the caucus and stripped of her MP position.

I thank God that Canada does decide what is best for the US or the world.

You mean 'doesn't', right?

Me too. Everyone would be sitting around in toques eating donuts, drinkin' beer and watching hockey. ;)

You mean 'doesn't', right?

Me too. Everyone would be sitting around in toques eating donuts, drinkin' beer and watching hockey. ;) [/b][/quote]


:D

Yeah doesn't.

Hot air Nick.

I have yet to see any concrete example of how Bush is trying to spread born against Christianity through out the world.

Try dealing in facts, rather then parroting the same breathless propaganda.


Nick, the one getting blinkered is you.

Could it be that alchohol HELPED your vision rather then impare it? [/b][/quote]
Nawww...

You see I tolerate all arguments and then decide, but I'm ready to have my opinion changed by rational argument.

When I drank , I sometimes thought irrationally.

Whats your excuse?

Nick, don't worry, Mike never let facts get in the way of a good rant against the rest of the world (and those communist muslim bastard terrorist rouge non-nation and government sponsored terror minded groups).

Iran is very smart. They know that GW has overplayed the US forces, and there really are not enough soldiers around to do anything about Iran. The UN will certainly not be in the mood to support action, and the usual list of countries will not be interested.

As a result, Iran more than likely IS working on nuclear capabilities, and the US created the situation under which it could happen without potential for "correction".

Because Colin Powell and the US cried wolf already, less people are likely to pay attention this time.

It's just how it goes.

Alex

I do the same Nick, but my world perspective is a little different.

Alex, you bring up VERY good points. I am in shock.

Iran is doing a masteful job in RealPolitik. They are playing the US off the Europeans.

The US is in a weaker posistion because there was no WMDs found in Iraq.

It will be more difficult to convince the world to go along with the US to put real, significant pressure on Iran. The UN, and most of the world would be against any military action, or any real pressure that would change Iran's mind.

However, this does not change the fact that Iran is a threat to the US, and with nuclear weapons it would become untouchable.

If the UN and Europe do not come around, the US will be forced to act unilaterally. ( Israel is a wild card here as well). Fortunately, we have a President who understand this, and the US has enough capability to take out Iran's nuclear program on its own.

I give full respect to the Iranian leaders - they have been very effective, and very wise. Certainly they played the game better then Saddam did.

Uhh, ok. "The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well... " - Raw Alex (a few hours ago). So now, after just a few hours, you are being fooled just like all us 'mericans? Cool. I guess Powell got inside your head. That was quick.

Maybe you are new to following world politics but the dispute with the Iranians on this issue has been going on for quite some time, long before Bush's election.

-------------

(April 2000) ENDING A TWO-YEAR dispute with Congress, on March 14 President Clinton signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, which authorizes him to take punitive action against individuals or organizations known to be providing material aid to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in Iran. The legislation (H.R. 1883) also substantially cuts U.S. funding to Russian space agencies responsible for the joint U.S.-Russian space station project, absent a determination that Russia "has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent" aid to Iran's weapons programs.

Clinton vetoed a 1998 version of the bill that focused on missile proliferation to Iran because it required the imposition of sanctions on Russian entities unless the president determined that a waiver of sanctions was "essential" to U.S. national security. The administration argued that the legislation, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, would harm the administration's effort to garner Russian cooperation on a wide range of proliferation issues.

However, to demonstrate his commitment to stopping Russian aid to Iran's WMD efforts and to avoid an override of his veto, Clinton amended Executive Order 12938, the 1994 order that declared a national emergency with regard to WMD proliferation, to allow the executive branch to impose financial penalties on proliferators. Clinton immediately exercised this new authority, sanctioning seven Russian entities in June 1998 for their assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program. Three more were sanctioned in January 1999 for the same reason. (See ACT, June/July 1998 and January/February 1999.)

The language of the new law is substantially less restrictive than the 1998 legislation. It requires the president to submit to Congress every six months a list of entities known to be providing material assistance to Iranian WMD programs. The president is then authorized and encouraged to utilize Executive Order 12938 provisions, arms export prohibitions, and dual-use export prohibitions on those entities. But the onus for action remains soundly with the president. Should the president decide not to take action against a particular entity, congressional notification and a written explanation is required, but a waiver is not.

Apart from expanded reporting requirements, the legislation will not require any demonstrable action by the administration against Russian entities. Russian officials nevertheless responded angrily to the suggestion that Russia was aiding Iranian programs.

"Why are we considered fools?" Sergei Ivanov, secretary of the Russian Security Council, asked in an interview with the Interfax news agency. Russia, he said, has no interest in giving Iran "a grenade with a pulled-out pin" that could then "be hurled back" at Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also balked at the legislation. In a March 15 statement released to Interfax, the Foreign Ministry noted that, depending on the administration's use of the authority granted in the legislation, the bill "may significantly undermine…Russian-American interaction in the field of non-proliferation and export control."

The bill's strong bipartisan support (the measure was passed unanimously in both houses) sent a message to the White House that Congress is concerned about Russian involvement in Iranian proliferation activities. Congressional sources said that many members see the legislation as a gentle reminder to the president that Capitol Hill is watching the administration on this issue.

Source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_04/irnap00.asp

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question)

Well - I wouldn´t call the iranian mullahs smart (these are the same people who base their life on 1400 years old outdated ideology) - they have only survived, because nobody really gave a shit (meaning who wanted to die in some iranian desert in the 80s and 90s, beside iraqis?)... however that have changed now - I give them 10 years, then they have either been overthrown, or they have crippled their own economy and people to a point where they will be unable to do anything, beside endless friday prayer rhetoric.

Iran is not surround yet, however freedom have never been closer to their borders, and I think the mullahs are stressed about the future, so we should keep knocking on their door until they break down.

How is Iran a threat to the U.S. ? (and yes, that is a serious question) [/b][/quote]
They keep shooting " Bring it bitch , we are well hard" looks at the USA.

;-))))

:blink:

Unlike our current administration that bases it on a 2000 year old outdated ideaology eh ?