Iran?

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by BloodOfBaby

Hey Cap'n
Seen as you're getting piled on my americans i thought i'd jump in.

Americans you need to face the facts your country is in shit there are so many people that could completely destroy your entire government.
Bush is infcat a tosser who if he had braincells wouldn't know that rubbing them makes brain go whizz whizz

but anyway you, in this argument, are defending an undefendable country
Your gov is pussy footing around Iraq because of the many reasons that Sternn noted in his first post

Amerca= large ammounts of BS

and i havn't met many americans and i'm sure you're not all as thick as pig shit but many of you are

but no hard feelings eh?

-- just as a little foot note

how the fuck can developing big fuck-off exploding nuclear things be for peace. that is pure crap

BoB,

You present yourself with such an informed opinion with all sorts of factual documentation links that makes what you say to be so credible (note the sarcasm). An "un-defendable" country and these people who could "completely destroy your government" are interesting statements; but, without any insightful argument, I would conclude you are the 'tosser lacking brain cells'. Present a point or an argument not throwing out accusations or genereal name calling and you might be taken seriously.

[Mir]

and i havn't met many americans and i'm sure you're not all as thick as pig shit but many of you are

You need facts to back that statement up? Many Americans will be first in line to agree with that statement, let alone people from other countries.

how the fuck can developing big fuck-off exploding nuclear things be for peace. that is pure crap

Again, do we need facts to back this up? My personal opinion is that everyone should be free to develop nuclear weapons, or no one should but nuclear weapons as a deterrent? Bull shit.

If country A does not have nuclear weapons and country B does, why exactly does country B need a deterrent anyway? Because country C does? Does'nt that entitle country A to have nuclear deterrence as well?

[CptSternn]

...the question is now will bush attack Iran? Says he will in his speech wednesday. I think his new attacks in Somolia and now threatening Iran and Syria is his next thing. He is afraid that if the congress doesn't have enough to do they will come after him personally or screw with his Iraq policy, so he can keep them jumping by starting new conflicts worldwide. Sort of like an arsonist who starts little fires all over town to keep the fire brigade from putting out the huge blaze he set in the middle of town.

The question is, is he willing to go through with it at the cost of hundreds of billions more and thousands of more american lives (and the effects of the lives of their families) all to protect his own personal interests?

Guess we will have to wait and see...

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Says he will in his speech wednesday.

No he didn't.

[Frankenscott]

We'll get Israel to do it

[Budweiser69]

Originally Posted by Frankenscott

We'll get Israel to do it

while it would be nice to have them strike the nuclear sites with american logistics and a blessings, it's not going to happen. that's pretty much a round trip from israel to iran because they don't have aircraft carriers in the gulf like the united states does. obviously you're going to run into refeuling problems in between, not to mention you can only deliver a limited amount of firepower compared to american military assests in the persian gulf. israelis know it's not really feasible and so do americans.

[Frankenscott]

Originally Posted by Budweiser69

while it would be nice to have them strike the nuclear sites with american logistics and a blessings, it's not going to happen. that's pretty much a round trip from israel to iran because they don't have aircraft carriers in the gulf like the united states does. obviously you're going to run into refeuling problems in between, not to mention you can only deliver a limited amount of firepower compared to american military assests in the persian gulf. israelis know it's not really feasible and so do americans.

I think we would provide them with all the support they would need. I also think we would get whatever intel we would need to back them ...look at 9/11 for example

[Budweiser69]

logistic, diplomatic, financial, and moral support would pour of america's ying yang for an isreali strike against iran. there are only two nations that will not stand for a nuclear armed iran and if it comes down to a tactical strike, we'd pour our heart and soul into backing israeli action.

but military support, or rather, a joint operation, would be much more complicated and less likely. most of the operation's assets would have to be launched relatively close by. if saudi arabia or qatar finds out israeli aircraft were a) flying over their airspace, b) docking on american navy carriers off their coasts, or the extremely unlikely c) landing at american airforce bases in somewhere like qatar, there'd be much more of a political backlash against america from these countries.

many arab states are weary of a nuclear iran and if they're military shield, the united states, is the strong arm breaking the back of tehran's nuclear program, they'll quietly praise it. if it's an american-israeli venture, it won't be well recieved in any shape or form.

[ArtificialOne]

Isreal doens't like us involvement in any military campaign..or allot of others..they like are money though. Maybe if Iran would stop saying he's going to wipe isreal, the us and all the other western countries off the map maybe no one would ? their nuke program. And the politicians are cowards not the mil. Have you heard one american general call retreat? No it's the cowardly lions on the left side of our govt. What we did in somalia this week had the blessing of the somali govt and most of the people were glad to be rid of the islamic opressors. I don't think Irans airforce has any real force against a modern airforce or navy. The biggest threat that iran possesses is to arm more militant opressors like the plo and Hezbolla and mine the straight to prevent oil shipments. Although not the orginators of suicide bombing the've mad it a fad. wich is what most damage would do and it wouldn't pay to send troops. Achmadenajad lost some support witht he last election becuase he's treating his people like shit. One more and he'll be powerless probably. I say sit back let him bitch like a little bully and if or when he nukes or sends suicide bombers off I say we sit back and let the tomahawks rain from the sky like snowflakes on all his govt buildings and infrastructure. And then kindly tell him if you do it again mores commin at you. I've qouted it before but Tom Petty's right "Everyone's got to fight to be free". Oils gonna dry up sooner or later and so is there society and culture...sit back and wait till it all turns back to dust and everyone goes tribal nomad again. I say we cut them all off and contain them to one part in the world...maybe they will do the world a favor and blow each other up til theres no one left then we can get onto more important things like banning American Idol from the airwaves(and also the aus adition thats just as bad but with funnier hair dews..)

(any typos or anyother misstakes are clearly the fault of the computer)

[ArtificialOne]

Corrections.. I didn't mean to post it so soon but I had to get my pizza outa da oven....

Isreal doens't like us involvement in any military campaign..or allot of others..they like our money though.

Maybe if Irans Prez would stop saying he's going to wipe isreal, the us and all the other western countries off the map maybe no one would ? their nuke program.

And the politicians are cowards not the mil. Have you heard one american general call retreat? No it's the cowardly lions on the left side of our govt.

What we did in somalia this week had the blessing of the somali govt and most of the people were glad to be rid of the islamic opressors.

I don't think Irans airforce has any real force against a modern airforce or navy. The biggest threat that iran possesses is to arm more militant opressors like the plo and Hezbolla and mine the straight to prevent oil shipments. Although not the orginators of suicide bombing the've made it a fad. Which is what most of the damage they would do and it wouldn't pay to send troops. Achmadenajad lost some support with the last election becuase he's treating his people like shit. One more and he'll be powerless probably. I say sit back, let him bitch like a little bully, and if or when he nukes or sends suicide bombers off I say we sit back and let the tomahawks rain from the sky like snowflakes on all his govt buildings and infrastructure. And then kindly tell him if you do it again mores commin at you.

I've qouted it before but Tom Petty's right "Everyone's got to fight to be free". If you want freedom fight, no matter what the cost, if not live in oppression.

Oils gonna dry up sooner or later and so is there society and culture...sit back and wait till it all turns back to dust and everyone goes tribal nomad again. Cut them all off and contain them to one part in the world...maybe they will do the world a favor and blow each other up til theres no one left then we can get onto more important things like banning American Idol from the airwaves(and also the aus edition thats just as bad but with funnier hair dews..)

And stern get a life, really. If you put as much effort in bashing americans and america as you do in your own life, you'd be a fuckin millionaire. Or at least happy. In the words of Barbra walters " you poor, poor, pathetic man"

(any typos or anyother misstakes are clearly the fault of the computer and if you don't like it continue to bitch and gripe as usual)

[Frankenscott]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Isreal doens't like us involvement in any military campaign..or allot of others..they like our money though.

I don't mean a joint operation. I mean Isreali jets refueling over the Gulf with a "little help" from carrier based tankers 7 miles in the air, at night. Or American ships and submarines firing Isreali cruise missles. They order munitions from us, how would the Iranians know how they were delivered... The US will get blamed anyway

[CptSternn]

New Iran nuke report challenges White House

http://news.**********/s/afp/usirann...bxDZCMt3es0NUE

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US intelligence community said in a new report Monday that Iran halted its nuclear weapons drive in 2003 and that US charges about Tehran's atomic goals have been overblown for at least two years.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) raised fresh questions about the White House's battered credibility on a matter of war and peace five years after the US drive to invade Iraq based on dire, but false, warnings.

In October, US President George W. Bush raised the specters of "World War III" or a "nuclear holocaust" if Iran gets an atomic arsenal and wrongly claimed that Tehran had openly "proclaimed" its desire for one.

The NIE, the consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies, said it was unclear whether Iran sought nuclear arms and that halting its still-dormant program suggested greater susceptibility to global pressure than had been thought.

The report said that Iran appears "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005" and concluded that "the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."

It also cautioned that the Islamic republic was keeping its nuclear options open, still bucked international demands to freeze uranium enrichment, and that Tehran could have the technical ability to make a nuclear weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015.

"But we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons," cautioned declassified findings of the the estimate, which starkly contradicted a 2005 NIE's conclusions.

The findings provided ammunition to both sides in the international dispute over the best approach to Iran, and were were expected to fuel rather than quench the often bitter US debate over Iran policy ahead of the November 2008 presidential elections.

US national security adviser Stephen Hadley said he hoped that Russia and China would not stiffen their opposition to imposing further sanctions on Iran.

"There's going to be a tendency of a lot of people to say: 'The problem's less bad than we thought, let's relax,'" said Hadley. "Our view is that would be a mistake."

China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi held a round of telephone diplomacy with EU and US counterparts, his ministry said Tuesday, after the US report was published.

Yang held talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana late Monday and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice early Tuesday, the ministry said in a statement on its website.

"The Chinese side is willing to continue to make efforts to appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear issue," the statement quoted Yang as telling Solana in the late-night telephone call.

At a White House briefing, Hadley flatly denied any escalation in US rhetoric on Iran and insisted that the NIE proved that "we have the right strategy" of stepping up international pressure.

"The bottom line is that for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions and with other financial pressure. And Iran has to decide that it wants to negotiate a solution," he said.

But the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, said that the estimate proved that "the intelligence community has learned its lessons from the Iraq debacle.

"It has issued judgments that break sharply with its own previous assessments, and they reflect a real difference from the views espoused by top administration officials," he said in a statement.

And Senate Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid called on Bush to emulate former Republican president Ronald Reagan's dialogue with the Soviet Union, pushing for "a surge of diplomacy" with Tehran.

The NIE cited "high confidence" that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and "moderate confidence" that it had not restarted as of mid-2007.

"Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously," it said.

The report found that "the earliest possible date" Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon was late 2009, "but that this is very unlikely."

The NIE judged with "moderate confidence" that Iran would be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 timeframe," with the US State Department saying not before 2013.

Iran denies Western charges that it seeks nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, and has drawn UN sanctions for refusing to freeze its uranium enrichment, which can yield materials for a nuclear bomb.

Washington recently slapped unilateral sanctions on Iran, and has been pushing for a third round from the United Nations.


..and there you have it. The US government doesn't even believe, and hasn't for sometime, what bush has been selling.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

..and there you have it. The US government doesn't even believe, and hasn't for sometime, what bush has been selling.

What Bush has been selling? Didn't you start this entire thread by selling the EXACT same line? Hold on... I'll pull the quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Iran HAS WMD's, IS developing nukes (and aknowledges it), are a threat, and HATES america (and says so).

Huh... so now you're admitting that the US government just proved you completely wrong? OK. Just so we're on the same page of what you deem as an acceptable conclusion, since you and Bush evidently had the same political stance.

[Drake Dun]

You have got to love the way these people think.

Okay, so maybe it's not a human, or even anything vaguely resembling a human. It's just a cluster of undifferentiated cells. But it has the potential to be a human. Therefore, we must not kill it.

...

Okay, so maybe they don't have nukes, and do not have any active program for getting nukes. But they have the potential to get nukes some day. Therefore, we must kill them.

Drake

[CptSternn]

By that line of reasoning, all men are rapists, as they have the tools on them all the time and have thoughts about having sex with women.

[luna5770]

I can't wait too see Bush without the power I think that America will start to breathe when he leaves

[ArtificialOne]

First off.. WHen did the intelligence agencies finally get off their asses and tell the whitehouse this? No nuke program since '03? Wasn't that around the time we invaded Iraq? I read somewhere up in the thread that siad nukes weren't a deterent? Where the f were you in the 80's arms race? If we didn't have them and russia did how do you think the cold war would have gone? Or wouldn't have gone without nukes? As for Iran having a nuke program.. for energy..ok.. But then again.. they are always are BSing about destroying isreal and america..blah blah blah. They need a boogeyman to keep themselves in power.

And for Bush leaving.. Yeah, it might get better in Iran, just as when Jimmy Carter left and they decided to release the Hostages. But then again... If we get another Carter... Or Clinton... We'll be screwed