Questions about IRAN.

[2centsworth]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?


2. If they are, should they be allowed to? If they are not, what's up with the USA?


3. What should the US do right now?

[clambake]

1.= if you were under constant threat, what would you try to do?

2. part 1= who cares. we'll never really know if they can or can't. bombing the hell out of them will have little effect, except that other than countries will have another reason to fear the american empire.
2. part 2= if you could pillage all the resources of Iraq and Iran, would you really give a shit about al-queada?

3.= try some diplomacy, a little backroom dealing like reagan used to do. our actions have made us the most hated country in the world, and we are the machine that's uniting them.

[2centsworth]

can you answer the questions directly. I'm not trying to trap you or anything. I just really want to know what people think.

[Yonivore]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
Are they? I don't know. Do I think they are? Yes.


2. If they are, should they be allowed to?
No.


If they are not, what's up with the USA?
I think they are so, this question is not applicable to me.


3. What should the US do right now?
Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[clambake]

ok.

1. nobody knows for sure. don't accept the notion just because bush says so. i hope americans have learned a lesson. if you want to be guided, just listen to yoni.

2. when you say "be allowed to", are you asking if we give them permission? people can build it, period. people will help them. our administration is a threat to world peace.

3. i like my first answer, but we need intelligent people to pull this off, not "special" people.

[xrayzebra]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?


2. If they are, should they be allowed to? If they are not, what's up with the USA?


3. What should the US do right now?

1. Yes and so does all the other world powers. Including
most of the U.N.

2. No. But they will and no one will stop them, unless
it is Israel. We wont because of people like Clam. No
American administration will have the full backing of the
American people. And this is what it is going to take to
get a politician to act to stop them forcibly.

3. What we have been doing. Put the screws to them
diplomatically. But that wont stop them. You are
dealing with people who have an agenda to dominate
the ME and the world if possible. They will have their
Atomic weapon and Bush knows it, why do you think
he wants the anti-missile defense in place before they
have it and a delivery system. Bush will have his
system, in spite of the dimm-0-craps opposing it.

One added thing. Israel may use their Atomic weapons
to stop Iran's nuclear program. I hope not. But they
are having their backs shoved up to the wall and they
will not let a guy like Iran's President have such a
weapon that can and would be used against them.

Clam made one of his dumb statements about Iran being
threatened. Who may I ask has threatened them?
Us? I don't think so. Not militarily. We have only
said it is not off the table. But in reality it is.

[101A]

1. Iran's president has indicated that they are; and that he is willing to use them, and accept great losses in his own country in doing so.

2. Considering #1; No.

3. Whatever they can to accomplish goal #2.

[101A]

ok.

2. when you say "be allowed to", are you asking if we give them permission? people can build it, period. people will help them. our administration is a threat to world peace.


Who else in your view, if anyone, is a threat to world peace? Do you even think about it?

[clambake]

3. What we have been doing. Put the screws to them
diplomatically. But that wont stop them. You are
dealing with people who have an agenda to dominate
the ME and the world if possible. They will have their
Atomic weapon and Bush knows it, why do you think
he wants the anti-missile defense in place before they
have it and a delivery system. Bush will have his
system, in spite of the dimm-0-craps opposing it.

does this sound like another countries ambitions?

[clambake]

Who else in your view, if anyone, is a threat to world peace? Do you even think about it?
everyone we threaten. we went from being the most simpathized country to the most despised country in the matter of 2 years. impossible to imagine.

i think about my kid and the country that idiot has left him.

[xrayzebra]

does this sound like another countries ambitions?

If you are referring to the United States, then you are
really more stupid than I thought. We are the lone
super power of the world. But dominate other governments.
No we don't. And have no ambitions to do so.

Look out after our own best interest. Sometimes that can
even be debated. But we should.

[101A]

everyone we threaten. we went from being the most simpathized country to the most despised country in the matter of 2 years. impossible to imagine.

i think about my kid and the country that idiot has left him.So if not for the United States of America, the world would be all peace, joy, happiness.

Koom - By - Fucking - YAH!

You don't know how much that clears up for me. Thanks.

[clambake]

If you are referring to the United States, then you are
really more stupid than I thought. We are the lone
super power of the world. But dominate other governments.
No we don't. And have no ambitions to do so.

Look out after our own best interest. Sometimes that can
even be debated. But we should.
said the fossil.

this attitude worked when we were the only ones with the bomb. you can kill some people but end up just strengthening their will. it's not 1946 anymore ray.

[clambake]

So if not for the United States of America, the world would be all peace, joy, happiness.

Koom - By - Fucking - YAH!

You don't know how much that clears up for me. Thanks.

yeah, smart move. take the embrace from the world on 9-12-2001 and flush it down the toilet. become the terror. brilliant.

[George Gervin's Afro]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?


2. If they are, should they be allowed to? If they are not, what's up with the USA?


3. What should the US do right now?



1. By their own words they seem to be on there way to develope them.

2. This is a tricky question. Right now there are other countries with the capabilities to create and deliver nuclear weapons. Are they direct threats to us? According to some on the board everybody is a threat to us so that is kind of a loaded question. so if we had the capability to 'not let them have them' then I would agree that we should do whatever we can to prevent them. Now with that being said I agree with the old adage "where there's a will there's a way" so if they are intent on getting them they will regardless of what we do. so what's the worth of military action? how much are we willing to pay to do this? Bush has eroded our credibiltiy world wide so we would have to do it with the Isreali's but in the end they are going to get them eventually.Should we sacrifice more blood and money in the region for a problem that will just come back in 5 yrs?


3. Right now it seems, Bush says, that we are trying diplomatically trying to disarm the situation. The difficultly is that when we are in the position of telling another country what they can and can't do it seems that this tack only does more harm than good. I think our hands are tied because of the fiasco in Iraq. In the end Iran knows if they provide a nuke or use a nuke they will essentially be wiped off the earth. So for a country that want's to dominate the world the wrong way to go about it is to furnish or use a nuke.

[101A]

yeah, smart move. take the embrace from the world on 9-12-2001 and flush it down the toilet. become the terror. brilliant.All I asked if there was a single other person/country/etc. that was threatening world peace. You suggested by your answer that you believed that no, in fact, there is NO other threat to World Peace than the U.S., and specifically George Bush.

I've got it, you don't need to hammer it home.

George Bush = Devil

Everybody Else (not in the Bush adminstration and not named Yoni or Xray) = Angel.

[101A]

Right now there are other countries with the capabilities to create and deliver nuclear weapons. None with the contentious (recent) history with the U.S. that Iran has (don't want to start a debate over whose to blame for that, just stating a fact)

None that have vowed the destruction of one of our allies.

None whose leaders call us "The Great Satan"

The Nuclear Club as it stands now (off the top of my head):

U.S.
Russia
Great Britain
France
Germany
China
Israel
Pakistan
India
N. Korea

Only 2 of those states, Pakistan and N. Korea have joined since '79: N. Korea we helped with that - and are in REAL negotiations to disarm them , and Pakistan is going MAD with India.

Iran, IMO, is a different cat than any of those.

[clambake]

i think we're getting what we asked for. do you think the hate for this country is being unfairly justifiable? you don't think we brought this on ourselves? who else should serve as blame for being the playmaker? the idea that bush is the only world leader that can be trusted is terrifying. hasn't anyone learned?

[George Gervin's Afro]

None with the contentious (recent) history with the U.S. that Iran has (don't want to start a debate over whose to blame for that, just stating a fact)

None that have vowed the destruction of one of our allies.

None whose leaders call us "The Great Satan"

The Nuclear Club as it stands now (off the top of my head):

U.S.
Russia
Great Britain
France
Germany
China
Israel
Pakistan
India
N. Korea

Only 2 of those states, Pakistan and N. Korea have joined since '79: N. Korea we helped with that - and are in REAL negotiations to disarm them , and Pakistan is going MAD with India.

Iran, IMO, is a different cat than any of those.


well it has been one guy who has changed the dynamics. What if we got rid of that one guy? It seems to me that the majority of Iranians view the USA favorably. if we attack them we may change their minds about us then the game really gets interesting. All I am saying is that bombing them isn't necessarily our only option. Too many people in this administration seem to like war..

[BeerIsGood!]

everyone we threaten. we went from being the most simpathized country to the most despised country in the matter of 2 years. impossible to imagine.

i think about my kid and the country that idiot has left him.

2 years? We've been despised by these people ever since we took their land and gave it to the Jews and called it Israel after WWII. Over 60 years ago.

I think it's pretty obvious they want to have one, but no one really knows if they will be able to get one. You kind of have to ask yourself three questions:

1) How badly do you not want them to have one?

2) What are you willing to do to keep them from having one?

3) What consequences are you willing to live with if you are wrong in assessing their desire/ability to have one?

I tend to view it as an "us against them" saga with myself being born on the American side of things. There are no good or evil sides to this, just us against them. I would personally kill anyone I have to in order to keep them from killing me, but that's just my philosophy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

i think we're getting what we asked for. do you think the hate for this country is being unfairly justifiable? you don't think we brought this on ourselves? who else should serve as blame for being the playmaker? the idea that bush is the only world leader that can be trusted is terrifying. hasn't anyone learned?


I agree with clam on this one. bush's cowboy diplomacy had us invading a country right next door to them. Should they feel threatened? If they do feel threatened then they are probably going to do whatever they have to do which includes building enough bombs so that people won't think about invading or attacking them.

[BeerIsGood!]

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should go and bomb these people because I'm not even sure that would be very effective to our cause at this point. What I do think we should do is stop fighting our little partisan bullshit fights and really break this thing down to it's core and decide just how big of a threat Iran is and decide the best course of action to handle it. That's kind of hard to do when everyone is backstabbing each other because they selfishly want a bigger piece of the political and financial pie for themselves.

[George Gervin's Afro]

2 years? We've been despised by these people ever since we took their land and gave it to the Jews and called it Israel after WWII. Over 60 years ago.

I think it's pretty obvious they want to have one, but no one really knows if they will be able to get one. You kind of have to ask yourself three questions:

1) How badly do you not want them to have one?

2) What are you willing to do to keep them from having one?

3) What consequences are you willing to live with if you are wrong in assessing their desire/ability to have one?

I tend to view it as an "us against them" saga with myself being born on the American side of things. There are no good or evil sides to this, just us against them. I would personally kill anyone I have to in order to keep them from killing me, but that's just my philosophy.

too bad it's not that simple.

[clambake]

if china invaded mexico, i think we'd be nervous. just a hypothetical

the terrorist were Saudi and operating in our country. our country.

[clambake]

I tend to view it as an "us against them" saga with myself being born on the American side of things. There are no good or evil sides to this, just us against them. I would personally kill anyone I have to in order to keep them from killing me, but that's just my philosophy.

you've just descibed everyone's philosophy. now, who's banging on who's door?

[101A]

i think we're getting what we asked for. do you think the hate for this country is being unfairly justifiable? you don't think we brought this on ourselves? who else should serve as blame for being the playmaker? the idea that bush is the only world leader that can be trusted is terrifying. hasn't anyone learned?Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened.

Iranians, Egyptians, hell, Saudi's were dancing in the streets ON THAT DAY!

What has happened since then that we brought on ourselves?

In my mind (and I think the evidence bears me out) they already hated us, and haven't carried off a succesfull attack on our soil since.

[101A]

2 years? We've been despised by these people ever since we took their land and gave it to the Jews and called it Israel after WWII. Over 60 years ago.

I think it's pretty obvious they want to have one, but no one really knows if they will be able to get one. You kind of have to ask yourself three questions:

1) How badly do you not want them to have one?

2) What are you willing to do to keep them from having one?

3) What consequences are you willing to live with if you are wrong in assessing their desire/ability to have one?

I tend to view it as an "us against them" saga with myself being born on the American side of things. There are no good or evil sides to this, just us against them. I would personally kill anyone I have to in order to keep them from killing me, but that's just my philosophy.No moral absolutism, but survival of the fittest?

Intellectually honest.

I can live with that.

[101A]

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should go and bomb these people because I'm not even sure that would be very effective to our cause at this point. What I do think we should do is stop fighting our little partisan bullshit fights and really break this thing down to it's core and decide just how big of a threat Iran is and decide the best course of action to handle it. That's kind of hard to do when everyone is backstabbing each other because they selfishly want a bigger piece of the political and financial pie for themselves.That is a good post.

[101A]

you've just descibed everyone's philosophy. now, who's banging on who's door?"They" are supplying our enemy.

"They" are aiding in the killing of our servicemen and women, and trying to bring about the failure of our mission.

We haven't bombed them.

We haven't armed a resistance against them.

Hell, we never retaliated for the hostages 30 years ago!

As far as I'm concerned, as a country, we've shown great restraint toward a country which is waging a covert war against us.

[clambake]

Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened.

not really, he had protecting this country on ignore.


Iranians, Egyptians, hell, Saudi's were dancing in the streets ON THAT DAY!

i wonder why?


What has happened since then that we brought on ourselves?

the hate for our country and everything it used to represent.


In my mind (and I think the evidence bears me out) they already hated us, and haven't carried off a succesfull attack on our soil since.

who are they? iraq? iran? they were saudi, remember?

[101A]

not really, he had protecting this country on ignore.



i wonder why?



the hate for our country and everything it used to represent.



who are they? iraq? iran? they were saudi, remember?You're the one who suggests BUSH brought "All this on ourselves".

My point (which you seem to have missed), is what is "all this"?

Bush didn't bring 9/11, or create the animosity which you seem to agree with; that apparently happened before. Nothing has happened since to be labeled "all this".

So, again, the only "all this" I can see is 9/11. Bush didn't "bring that on us".

Unless you are referring to another "all this". In which case, what is it?

[clambake]

you can't blame bush for all the hate. our history can't be ignored.

who made the shah?

who made saddam?

[101A]

you can't blame bush for all the hate. our history can't be ignored.You're right; I thought you did that.


who made the shah?

who made saddam?

We did. Why is that relevent to current events?

If a bunch of Cherokees rise up and start scalping Topeka, should we just watch it happen?

[clambake]

We did. Why is that relevent to current events?
it's indicitive to our history of suppressing them. you see, we don't feel it, they do.


If a bunch of Cherokees rise up and start scalping Topeka, should we just watch it happen?
don't need to. we,ve diplomatically given them casinos as a token, just one example of appeasement. but we took everything from them. we don't feel it, they do.

[2centsworth]

So Clambake if you were president what would you do and how would that make things better?

[101A]

it's indicitive to our history of suppressing them. you see, we don't feel it, they do.

Suppress?

Do you know what that word means?

Exploit, even manipulate, yes. Suppress? How so?

[George Gervin's Afro]

One of the many things that frustrate the living hell out of me is when people deny we, the United States, have aligned ourselves with questionable characters. The same people deny that in these partnerships we have condoned , by our silence, some really bad stuff. There are many people around the world who hate us because we are hypocritical when it comes to somethings and bullies on others. No man alive likes to be told what to do especially when it serves the interest of the one's telling him. ray wouldn't like a dem to tell him what to do when the outcome is soley for the benefit of that dem. Now we have been, for the most, part a noble country that has freed millions of people and have monetarily supported many humanitarin efforts throughout history. we have done far more good than bad but to deny we have been guilty of siding with folks exclusively for our benefit without regards to what these people do to their own citizens is dishonest and dangerous.

[101A]

One of the many things that frustrate the living hell out of me is when people deny we, the United States, have aligned ourselves with questionable characters. The same people deny that in these partnerships we have condoned , by our silence, some really bad stuff. There are many people around the world who hate us because we are hypocritical when it comes to somethings and bullies on others. No man alive likes to be told what to do especially when it serves the interest of the one's telling him. ray wouldn't like a dem to tell him what to do when the outcome is soley for the benefit of that dem. Now we have been, for the most, part a noble country that has freed millions of people and have monetarily supported many humanitarin efforts throughout history. we have done far more good than bad but to deny we have been guilty of siding with folks exclusively for our benefit without regards to what these people do to their own citizens is dishonest and dangerous.
What pisses me off is when people can't realize that the past is the past, and that we can't make up for all of the crap that happened back then. We MUST live in the present for our own sake and that of our children. There are bad people in this world who don't like us; some for very legitimate reasons. Doesn't change the fact that they DON"T LIKE US, and want to do us harm!!! We get it. We know history. We know about the Shah, we know about the Royal Family, we know where Israel came from, and even feel a little bad about what happened to the Muslims in Spain 1200 years ago!!! None of that changes a damned thing, however!!!!

[clambake]

when i said supress, i meant we continue to slap down any discontent that might be exhibited by people we have already manipulated.

and it's easy to say "the past is the past" for americans because we don't feel it. we are the punishers of those that don't openly accept our will. we just label our opposition as terrorist and pretend our actions are somehow noble in it's result.

when we moved to america i was amazed at how easy it was for americans to label the IRA as terrorist. that's an example.

[Wild Cobra]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?

Absolutely, otherwise they wouldn't need the quantity of centrifuges they have been building.



2. If they are, should they be allowed to? If they are not, what's up with the USA?

No. They should not be allowed to. I think we can let the Israelis take the lead on this one. We should just stay out of their way. They have a survival issue at stake here, and will not let Iran develop the weapon. This simply have to wait long enough so their actions are seen as just.



3. What should the US do right now?

Focus on the points where Iran is helping our enemies in the war on terror.

Help Israel is they ask for it.

[xrayzebra]

One of the many things that frustrate the living hell out of me is when people deny we, the United States, have aligned ourselves with questionable characters. The same people deny that in these partnerships we have condoned , by our silence, some really bad stuff. There are many people around the world who hate us because we are hypocritical when it comes to somethings and bullies on others. No man alive likes to be told what to do especially when it serves the interest of the one's telling him. ray wouldn't like a dem to tell him what to do when the outcome is soley for the benefit of that dem. Now we have been, for the most, part a noble country that has freed millions of people and have monetarily supported many humanitarin efforts throughout history. we have done far more good than bad but to deny we have been guilty of siding with folks exclusively for our benefit without regards to what these people do to their own citizens is dishonest and dangerous.

GGA, one statement. Yours. Everyone hates us. How
come they only hate us for the deeds you say we have
done. But they don't hate Castro, Stalin or the other
dictators who have propped up other regimes that
suppressed their populace.

Just curious.

[clambake]

They should not be allowed to. I think we can let the Israelis take the lead on this one. We should just stay out of their way.
:lol i see you've entirely thought this through :lol

[101A]

and it's easy to say "the past is the past" for americans because we don't feel it. we are the punishers of those that don't openly accept our will. we just label our opposition as terrorist and pretend our actions are somehow noble in it's result.

when we moved to america i was amazed at how easy it was for americans to label the IRA as terrorist. that's an example.

Please tell me who we have mislabled "terrorist".

Please be specific.

The IRA did perform terrorristic acts. Do you know what the word means?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol i see you've entirely thought this through :lol
You must really think you're funny.

Yes I have thought it out, and for years had the same feelings about letting Israel have first blood when it comes to taking out nuclear sites in the region.

Almost old News...

Israel bombs Syria. The world stays quiet. If we did... We would never of hear the end of it!

[clambake]

Please tell me who we have mislabled "terrorist".
thats my point exactly. if someone came to rape you and your family and your people of your way of life, and you used the only means available to strike back, then you would carry the label of terrorist.


Please be specific.
look down


The IRA did perform terrorristic acts. Do you know what the word means?
i'm sure i do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

GGA, one statement. Yours. Everyone hates us. How
come they only hate us for the deeds you say we have
done. But they don't hate Castro, Stalin or the other
dictators who have propped up other regimes that
suppressed their populace.

Just curious.


castro and stalin don't claim to be the worlds beacon of hope, the country that protects the meek and seeks to spread freedom around the world.. we then turn around and support a dictator that tortures his people and uses wmds against part of his own population..can you see where I am coming from? I know ray you must make comments like 'eveyrone hates us' to prove your point. too bad i never said that.

[101A]

thats my point exactly. if someone came to rape you and your family and your people of your way of life, and you used the only means available to strike back, then you would carry the label of terrorist.


look down


i'm sure i do.

I'm confused.

What is your position.

The IRA is a terroristic organization; a succesfull one, at that. Righteous or not, the means they employed made them what they are.

[clambake]

it was the only means available and now they're a political wing with the right to exist.

[101A]

it was the only means available and now they're a political wing with the right to exist.Very well.


So, an organization may employ what ever means are at its disposal in order to accomplish its larger, selfish, aims - and apparently, against large odds, it often, or at least some, times works.


Glad we see eye to eye on this.

[clambake]

if you ever find yourself on the other side, that would be a good time to examine your opinion on people who throw the terror label around as if it's fact.

[101A]

if you ever find yourself on the other side, that would be a good time to examine your opinion on people who throw the terror label around as if it's fact."Terror" is a means to an end.

A group cannot take on an opponent through conventional means, so it resorts to acts of "terror" which do little to affect the functioning of the larger organization, but simply creates unrest and unease in the "innocent" population at large.

Again, fair enough. It's what the "underdog" can do.

Far be it from any American to criticize such tactics. After all, because our own revolutionary army threw out the rulebook, as it were, we are an independent nation today.

However, you cannot ask the larger nation to ignore, or simply accept the terrorism as a matter of course and an inevitibility of its own actions. The larger entity has a right to defend itself; even proactively.

Both groups are acting selfishly, after all. Both claim moral superiority. You seem to want to grant moral highground only to the underdog.

[clambake]

yes, the larger entity has a right to defend itself while forcing it's will on others.

[spurster]

We haven't armed a resistance against them.


Can you say Kurds?

No, I don't think the US is directly arming the Kurdish rebels in Iran, but indirectly, almost certainly.

[spurster]

if you ever find yourself on the other side, that would be a good time to examine your opinion on people who throw the terror label around as if it's fact.
I can't tell whether it is terror. I would rather call it "enhanced fear".

[clambake]

thats what happens when billions of dollars and millions of weapons are claimed to have disappeared.

[McFudpucker]

1. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon?


2. If they are, should they be allowed to? If they are not, what's up with the USA?


3. What should the US do right now?

1. Iran may be, who can tell at this point. However, it will take three or more years of development before Iran's Nuclear Program can yield Weapons Grade Plutonium.

2. A nuclear-armed Iran is not a good thing. However, a nuclear-armed Iran is nowhere near the greatest threat the West has ever faced, as some Republican Presidential Candidates would have us believe.

3. A little more of the carrot and less of the stick.

[101A]

Can you say Kurds?

No, I don't think the US is directly arming the Kurdish rebels in Iran, but indirectly, almost certainly.Huge difference between direct and indirect. Intentionally indirect = as good as direct, after all.

Are just assuming, or have you seen something?

[Wild Cobra]

1. Iran may be, who can tell at this point. However, it will take three or more years of development before Iran's Nuclear Program can yield Weapons Grade Plutonium.

What about weapons grade uranium?

As many centrifuges as they have going, it won't take long. If it was for 'peaceful' purposes, like fuel, they wouldn't need so many because they wouldn't need to enrich it to weapons grade.

[clambake]

What about weapons grade uranium?

As many centrifuges as they have going, it won't take long. If it was for 'peaceful' purposes, like fuel, they wouldn't need so many because they wouldn't need to enrich it to weapons grade.
just do what you want and Putin will probably give it to them. what then?

[spurster]

Huge difference between direct and indirect. Intentionally indirect = as good as direct, after all.

Are just assuming, or have you seen something?

It seem like a good guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/world/middleeast/23kurds.html

...

Like the P.K.K., the Iranian Kurds control much of the craggy, boulder-strewn frontier and routinely ambush patrols on the other side. But while the Americans call the P.K.K. terrorists, guerrilla commanders say P.J.A.K. has had “direct or indirect discussions” with American officials. They would not divulge any details of the discussions or the level of the officials involved, but they noted that the group’s leader, Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, visited Washington last summer.

Biryar Gabar, one of 11 members of the group’s leadership, said there had been “normal dialogue” with American officials, declining specifics. One of his bodyguards said officials of the group met with Americans in Kirkuk last year.

Iranian officials have accused the United States of supplying the fighters and using them in a proxy war, though those assertions were denied by the American military. “The consensus is that U.S. forces are not working with or advising the P.J.A.K.,” said an American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye of the Navy.

A senior American diplomat said that there had not been any official contacts with the group and that he was unaware of its having received any support from the United States. He also said that Mr. Haj-Ahmadi, while in Washington, did not meet with administration officials.

...

[clambake]

It seem like a good guess.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/world/middleeast/23kurds.html[Iranian officials have accused the United States of supplying the fighters and using them in a proxy war, though those assertions were denied by the American military. “The consensus is that U.S. forces are not working with or advising the P.J.A.K.,” said an American military spokesman in Baghdad, Cmdr. Scott Rye of the Navy
sound familar?

[Wild Cobra]

just do what you want and Putin will probably give it to them. what then?
Then Israel will take care of things. They have far better intelligence on such things than we do. They are not pussified like America is either. They will take action if necessary.

[McFudpucker]

What about weapons grade uranium?

As many centrifuges as they have going, it won't take long. If it was for 'peaceful' purposes, like fuel, they wouldn't need so many because they wouldn't need to enrich it to weapons grade.

A moot point. The one percent solution. This is capabilities vs. intent. Neither the IAEA, nor the Israelis are truly concerned with Iran's Intentions, if they aren't, why should anyone else be?


Haaretz 25.10.2007

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.


Haaretz 18.10.2007

The Iranian threat to Israel is substantive but not existential, according to former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy.

During a lecture in Jerusalem yesterday, Halevy said "the State of Israel cannot be destroyed."

He also called on the government to follow Washington's lead and offer Iran a diplomatic option, in parallel with stepping up efforts to foil Tehran's nuclear plan. Halevy's lecture presented a less-disturbing picture from the one offered by President George W. Bush.

"Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known and others you can presume, Halevy said. "There is a chance that something serious will happen here, but I tend to say the following when I am abroad: Israel cannot be destroyed. If you do not believe this, then don't, but I suggest that you do not try it."

... "We must deal with Iran in parallel ways," he said. "Do everything possible to make it harder on them, undermine their efforts through economic measures and international sanctions, and on the other hand come to them and say 'if you change your ways - there are things we can talk about,'" Halevy said.

The current Foreign Minister of Israel and the former head of Israel's Mossad are downplaying the threat of Iran's Nuclear Program and are calling for renewed diplomatic efforts. There is time for pragmatism.

[Wild Cobra]

A moot point. The one percent solution. This is capabilities vs. intent. Neither the IAEA, nor the Israelis are truly concerned with Iran's Intentions, if they aren't, why should anyone else be?





The current Foreign Minister of Israel and the former head of Israel's Mossad are downplaying the threat of Iran's Nuclear Program and are calling for renewed diplomatic efforts. There is time for pragmatism.
Like I said, let Israel take care of the situation. They will strike if needed. If they think diplomacy will work, then my hat's off to them.

[clambake]

A moot point. The one percent solution. This is capabilities vs. intent. Neither the IAEA, nor the Israelis are truly concerned with Iran's Intentions, if they aren't, why should anyone else be?





The current Foreign Minister of Israel and the former head of Israel's Mossad are downplaying the threat of Iran's Nuclear Program and are calling for renewed diplomatic efforts. There is time for pragmatism.
very good points. it's the only intelligent alternative.

[clambake]

Like I said, let Israel take care of the situation. They will strike if needed.
thats insanity.

[McFudpucker]

Like I said, let Israel take care of the situation. They will strike if needed. If they think diplomacy will work, then my hat's off to them.

It seems that Israel is trying the carrot and keeping the stick in reserve. Both countries have a history of cooperation prior to 1979, hopefully this counts for something.

[Wild Cobra]

It seems that Israel is trying the carrot and keeping the stick in reserve. Both countries have a history of cooperation prior to 1979, hopefully this counts for something.
It's hard to say with the president that Iran has.

[McFudpucker]

It's hard to say with the president that Iran has.

Ahmadinejad has no control over either Iran's Armed Forces or it's Nuclear Program. True power resides with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.

These folks have bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland. They know on which side their bread is buttered.

[clambake]

no, no, raging on Ahmadinejad is the life blood for fear monging. without the threat of fear, we're helpless to get americans to conform.

[Yonivore]

Ahmadinejad has no control over either Iran's Armed Forces or it's Nuclear Program. True power resides with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.

These folks have bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland. They know on which side their bread is buttered.
Then those weird beards are directing Quds forces and the Revolutionary Guard against American Troops in Iraq? They're supporting Hezbollah and Syria? They're moving forward with Iran's nuclear ambitions? They're sanctioning the president's anti-jewish holocaustic rhetoric?

If so, they're worse than Ahmadenijad. They think they're untouchable.

And, if you think their money in a Swiss Bank Account will stay their craziness, you're a frog sitting in a cool pot of water and they've just turned the burner on under your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Ahmadinejad has no control over either Iran's Armed Forces or it's Nuclear Program. True power resides with the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts.

True, but his words are something terrible. I have a hard time believing he could say them if they were not words from above him.



These folks have bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland. They know on which side their bread is buttered.

Yep, they know where their money is the safest.

[McFudpucker]

True, but his words are something terrible. I have a hard time believing he could say them if they were not words from above him.


Yep, they know where their money is the safest.

Ahmadinejad is already in disagrement with both Khamenei and Rafsanjani. Iran is not some monolithic nation. There are factions and schisms in all societies.


The criticism against Ahmadinejad is not coming from the reformers front only, but also from the conservatives. According to The Economist, “it seems that a clique of senior figures in the regime, perhaps including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have endorsed the criticism”

...According to The Economist, “conservatives in Iran’s parliament and press blame his extravagance at home and braggadocio abroad for Iran’s worsening economic malaise and for the unpleasant sense of being ever more squarely in the Americans’ firing line”. The English weekly continued with a significant hypothesis: “It seems that a clique of senior figures in the regime, perhaps including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have endorsed the criticism”.

...The idea of a fracture between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad is supported by Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian studies program at Stanford University, who believes that the majority of the Iranian leadership, except for Ahmadinejad and his followers, understood that confronting the West wouldn’t take Iran anywhere and could only be perilous.

What do you think would happen to their money if increasingly severe sanctions are slapped on Iran? Sanctions turned Iraq into a 4th World Nation in the 1990's.

Swiss Bank Accounts are hardly in keeping with their image as religious fanatics. Especially considering that the Western Concept of earning interest is Haram in Islam. Some may regard the Iranian Leadership as irrational, but they are eminently rational, with the apparent exception of Ahmadinejad.

[Wild Cobra]

We disagree with quite a bit here. I'll just remind you that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some pretty inflammatory words, and is the highest ranking official of any nation with power advocating the destruction of Israel. His words alone, weather he can order things to happen stir the hears of the radicals.

As for 4th world nation? Is that term really used? My take of it is that Iran has been in a downturn ever since the Iranian revolution. Their policies created the situations where the UN and USA decided to take the stances we have. Iran was a very nice Islamic country to live in before 1979. They were adopting western ideas and cultures.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

And, if you think their money in a Swiss Bank Account will stay their craziness, you're a frog sitting in a cool pot of water and they've just turned the burner on under your ass.

Because elites who stockpile money do not care about the future and will easily launch nuclear strikes without regard to their own.

[Yonivore]

Because elites who stockpile money do not care about the future and will easily launch nuclear strikes without regard to their own.
No, just those guys.

[McFudpucker]

We disagree with quite a bit here. I'll just remind you that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some pretty inflammatory words, and is the highest ranking official of any nation with power advocating the destruction of Israel. His words alone, weather he can order things to happen stir the hears of the radicals.

As for 4th world nation? Is that term really used? My take of it is that Iran has been in a downturn ever since the Iranian revolution. Their policies created the situations where the UN and USA decided to take the stances we have. Iran was a very nice Islamic country to live in before 1979. They were adopting western ideas and cultures.

He is no Hitler. Again, Ahmadinejad has no power over Iran's Nuclear Program and Iran's Armed Forces. And Ahmadinejad's supposed advocacy of the destruction of Israel is a matter of some debate. It may come down to translations. Considering that Israel is not that concerned with it....

Iran went into a downturn after the CIA-Sponsored removal of Mossadeqh in 1953. What policies created the conditions that led to the growth of the "Revolution?"

Most Iranians do not consider Iran a "very nice Islamic country" to live in between 1953 and 1979. Too many of them died at the hands of the STAVAK.

[Wild Cobra]

Iran went into a downturn after the CIA-Sponsored removal of Mossadeqh in 1953. What policies created the conditions that led to the growth of the "Revolution?"

We're getting into areas I know little of, but I know this much. This was something that would have happened anyway. We just helped.



Most Iranians do not consider Iran a "very nice Islamic country" to live in between 1953 and 1979. Too many of them died at the hands of the STAVAK.

Maybe not right after 1953, but before 1979, it was an awesome place to live, unless you lived by strick Islamic laws...

[McFudpucker]

We're getting into areas I know little of, but I know this much. This was something that would have happened anyway. We just helped.

Maybe not right after 1953, but before 1979, it was an awesome place to live, unless you lived by strick Islamic laws...

Mossadeqh was a popularly elected leader. Cite a source that says the Mossadeqh Government was going to collapse within 5 years. It was the British and the CIA that conspired to bring down Mossadeqh. Madeline Albright admitted to the complicity.


March 2000

“In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

Again, Iran was no paradise for many Iranians. There is a reason Khomeini was welcomed by millions when he returned from exile in 1979.

[Wild Cobra]

Mossadeqh was a popularly elected leader. Cite a source that says the Mossadeqh Government was going to collapse within 5 years. It was the British and the CIA that conspired to bring down Mossadeqh. Madeline Albright admitted to the complicity.

I didn't say it would have collapsed on it's own. The British were the ones who started this, they convinced us to help by playing into the Red Scare. The British would have found a way to do it without our help.



Again, Iran was no paradise for many Iranians. There is a reason Khomeini was welcomed by millions when he returned from exile in 1979.

Well, my understanding is different. It was a secular nation before the 1979 revolution. It was the Islamic who wanted a religion controlled government who were noit happy. I would equate the 1979 revolutioon to something like the Christian Radicals taking over America, and reestablishing the Laws of Moses. A few poeple would welcome that, but it would destroy America as it is.

[McFudpucker]

I didn't say it would have collapsed on it's own. The British were the ones who started this, they convinced us to help by playing into the Red Scare. The British would have found a way to do it without our help.


Well, my understanding is different. It was a secular nation before the 1979 revolution. It was the Islamic who wanted a religion controlled government who were noit happy. I would equate the 1979 revolutioon to something like the Christian Radicals taking over America, and reestablishing the Laws of Moses. A few poeple would welcome that, but it would destroy America as it is.

So the State would be the same, just the Path would be different. Again, the US was manipulated by the Brits.

Iran was a secular nation in 1953 when the WEST sponsored the removal of Mossadeqh. Why? Mossadeqh was going to nationalize Oil Interests when Anglo-Iranian Oil, today's BP, refused to honor profit sharing arragements with Iran by not opening up their books to the Iranian Government. Was Mossadeqh wrong to try to secure greater oil revenues for his country?

What went wrong was when the Shah was restored to power, he began a violent crackdown on Religious Figures and Parties.

The Shah was a perceived as a US backed despot who did not tolerate dissent.


1975

“We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t… A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”

[Wild Cobra]

Was Mossadeqh wrong to try to secure greater oil revenues for his country?

Not at all. I never said the actions starting in 1953 were right either. I think they were wrong.



What went wrong was when the Shah was restored to power, he began a violent crackdown on Religious Figures and Parties.

Yes, he was unpopular with the Islamic Extremists, especially since he tried to eradicate the radicalized ones! He dealt with them rather harsh, but the general population was safe, well educated, and progressing rather well since the Shah believed in western ideals.



The Shah was a perceived as a US backed despot who did not tolerate dissent.

True. Rather than focusing on how we got there, answer me this please. The Shah supported western ideals, and a friendship with Israel. Do you think the Iranian revolution made things better or worse? Would it had happened if we didn't have Carter for president in 1979?

I think a more thoughtful president would have assisted the Shah in keeping Iran in order. Iraq fell during the same timeframe. I believe 1979 was the crossroads for the Middle East becoming what is today. Could we have stopped those two events? I don't know, but I think we should have tried at least. I am a firm believer that if Saddam didn't overthrow the Iraqi government in 1979, and the same with the Iran events, that we probably would have a peaceful Middle East today.

[Yonivore]

Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/barrier.php?err=3&prodid=&subid=&url=/products/premium/read_article.php?id=297722&id=297722&camp=) notices Iran is trying to refurbish its declining oil refining industry by planning 8 new refineries. But it needs the money. Can it continue to punch the West in the face while pulling money out of it's pocket?


Iran's national oil company announced plans Nov. 2 to build eight new oil refineries with the ultimate goal of becoming a net exporter of refined oil products. Bringing foreign investors in on the project will prove essential to provide the necessary know-how, but given the current state of international condemnation bearing down on them, the Iranians may have to choose between international brinksmanship and energy independence.
My guess is that Iran can both punch the West and reach into its wallet at the same time. There's a school of thought which asserts that if we are nice enough, the enemy will give us a break. The New York Times magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?ex=1351828800&en=d1fd6f3e2fc28921&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) describes an interview with Barack Obama aboard his campaign airplane in an article curious entitled Is (His) Biography (Our) Destiny?.


“If I am the face of American foreign policy and American power,” Barack Obama mused not long ago aboard his campaign plane, “as long as we are also making prudent strategic decisions, handling emergencies, crises and opportunities in the world in an intelligent and sober way. . . .” He stopped. He wanted to make sure he got this just right, and he had got a little caught up in rebutting the claim, which Hillary Clinton has artfully advanced, that he is not prepared to handle emergencies. Obama stopped picking at his grilled salmon in order to stare out at the sky for a few moments. “I think,” he said, in that deep and measured voice of his, “that if you can tell people, ‘We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,’ then they’re going to think that he may have a better sense of what’s going on in our lives and in our country. And they’d be right.”

Perhaps they would. Obama’s supporters believe that his life story and the angle of vision it affords him hold out the possibility of curing the harm they would say we have done to ourselves through our indifference to the views of others and through the insularity of a president who seems so incurious about the world.
The idea is appealing enough. If we care about others then they will care about us. But is it true or true only if we assume foreign statesmen are motivated by the same values that motivate us? The logical problem with Obama's assertion is that it assumes that people -- especially leaders in other countries -- care anything about grandmothers living on the shores of Lake Victoria or half-Indonesians living anywhere. All the available evidence suggests that many foreign leaders couldn't care less if their people lived or died. What slack they might cut us if they knew he had a grandmother in Africa is anybody's guess.

My fearless prediction is that there will be any number of enlightened politicians who, like Obama and McFud, will fall all over themselves in a rush to provide whatever Iran needs -- whatever Iran does.