Russia and Iran are chums

[clambake]

Russia Ships Nuclear Fuel to Iran


By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ
Published: December 18, 2007
MOSCOW — Russia made its first fuel delivery to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant on Sunday, a spokesman for the Russian company overseeing the project confirmed Monday, although it remained unclear when the controversial station would begin operating.

“The first phase of delivery has been completed,” said Irina F. Esipova, a spokeswoman for Atomsproiexport, the Russian contractor on the project. “A small amount of fuel is already on the premises of the Bushehr station in a special storage facility.” The company plans to deliver about 80 tons of nuclear fuel to Iran over the next two months, she said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the fuel would be under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency and that Iran had given written guarantees that the fuel would only be used for the nuclear power plant.

“All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant.”

The statement added: “After the Russian fuel is processed at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it will be returned to Russia for further processing and storage.”

The power station is at the heart of an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran insists that Bushehr is part of a civilian nuclear program. However, critics, particularly in the United States and Western Europe, have accused Tehran of secretly developing or planning to develop a nuclear bomb.

Iran confirmed that it had received the shipment, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported, The Associated Press said. “The first nuclear fuel shipment for the Bushehr atomic power plant arrived in Iran Monday,” IRNA quoted Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh as saying, the A.P. said.

Construction of Bushehr has been hindered by repeated delays. Earlier this year Russia delayed a fuel shipment expected in March, accusing Iran of tardiness in making its monthly payments of $25 million. However, Western officials said that Russia made the decision in part to help the West to pressure Iran into more openness on its nuclear program.

Last week, Sergei Shmatko, the director of Atomstroiexport, announced that Russia and Iran had ended their financial disputes over the project, though he failed to indicate a date for when the long-awaited opening would occur.

Ms. Esipova said the plant will be technically ready to operate no sooner than six months after all the uranium fuel rods needed to power the station are delivered.

The United States released a National Intelligence Estimate two weeks ago concluding that Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, undermining earlier claims by the Bush Administration that Iran was actively developing a nuclear weapon.

Officials in Washington have nevertheless continued to insist that Iran remains a threat, sentiments which have been echoed by some European leaders. Iran considers itself to have been vindicated by the intelligence report. On Sunday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the nuclear issue his "toughest battle and challenge" in recent years, but said the intelligence report had boosted Iran’s international status, a statement on the website of Iran’s Foreign Ministry said.


The power these two countries have gained under the Bush administration is amazing.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't understand... is Iran building nuclear weapons or not?? Are they solely interested in developing nuclear energy?? and if this is true, why should the US have ANY say in this?

P.S. This is a legitimate question, please refrain from the usual insulting responses, they just make you look like an idiot.

[boutons_]

Iran has every right to build nukes. After all, Iran's self-proclaimed mortal enemies, Israel and USA, have nukes. even if that right is in self-defense.

Iran could calculate that dubya didn't attack NK because NK supposedly had nukes.

dubya/dickhead are trying to prevent Iran from defending itself, similar to USA stopping homeowners from owning guns.

This Russian angle, and probably a similar Chinese angle, as the Chinese need Iran's oil as much as dubya and dickhead covet Iran's oil, indicates the USA cannot stop Iran from obtaining nukes.

M.A.D. kept USA and Russia from using nukes, much the way M.A.D. keeps Pakistan and India from throwing nukes at each other.

M.A.D. is really the only realistic hope that nukes won't be used.

If dubya/dickhead attack Iran in the next couple months, it will be to "regime change" Iran to try to get access to Iran's oil, using nukes as a pretext, just like in Iran. Their own calculation might be that dubya should attack/"regime change" Iran before Iran is capable of returning the favor with a nuclear response. I figure dubya and dickhead will get the calculation wrong yet again, since their math has been so bad since taking office.

[xrayzebra]

Why is this news. It has been in the making for months. Don't
you folks read anything but the blogs.

[clambake]

but they fail to discuss the powers these countries have acquired under the bush administration. they ignore the fact that countries are forming alliances to counteract our current behavoir towards the world. you see, ray, they've recognized their need to stand against us.

try not to say something stupid like "bring'em on".

[Ignignokt]

Iran has every right to build nukes. After all, Iran's self-proclaimed mortal enemies, Israel and USA, have nukes. even if that right is in self-defense.

Iran could calculate that dubya didn't attack NK because NK supposedly had nukes.

dubya/dickhead are trying to prevent Iran from defending itself, similar to USA stopping homeowners from owning guns.

This Russian angle, and probably a similar Chinese angle, as the Chinese need Iran's oil as much as dubya and dickhead covet Iran's oil, indicates the USA cannot stop Iran from obtaining nukes.

M.A.D. kept USA and Russia from using nukes, much the way M.A.D. keeps Pakistan and India from throwing nukes at each other.

M.A.D. is really the only realistic hope that nukes won't be used.

If dubya/dickhead attack Iran in the next couple months, it will be to "regime change" Iran to try to get access to Iran's oil, using nukes as a pretext, just like in Iran. Their own calculation might be that dubya should attack/"regime change" Iran before Iran is capable of returning the favor with a nuclear response. I figure dubya and dickhead will get the calculation wrong yet again, since their math has been so bad since taking office.


WHat is Iran defending itself from? Nukes that aren't to be used for offensive purposes.

S

[xrayzebra]

but they fail to discuss the powers these countries have acquired under the bush administration. they ignore the fact that countries are forming alliances to counteract our current behavoir towards the world. you see, ray, they've recognized their need to stand against us.

try not to say something stupid like "bring'em on".

Bring'em on. Hmmm. And you regurgitate the same old
liberal junk. "Our current behavior" indeed. Just what
has our "our current behavior" gotten us. 9/11. Which
period of "our current behavior" are you referring to?

[DarkReign]

WHat is Iran defending itself from? Nukes that aren't to be used for offensive purposes.

S

Try and step outside yourself for a moment, please.

Pretend for just a brief second you are not American.

Make believe that you were Arab, just for a second.

.

.

.

.

.

Ask Saddam why he would need nukes.

.

.

.

Qualifier: Saddam was a fuckhead. That he was hung in some basement was a disservice to those he killed. He, of all people, deserved to be stoned like so many are under Arab/Quran rule.

But, if I were Iran (ie Ahmajejdejedjddjaaa), I certainly wouldnt rule out the need for nuclear weapons. Seeing as America feels it necessary to remove anyone it deems unsuitable, I'd be looking around for a deterrent.

There is none better....yet.

[xrayzebra]

Try and step outside yourself for a moment, please.

Pretend for just a brief second you are not American.

Make believe that you were Arab, just for a second.

.

.

.

.

.

Ask Saddam why he would need nukes.

.

.

.

Qualifier: Saddam was a fuckhead. That he was hung in some basement was a disservice to those he killed. He, of all people, deserved to be stoned like so many are under Arab/Quran rule.

But, if I were Iran (ie Ahmajejdejedjddjaaa), I certainly wouldnt rule out the need for nuclear weapons. Seeing as America feels it necessary to remove anyone it deems unsuitable, I'd be looking around for a deterrent.

There is none better....yet.

I see your sense of reasoning is right on line......America
is wrong. Iran is right. Yeah, makes sense to me.
Especially since they have just about done everything
possible to defeat us without openly declaring war on
us. Openly may be a little wrong, they really have
openly declared war, just haven't backed it up with
open warfare. They have told us what they are going
to do, you just want accept the facts.

[DarkReign]

I see your sense of reasoning is right on line......America
is wrong. Iran is right. Yeah, makes sense to me.
Especially since they have just about done everything
possible to defeat us without openly declaring war on
us. Openly may be a little wrong, they really have
openly declared war, just haven't backed it up with
open warfare. They have told us what they are going
to do, you just want accept the facts.

Hmmm, expected a little more from you.

As it were, I never lent my opinion on the scenario.

I asked you to put yourself in their shoes. If youre incapable of doing so, then your opinion on my post means little to nothing.

You'd make a terrible field officer.

[clambake]

I see your sense of reasoning is right on line......America
is wrong. Iran is right. Yeah, makes sense to me.
Especially since they have just about done everything
possible to defeat us without openly declaring war on
us. Openly may be a little wrong, they really have
openly declared war, just haven't backed it up with
open warfare. They have told us what they are going
to do, you just want accept the facts.
about this and current behavoir.........we have informed the world that fighting terror is #2 on our list, therefore encouraging other countries to form their own plans regarding our #1.

[spurster]

Russia is smart. It only makes sense to be nice to nuclear-sooner-or-later countries, especially when they are on your border. Oh, yeah, there's that oil thing, too.

[clambake]

Russia is smart. It only makes sense to be nice to nuclear-sooner-or-later countries, especially when they are on your border. Oh, yeah, there's that oil thing, too.
bingo

[Wild Cobra]

I don't understand... is Iran building nuclear weapons or not?? Are they solely interested in developing nuclear energy?? and if this is true, why should the US have ANY say in this?

P.S. This is a legitimate question, please refrain from the usual insulting responses, they just make you look like an idiot.
You're right. It is a legitimate question. If they truly want to use enriched uranium for power production, nobody should try to stop them. The problem is, there is plenty of evidence to show high confidence that they want to produce weapons grade uranium. If you read the intelligence estimate through, it points out that Iran already has developed all the technology they need to enrich uranium. No more technical research is needed, that is why it is easy to see no development in progress. If they manage to keep any development secret from the intelligence agencies, we simply wouldn't know if they are continuing to move closer to making nuclear bombs.

We haven't denied them from making non-breeder type reactors for power. The UN and USA just want to see and be able to verify inventories of nuclear materials.

[AZLouis]

I still think the US and Sudan's friendship is much worse, if not disgusting.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

It's kinda ironic how this is yet another ambiguous development
it simultaneously bolsters and breaks down bush's strategy and will really just end up polarizing opinions even further


perhaps that is what russia wants

[Ignignokt]

Try and step outside yourself for a moment, please.

Pretend for just a brief second you are not American.

Make believe that you were Arab, just for a second.

.

.

.

.

.

Ask Saddam why he would need nukes.

.

.

.

Qualifier: Saddam was a fuckhead. That he was hung in some basement was a disservice to those he killed. He, of all people, deserved to be stoned like so many are under Arab/Quran rule.

But, if I were Iran (ie Ahmajejdejedjddjaaa), I certainly wouldnt rule out the need for nuclear weapons. Seeing as America feels it necessary to remove anyone it deems unsuitable, I'd be looking around for a deterrent.

There is none better....yet.




So Iran is worried that we'd nuke them. But we didn't nuke Iraq?


Don't lie to yourself.

Sadaam wants nukes to bully everyone in that region. THere is no self defence here. Same thing with Iran.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

You are talking as if pursuing nukes has never been considered a defensive strategy

[scott]

Trivia question:

Which countries are in violation of, suspected to be in violation of, or have chosen not to be party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968?

Next question: When said countries are allowed to be in violation with the rest of the world chosing to turn a blind eye, how can the treaty be expected to be held with any respect by anyone else?

Next question: If you are a nation that feels endanged or potential endanged by one of the 8 nations who possess nuclear weapons, what incentive do you have to obey the treaty?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

India comes to mind as a non-signee

Because we're coddling their nutsack in return for them squandering their economic opportunities and losing bids to china

none

oh yeah, lol, israel

[Ignignokt]

I'm are talking as if pursuing nukes has never been considered an offensive strategy

[DarkReign]

So Iran is worried that we'd nuke them. But we didn't nuke Iraq?


Don't lie to yourself.

Sadaam wants nukes to bully everyone in that region. THere is no self defence here. Same thing with Iran.

Saddam wanted nukes. Past tense. And where did I say "theyre afraid we'll nuke em"? I didnt. No, nuclear arms are more a deterrent than anything else. If it was the US's goal to invade and depose Iran, you dont think the WH would seriously reconsider knowing they had nukes? Tell me, whens the last time we went to war with a nuclear power?

I never lied to myself. I was putting myself in their shoes. Obviously, the new US foreign policy of "preemptive war" is a boon to the third world. Especially those rich in natural resource.

So, if I were a third world country (ie N.Korea, Iran, etc), I would be looking for a way to elimnate the West's ability to bully me.

There is only one way to do that. Nuclear arms.

Sure, there is the added benefit of being able to strongarm your neighbors, but its a better question to ask "What incentive does Iran have NOT to aquire nuclear arms?"

They dont have one, except for UN sanctions, possible invasion....look how that turned out for Iraq (Oil for Food, subsequent overthrow).

My underlying point to the quandry is certainly not some compassion for Iran/N.Korea, so much as it is an exercise in seeing it from the other side.

Its quite obvious most Americans cant do that. We think because we're so bad-ass that when we say jump, the 3rd world wannabes ask how high.

When in reality, they have no incentive to follow our mantra. Fine, some here think America is infallible and always right. Wonderful.

Truth be told, the rest of the world doesnt give a fuck if youre right, or even if theyre wrong. Its a "what have you done for me lately" world, and America has done nothing for Iran. Therefore, if I were Iranian, I'd tell the US to get fucked and do what I do. Find willing partners in the anti-US crusade (such as Russia, China).

Foster those relationships, not the US/UN relationships. Working with the US is more about being a good little vassal moreso than a partnership (at this point). So find others willing to work evenly with you, not publicly threaten your sovereignty.

If you cant see the Iranian perspective, or any other country's perspective for that matter, then youre quite useless. The days of "America's way or the highway" are in their final years. Using a loose tongue and a tough facade are no way to do business.

DISCLAIMER: I use "you" in the 3rd person sense, not you particularly Ignignokt.

[clambake]

Saddam wanted nukes. Past tense. And where did I say "theyre afraid we'll nuke em"? I didnt. No, nuclear arms are more a deterrent than anything else. If it was the US's goal to invade and depose Iran, you dont think the WH would seriously reconsider knowing they had nukes? Tell me, whens the last time we went to war with a nuclear power?

I never lied to myself. I was putting myself in their shoes. Obviously, the new US foreign policy of "preemptive war" is a boon to the third world. Especially those rich in natural resource.

So, if I were a third world country (ie N.Korea, Iran, etc), I would be looking for a way to elimnate the West's ability to bully me.

There is only one way to do that. Nuclear arms.

Sure, there is the added benefit of being able to strongarm your neighbors, but its a better question to ask "What incentive does Iran have NOT to aquire nuclear arms?"

They dont have one, except for UN sanctions, possible invasion....look how that turned out for Iraq (Oil for Food, subsequent overthrow).

My underlying point to the quandry is certainly not some compassion for Iran/N.Korea, so much as it is an exercise in seeing it from the other side.

Its quite obvious most Americans cant do that. We think because we're so bad-ass that when we say jump, the 3rd world wannabes ask how high.

When in reality, they have no incentive to follow our mantra. Fine, some here think America is infallible and always right. Wonderful.

Truth be told, the rest of the world doesnt give a fuck if youre right, or even if theyre wrong. Its a "what have you done for me lately" world, and America has done nothing for Iran. Therefore, if I were Iranian, I'd tell the US to get fucked and do what I do. Find willing partners in the anti-US crusade (such as Russia, China).

Foster those relationships, not the US/UN relationships. Working with the US is more about being a good little vassal moreso than a partnership (at this point). So find others willing to work evenly with you, not publicly threaten your sovereignty.

If you cant see the Iranian perspective, or any other country's perspective for that matter, then youre quite useless. The days of "America's way or the highway" are in their final years. Using a loose tongue and a tough facade are no way to do business.

DISCLAIMER: I use "you" in the 3rd person sense, not you particularly Ignignokt.
excellent post. you are now included in the Axis of Evil.

[2centsworth]

Saddam wanted nukes. Past tense. And where did I say "theyre afraid we'll nuke em"? I didnt. No, nuclear arms are more a deterrent
For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes.


Iran possessing nukes increases the chances of a full scale nuclear war 10 fold IMO.

We want less of a chance of a nuclear war than more so. Now to some on this board they think eliminating the US would decrease the chances of war.

[boutons_]

"For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes."

oh really? where?

Where would they drop a nuke and NOT get massively retaliated upon by Israel, USA, and maybe France and UK?

What evidence do you have that they are not aware of such retaliation and don't care about Iran's infrastructure being destroyed and millions of Iranians killed?

With help from Russia and China and time, Iran will get nukes.

The USA has no right to deny nukes or anything else to any other nation, just as any other nation has the sovereign right to run their country however they want, EXACTLY the same sovereign right the USA has.

How would you right-wing war-mongers react if Russia decided that the USA's nukes stationed around the planet and USA's missiles in Eastern Europe was risk to Russian security, and decided to launch a nuclear attack on USA? Don't think they can? Don't think they would?

[2centsworth]

"For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes."

oh really? where?

Where would they drop a nuke and NOT get massively retaliated upon by Israel, USA, and maybe France and UK?

What evidence do you have that they are not aware of such retaliation and don't care about Iran's infrastructure being destroyed and millions of Iranians killed?


There's glory in Martyrdom. Also, simple math tells you more countries with Nukes increases the chances of nuclear war. btw, where is it written that all countries have a right to nukes/decision to end mankind. Is that in the bill of rights?

[Ignignokt]

Saddam wanted nukes. Past tense. And where did I say "theyre afraid we'll nuke em"? I didnt. No, nuclear arms are more a deterrent than anything else. If it was the US's goal to invade and depose Iran, you dont think the WH would seriously reconsider knowing they had nukes? Tell me, whens the last time we went to war with a nuclear power?

I never lied to myself. I was putting myself in their shoes. Obviously, the new US foreign policy of "preemptive war" is a boon to the third world. Especially those rich in natural resource.

So, if I were a third world country (ie N.Korea, Iran, etc), I would be looking for a way to elimnate the West's ability to bully me.


What rich natural resource does n korea have?


Infact natural resource is not the common denominator here. Despots, are.

There is only one way to do that. Nuclear arms.



Sure, there is the added benefit of being able to strongarm your neighbors, but its a better question to ask "What incentive does Iran have NOT to aquire nuclear arms?"


Joining the civilized world, equal trading partners, respectable powerbrokers to the middle east palestinian conflict.

They dont have one, except for UN sanctions, possible invasion....look how that turned out for Iraq (Oil for Food, subsequent overthrow).

My underlying point to the quandry is certainly not some compassion for Iran/N.Korea, so much as it is an exercise in seeing it from the other side.


The otherside being from only one person's perspective, Kim Jong Ill, because his people would rather have food on the table rather than nuclear arms.

Two, Iran was never threatened by israel from the beggining. Iran was the one threatening Israel to their extinction. Iran's main purpose for nuclear weapons is to strong arm the israelis into submitting land since they're already nicking them with hezbollah. It's quite obvious Iran is not pursuing nucleur weapons for defense, especially since it is in their best interest to become the main power in the ME who got rid of the zionist prescence, and took back the holy land for Shia Islam.

Its quite obvious most Americans cant do that. We think because we're so bad-ass that when we say jump, the 3rd world wannabes ask how high.

Except for that whole cold war thing, when you had those 3rd world countries assasinating innocents into bringing in revolution by Soviet assistance, and we were actually were in danger of losing our whole South American continent to Soviet influenced communism, that's before Reagan took over, even then, GHW bush used the UN and wanted to defer policing to the UN.

So, maybe you're not being serious.


When in reality, they have no incentive to follow our mantra. Fine, some here think America is infallible and always right. Wonderful.


We are america. AMerica is not some abstract power or concept. WE want there to be peace, Iran's leadership not under control of a free society wants something else. We happen to enjoy freedoms that we want to partake with the rest of the world. Even after the 2000 elections, we as americans went on with our lives without resorting to civil war. We'd like for the world to solve their differences the same way.

We lost our mission in Vietnam, do you see us sending our children overthere strapped in explosives to terrorize their citizens into submitting to us because we can't handle defeat, no.

We've been through the Veitnam era, we've had slavery, atrocities to the indians.

We no we've been wrong.

Perspective please. Not some insane generalization.

Truth be told, the rest of the world doesnt give a fuck if youre right, or even if theyre wrong. Its a "what have you done for me lately" world, and America has done nothing for Iran. Therefore, if I were Iranian, I'd tell the US to get fucked and do what I do. Find willing partners in the anti-US crusade (such as Russia, China).

and likewise. "This what have you done lately for me" attitude does not justify them wanting to pursue nukes to annhilate a race of beings.


Foster those relationships, not the US/UN relationships. Working with the US is more about being a good little vassal moreso than a partnership (at this point). So find others willing to work evenly with you, not publicly threaten your sovereignty.

So now it's between choosing to become the soviet puppet or the american one.

I still don't see you're justification for pursuing nukes here.


If you cant see the Iranian perspective, or any other country's perspective for that matter, then youre quite useless. The days of "America's way or the highway" are in their final years. Using a loose tongue and a tough facade are no way to do business.


I see Almajinaheedhedhadhhadhhd's and his clerics perspective. What perspective outside of destroy israel will the irani people provide if they don't follow the clerics and the Pm's?

That we don't know.

DISCLAIMER: I use "you" in the 3rd person sense, not you particularly Ignignokt.

[boutons_]

"simple math tells you more countries with Nukes increases the chances of nuclear war"

The simplest math is M.A.D. If Japan would have had nukes and the ability to deliver them to USA, would they, yellow and unChristian, have been nuked by the US, white and Christian?

"where is it written that all countries have a right to nukes"

As I said, countries answer to nobody. They are sovereign. They can do what they want, which the USA has demonstrated so repeatedly.

My guess is that the Iranian mullah's are extremely comfortable materially and powerfully, almost 30 years in power, which has corrupted them, as power always does. The loss of that power and comfort via their personal martyrdom, and destruction of Iran, is not at the top of their priorities. The mullahs would much rather hassle/destroy Israel through proxies.

[Ignignokt]

"simple math tells you more countries with Nukes increases the chances of nuclear war"

The simplest math is M.A.D. If Japan would have nukes and the ability to deliver them to USA, would they, yellow and unChristian, have been nuked by the US, white and Christian?

"where is it written that all countries have a right to nukes"

As I said, countries answer to nobody. They are sovereign. They can do what they want, which the USA has demonstrated so repeatedly.

My guess is that the Iranian mullah's are extremely comfortable materially and powerfully, almost 30 years in power, which has corrupted them, as power always does. The loss of that power and comfort via their personal martyrdom, and destruction of Iran, is not at the top of their priorities. The mullahs would much rather hassle/destroy Israel through proxies.


Or have their proxies deliver the nucleaur damage for them.

We're not diviners here, we're only going by their own words.

[boutons_]

"is Iran building nuclear weapons or not?"

NIE says no, even the Israelies say no.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1196847366234&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Even if Iran had nukes, what can anybody do about it?

What can anybody do to stop them, forever, from getting nukes?

[Ignignokt]

"is Iran building nuclear weapons or not?"

NIE says no, even the Israelies say no.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1196847366234&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Even if Iran had nukes, what can anybody do about it?


Israel will only cease lots of land, and continue to have it's liveliehood deteriorate at an exponential rate.

What can anybody do to stop them, forever, from getting nukes?

Ask Iraq.

[clambake]

"This what have you done lately for me" attitude does not justify them wanting to pursue nukes to annhilate a race of beings.

this sound bite taken directly from the WH when it became clear that their aspirations for oil is the underlying goal.

give us some more.......9/11.....yellowcake......OBL was married to Saddam

[Ignignokt]

this sound bite taken directly from the WH when it became clear that their aspirations for oil is the underlying goal.

give us some more.......9/11.....yellowcake......OBL was married to Saddam


:p: :king :santahat :reading :dizzy :nope :oink :married: :greedy :hungry:

i guess this string of emoticons is the correct response for your lunatic and senseless post.

[clambake]

:p: :king :santahat :reading :dizzy :nope :oink :married: :greedy :hungry:

i guess this string of emoticons is the correct response for your lunatic and senseless post.
i like your style. you have no need for foreign policy. you'll be left with wondering "what happened"?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

igkgkgkgnot, if memory serves, nukes have only been used as an offensive weapon twice in history by the same country during the same war. Arguably all nuclear programs developed since then have had a defensive aspect.

[Ignignokt]

igkgkgkgnot, if memory serves, nukes have only been used as an offensive weapon twice in history by the same country during the same war. Arguably all nuclear programs developed since then have had a defensive aspect.


Well let's see, the soviets were just commies and wanted to subdue us politically, yet we were never they're enemy, since our own bankers funded their war.

Iran's objective is more religous and they are a doomsday cult by their own words. We should let apples be apples and oranges be oranges.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Name one instance in which this current Iranian government has acted irrationally and fanatically to warrant them being labelled a doomsday cult. (please note the verb "act" and let us take the action of "speaking words" to not count)

[Ignignokt]

Name one instance in which this current Iranian government has acted irrationally and fanatically to warrant them being labelled a doomsday cult. (please note the verb "act" and let us take the action of "speaking words" to not count)


Start the Lebanese israeli conflict, and help assasinate the Lebanese prime minister.

Fund Hezbollah to bring forth the destruction of Israel.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Yes very very irrational to start an underground organization against your most deadly rival in the region

very very irrational to assassinate a political rival

they should definitely be in the record books for most irrational political acts ever based on those facts
jack

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I'm starting to believe Mel Gibson really was right.

[remingtonbo2001]

For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes.


Iran possessing nukes increases the chances of a full scale nuclear war 10 fold IMO.

We want less of a chance of a nuclear war than more so. Now to some on this board they think eliminating the US would decrease the chances of war.

That's about as simplified as it can be.

Funny thing, many are unable to comprehend simplicity in it's nature

However, I will offer another perspective.
The reason you don't want Iran to obtain Nuclear Weapons, isn't because they would use them directly against the U.S. or Isreal, but would supply them to terrorist.The terrorist would be held responsible, not Iran. I think most of us can come to the logical conclusion that Al-Queda doesn't give a fuck about the state of humanity. They want Jihad. They will fight to the death for Jihad. America ( and other nations) continue to fight for peace. Granted there are numerous fractions which have occured to the fault of our government.
But that's apart of human/social evolution. Humanity will make mistakes along the way, but we must always continue to strive for an enviroment which will promote life, liberty and happiness.

I know that I want peace and you do to. We just disagree on the method in which to achieve it. A disagrement shouldn't keep us from working together to achieve a common goal.

[remingtonbo2001]

Name one instance in which this current Iranian government has acted irrationally and fanatically to warrant them being labelled a doomsday cult. (please note the verb "act" and let us take the action of "speaking words" to not count)

They have provided funds to terrorist organizations, directly and indirectly.

So, would you personally give the Iranian government the materials to build a nuclear weapon? Then watch them hand their final product over to terrorists, in which the terroist then use this weapon to kill your family?

Iran isn't a doomsday cult. However, they are ignorant/stubborn enough to supply a doomsday cult (Al-Queda), with a doomsday weapon.

[clambake]

has the US ever provided funds? hmmm.......

[Ignignokt]

Yes very very irrational to start an underground organization against your most deadly rival in the region.

If by deadly you mean for the simple fact that they exist on your playground and the simple thought of their jewesness makes you scared for the boogeyman. Maybe that's so logical. Hey, some people here are starting to fear N koreans because they're so weird and make fucktarded movies, maybe whe should start targeting their innocents.


Besides, when has israel militarily decreed a threat to iran for anything else besides Iran's saber rattling comments. When do the israelis send proxies to blow their kids up in kebob parlors?

Whose the aggressor here?

very very irrational to assassinate a political rival.


You mean one that was powerless and had no intention to cause harm, and was too busy worried about democratic reforms and ushering a free society such as lebanon? Wow, what so threatening about that?

Awnser me this. In what form did the ragtag little country of lebanon ever threaten Iran?

Or, how could they ever threaten Iran?


I guess it's not so irrational for Bush to assasinate Schroeder or Chirac under your criteria. And they provided an even more annoying counterpoint to us, than Lebanon to Iran.


they should definitely be in the record books for most irrational political acts ever based on those facts
jack


.....hmmm ok..

[Ignignokt]

cr3wn3d


I think CBF Pharmacy is confident enough in his oppinions he doesn't need a waste of a Notre Dame degree being his approval lackey.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

They have provided funds to terrorist organizations, directly and indirectly.

So, would you personally give the Iranian government the materials to build a nuclear weapon? Then watch them hand their final product over to terrorists, in which the terroist then use this weapon to kill your family?

Iran isn't a doomsday cult. However, they are ignorant/stubborn enough to supply a doomsday cult (Al-Queda), with a doomsday weapon.

They have supported organizations which america has labelled terrorist but that does not make it an irrational move to make us worried that once they get the bomb they'll nuke us and our interests without any regard to their own existence. That is the image of Iran that the administration was trying to imprint on your mind, before the NIE came out.

[Ignignokt]

They have supported organizations which america has labelled terrorist but that does not make it an irrational move to make us worried that once they get the bomb they'll nuke us and our interests without any regard to their own existence. That is the image of Iran that the administration was trying to imprint on your mind, before the NIE came out.

Is Hezbollah terrorist?


wether america calls them terrorist or not. This group beheads innocents, and targets them. They have an apocalyptic vision, and are trying to speed up that vision to come to fruitition.

No matter how much you dodge the issue. The israelis never took hezbollah's land, hezbollah is not palestinian. They are an Irani front terror group, nor had they any buisiness with the israeli palestinian crisis. Iran is trying to become the saviour of the Islamic world and trying to out shine Saudi Arabia's Islamic fervor.


You could make the case that saudis are terrorist too, since they fund terrorist indirectly. THe difference here is, that the saudi's are not intent on using nucleur force, nor are they intent on bring apocalyptic doom.

Saudi Arabia has not come out and threaten israel to it's extincition.

Saudi Princes are not smuggling explosives to derail the iraq war, iran is.

Iran as much as they are shia are willing to let AQ do their dirty bidding since destruction of the west is a shared objective,and that's what unites them.

Iran is fueling the hate war in the middle east by supplying the most artillery and manpower to kill innocent civilians.

If you think eliminating an entire race of people is self defense, especially with a race that happens to self loathe like the israelis, with all your talk about freedoms and civil liberties, there's no doubt in my mind had you been in Hitlers Germany, you would have rationalized hitler's decisions to neutralize his rivals.

[Ignignokt]

Just look at hitler's germany pre polish invasion. and tell me if


assasinating his rivals is rational..


trying to start an underground proxy (the Brownshirts) to eliminate his delcared enemy (the jews) is rational....

[LaMarcus Bryant]

way to change the conversation im still waiting to hear how Iraqi has acted so irrationally to warrant us worrying about them being some kind of crazy country that will nuke others with reckless abandon

[Ignignokt]

way to change the conversation im still waiting to hear how Iraqi has acted so irrationally to warrant us worrying about them being some kind of crazy country that will nuke others with reckless abandon



here it is, i awnsered it like 5 post ago and you dodged it yourself, not my fault you couldn't awnser back. And i think you meant irani and not iraqi.

And Irani and Almajahiiddidaddinnad are not one in the same. Make the distinction.

Originally Posted by LaMarcus Bryant




CBF:Yes very very irrational to start an underground organization against your most deadly rival in the region.

ME:If by deadly you mean for the simple fact that they exist on your playground and the simple thought of their jewesness makes you scared for the boogeyman. Maybe that's so logical. Hey, some people here are starting to fear N koreans because they're so weird and make fucktarded movies, maybe whe should start targeting their innocents.

Besides, when has israel militarily decreed a threat to iran for anything else besides Iran's saber rattling comments. When do the israelis send proxies to blow their kids up in kebob parlors?
Whose the aggressor here?

CBF:very very irrational to assassinate a political rival.


Yours Truly:You mean one that was powerless and had no intention to cause harm, and was too busy worried about democratic reforms and ushering a free society such as lebanon? Wow, what so threatening about that?

Awnser me this. In what form did the ragtag little country of lebanon ever threaten Iran?

Or, how could they ever threaten Iran?

I guess it's not so irrational for Bush to assasinate Schroeder or Chirac under your criteria. And they provided an even more annoying counterpoint to us, than Lebanon to Iran.

CBF:they should definitely be in the record books for most irrational political acts ever based on those facts
jack


Me again: .....hmmm ok..

[LaMarcus Bryant]

someone needs to read some history of israel's actions both covert and overt during the past 40 years

they're not innocent as you make them seem

[Ignignokt]

someone needs to read some history of israel's actions both covert and overt during the past 40 years

they're not innocent as you make them seem


Why did i awnser your questions only to come across another excursion on the issue.

What has Israel done to the Iranis?

When your people are getting targeted for land instead of your military, you wont act rationally.

Again, this is between the arabs and israelis. Iran has no part in this conflict.

Like wise, Iran can not claim the same against the Israelis.
Iran and Israel have no history agaisnt each other since Israel's existance from the 40's.

Iran has played the aggressor here. Get your facts straight and start to distinguish between arabs and persian or iranis for once.

I've awnsered all your questions, you couldn't even give a rebuttal, and you even tried to skirt the issue.

There's nothing else one can do.

You seem less interested in discussing the facts and more interested in earning applause from your freinds.

So this is as much as i can do for you.

If you want to discuss the points i addressed to your questions, then i'd be happy to.

Otherwise, it's like talking to an automated Ron Paul "pull the string" doll.