Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 4

Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234
  1. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Bull****. Why isn't Jordan trying to develop a nuke? They're squeezed between the US in Iraq, and Israel? See, the problem with your line of reasoning is that you imply the US just up and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for no reason. With Afghanistan, that is clearly not the case, they provoked the attack; with Iraq, obviously the invasion was bull****. HOWEVER, Saddam and the US had a longstanding beef, and as dumb as it was, it wasn't out of nowhere.

    If Iran was busy minding its own business, being the cradle of civilization or whatever else they're good at, and cranking out natural gas by the boatload, and not supporting terror around the globe (argentina, israel, lebanon, syria, etc), no one would think twice about Iran, just as they don't think about invading Jordan. But Iran is not minding its business; it meddles in other countries affairs, the region, it tries to develop nukes, it supplies the insurgency in Iraq to the tune of thousands of dead Americans, and it verbally threatens the US and Israel.

    And I know it's just SO HARD to fathom that all Muslims don't hate the US as much as you, but half Iran is pro-US, and can't stand their ****ing retard Islamist leadership.





    Free speech, bro. Are you saying Fox and CNN should be sensored? I agree they're full of ****; that's why I don't get my facts there.



    You're a moron. You SO want to put the US in Bad Guy shoes, that you'll grasp at anything to do so. Did you even consider that the guy defected of his own free will, and its the US job to 1) protect valuable intel, 2) protect the source, and 3) it's really none of your/the general public's goddamn business?

    What do you think the CIA does? "Ladeeda, knock knock, i'm here to spy on you. Yes, your guy defected, here's what he told us, is that everything, or is there more"? Trust me, you naive schmuck, BOTH sides are lying about the scientist. Jesus. Stay in Japan, Tim, since you hate the US so much, we won't miss you.
    Again you claim I hate the US because I disagree with the US government's warmongering policies,what a dolt you are.America and Israel are clearly the aggressors in the Middle East..

    Clearly, Iran does not pose an imminent threat to the United States, or Israel. Its military has not intruded on American land. So what does America have to worry about? It is Iran that should be tense, and acting irrationally. On both sides of its borders are battle-hardened American troops, bored and ready for war.

    Just because Jordan is not preparing for the worst does not mean Iran should not,when is the last time you heard about Jordan being demonized in the US media or talk of war against them?

    Steven Hynd highlights the fact that the United States government has acted covertly for years in Iran, secretly hiring agents and sending in spies to disrupt Iran's nuclear facilities from the inside. Such activity is considered war-making.

    And it is outrageous.

    Imagine if the United States of America was surrounded by a nuclear-armed Russia in Mexico, Alaska, and Cuba, and American scientists were working around the clock to develop a nuclear weapon system to defend themselves against a probable attack, and it was found out that one of its scientists was a Russian spy, who was working to prolong technical advancements. How would Americans react? They would be pissed.

    The shocking aspect about this whole build-up to an attack on Iran is that the same people who raised "warnings" about the imminent threat posed by Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion are raising the same "warnings" about Iran.

    After selling a war based on lies and fabrications to the American people, the blood stains on the American corporate media still hasn't been scraped off so it takes a lot of nerves for CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times to hype yet another war.

    Anyway, there's more proof that the powers-that-be are busily stirring the pot with lurid stories about Iran today in news that Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has yet again voiced concern over Iran "providing some assistance to insurgents in Afghanistan". Oh those evil and perfidious Iranians, how ever can we trust them when they say they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon? One day we'll have to deal with them directly, but only after we've made a show of "exhausting every other option"!

    It's exactly the same as the hyperbole the Pentagon and Bush administration expressed over Iranian weapons in Iraq - and has exactly as much basis in fact, which is to say not much http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008...from-iran.html .

    But Mullen and his stenographers aren't interested in telling Americans about arms bazaars, the ancient Silk Road smuggling routes that run through the entire region and further, from China to Morocco, or the vast and lucrative black arms market in the region which has grown up over decades of war in one country or another along those routes since 1945. They're not interested in explaining that Afghanistan is the world's leader in unaccounted-for weapons, with over 10 million small arms in-country provided by Russia, the U.S., Pakistan and others.

    They're not interested in mentioning that the U.S. has lost tens of thousands of weapons since the invasion http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68628897.html , dwarfing any alleged Iranian shipments.

    They're certainly not interested in applying Occam's razor - just like when they accused Iran of the same thing in Iraq http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2...led-white.html . And you notice that there's no indication that another "Baghdad Briefing" is in the offing.

    Don't look behind the curtain.

  2. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    My bet is that the Iran nuclear scientist that the US "didn't" kidnap was tortured until he gave them the right information they wanted him to confess. It took nearly one year for the US to finally convince Amiri that he wasn't kidnapped, but was defecting instead.
  3. poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Again you claim I hate the US because I disagree with the US government's warmongering policies,what a dolt you are.America and Israel are clearly the aggressors in the Middle East.

    Clearly, Iran does not pose an imminent threat to the United States, or Israel. Its military has not intruded on American land. So what does America have to worry about? It is Iran that should be tense, and acting irrationally. On both sides of its borders are battle-hardened American troops, bored and ready for war.
    Their thighs glisten in the hot desert sun, loins throbbing for a hot, wet ****, or barring that the crack of their rifle, and fine red mist as their bullet finds its home in the neurons and synapses of an Iraqi's grey matter. The mere thought brings the men to the brink of madness, salivating, wanting to slide their Kabar's into an Iraqi's guts, just as they would violate their wives and girlfriends back home....


    Shut the **** up, Luther. Retard.

    Just because Jordan is not preparing for the worst does not mean Iran should not,when is the last time you heard about Jordan being demonized in the US media or talk of war against them?
    So you're saying Jordan is a target? No one is concerned with Jordan, because they're relatively upstanding, very Westernized, and play nice in the region and with the world.

    Steven Hynd highlights the fact that the United States government has acted covertly for years in Iran, secretly hiring agents and sending in spies to disrupt Iran's nuclear facilities from the inside. Such activity is considered war-making.
    You think Iran isn't spying EVERYWHERE they can, as well? Everyone spies on everyone else. It's generally a covert tug of war, and doesn't bleed over into 'real life', because no one wants their capabilities revealed.

    And it is outrageous.
    Are you outraged, Luther? My loins throb.


    The shocking aspect about this whole build-up to an attack on Iran is that the same people who raised "warnings" about the imminent threat posed by Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion are raising the same "warnings" about Iran.
    Really? Names, please.

    After selling a war based on lies and fabrications to the American people, the blood stains on the American corporate media still hasn't been scraped off so it takes a lot of nerves for CNN, Fox News, and The New York Times to hype yet another war.
    No one's hyping a war, yet. Obama just reneged on the agreement with Israel to instate brutal sanctions on Iran. We'll see what else he doesn't do.

    Anyway, there's more proof that the powers-that-be are busily stirring the pot with lurid stories about Iran today in news that Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has yet again voiced concern over Iran "providing some assistance to insurgents in Afghanistan". Oh those evil and perfidious Iranians, how ever can we trust them when they say they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon? One day we'll have to deal with them directly, but only after we've made a show of "exhausting every other option"!
    It's not hyperbole, it's fact. Iran orchestrated the 2006 Lebanon War, it orchestrated the 2009 Gaza War, it orchestrated thousands of US deaths in Iraq...that's fact, not one of your fables.

    It's exactly the same as the hyperbole the Pentagon and Bush administration expressed over Iranian weapons in Iraq - and has exactly as much basis in fact, which is to say not much http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008...from-iran.html .
    You're stupid. EVERYONE knows Iran is gunning for weaponized nukes. No one says they aren't. Wait, you do. Right.

    But Mullen and his stenographers aren't interested in telling Americans about arms bazaars, the ancient Silk Road smuggling routes that run through the entire region and further, from China to Morocco, or the vast and lucrative black arms market in the region which has grown up over decades of war in one country or another along those routes since 1945. They're not interested in explaining that Afghanistan is the world's leader in unaccounted-for weapons, with over 10 million small arms in-country provided by Russia, the U.S., Pakistan and others.

    They're not interested in mentioning that the U.S. has lost tens of thousands of weapons since the invasion http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68628897.html , dwarfing any alleged Iranian shipments.

    They're certainly not interested in applying Occam's razor - just like when they accused Iran of the same thing in Iraq http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2...led-white.html . And you notice that there's no indication that another "Baghdad Briefing" is in the offing.

    Don't look behind the curtain.
    What are you babbling about now? Small arms? Who gives a ****. Let em all have AK's. That's no regional issue.
    •   
       

  4. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Their thighs glisten in the hot desert sun, loins throbbing for a hot, wet ****, or barring that the crack of their rifle, and fine red mist as their bullet finds its home in the neurons and synapses of an Iraqi's grey matter. The mere thought brings the men to the brink of madness, salivating, wanting to slide their Kabar's into an Iraqi's guts, just as they would violate their wives and girlfriends back home....


    Shut the **** up, Luther. Retard.



    So you're saying Jordan is a target? No one is concerned with Jordan, because they're relatively upstanding, very Westernized, and play nice in the region and with the world.



    You think Iran isn't spying EVERYWHERE they can, as well? Everyone spies on everyone else. It's generally a covert tug of war, and doesn't bleed over into 'real life', because no one wants their capabilities revealed.



    Are you outraged, Luther? My loins throb.




    Really? Names, please.



    No one's hyping a war, yet. Obama just reneged on the agreement with Israel to instate brutal sanctions on Iran. We'll see what else he doesn't do.



    It's not hyperbole, it's fact. Iran orchestrated the 2006 Lebanon War, it orchestrated the 2009 Gaza War, it orchestrated thousands of US deaths in Iraq...that's fact, not one of your fables.



    You're stupid. EVERYONE knows Iran is gunning for weaponized nukes. No one says they aren't. Wait, you do. Right.



    What are you babbling about now? Small arms? Who gives a ****. Let em all have AK's. That's no regional issue.
    Your childish response is showing your true colors.

    FYI: the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran ceased development of its weapons program has never been rescinded, and even the most hawkish anonymous leaks from inside the intelligence community, when bashing the 2007 NIE, merely claim that analysts "now believe that Iran may well have resumed 'research' on nuclear weapons -- theoretical work on how to design and construct a bomb -- but that Tehran is not engaged in 'development' -- actually trying to build a weapon." http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...d-on-iran.aspx

    And finally, a mainstream media outlet willing to actually be sceptical about Bush administration allegations (after he left office of course) over Iranian meddling in Iraq. TIME magazine's Mark Kukis and Abigail Hauslohner take a look at those allegations and describe them as "based on speculation".

    Doubting the Evidence Against Iran
    http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...737543,00.html



    Another interesting point is that Israel has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and categorically refuses any inspections or other monitoring.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7420573.stm
    http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/iae...ar-inspections

    As seen with lead up to March 2003 attack on Iraq by WashingtonDC what the facts and truths are has little to do with what WashingtonDC sets out as goals and intents.

    Driving this infatuation with Tehran and Iran is a history of western meddling,interference and hegemony that goes back six or seven decades. For WashingtonDC this current conflict with Tehran started in 1979. Of course the factual history of WashingtonDC's meddling in Iranian politics and affairs goes back to 1952-53 or easily then to WW2 as well.

    The politics WashingtonDC has held and conducted since 1979 for/towards Iran are obsessive/compulsive. Israel games this state of being often and well.

    See the Filipino War for the template of how WashingtonDC then and still sets up a premise of being the "good guys" and then proceeds to be anything but good while it extracts advantages and inflicts imperial suffering.

    In Iraq's case the death toll has been pure butchery of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The estimated spending by WashingtonDC in Iraq now may range out to one or two trillion $$ as is if not more. Very terrible prices to have paid by innocent Iraqis who were attacked by Americans who have died in the thousands and spent trillions of $$ so G.W.Bush and **** Cheney and Douglas Feith could have a war with Iraq.

    Best thing for Iran all things considered would be to get atomic weapons in view of how WashingtonDC runs roughshod over international law and rules otherwise to gin up wars.

    Next best thing would be to seek out firm alliance with China or Russia or both to those nations. WashingtonDC will pay heed to such arrangements as they are of a scale to create political and economic blowback WashingtonDC may find too risky or open ended.
  5. slacker86's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    28
    Posts
    838
    Rep Power
    489

    Reputation

    Luther i have a question why do u have such an invested interest in iran? this has gone passed just an opinion and passed just thinking the united states is a warmonger.

    Secondly just because u post a source doesnt mean that the source is not biased, and to just play devils advocate there really isnt a completely unbiased source. So reallistically you can post as many sources as you want but that doesnt necessarily verify the facts you are posting. For example if i posted how the effects of smoking cigarettes are dramatically over-exaggerated then posted a source of a study funded by marlboro. Now politics are not as clean cut as this and that was a rough example however it does prove a point.
  6. poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Your comments about US troops being 'bored and ready for war' expose how ignorant and naive you are.

    As for Iran:

    Iran may be working on secretly developing a nuclear warhead for a missile, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said Thursday in a draft report.

    It's the first time that the the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued such a strong warning about current Iranian nuclear activities.

    The report also noted that Iran began enriching uranium to a level at which it can sustain a nuclear reaction before IAEA inspectors arrived to monitor the process and in defiance of a specific request that it not do so.

    The IAEA asked Iran earlier this month not to boost uranium enrichment to 20 percent "before the necessary additional safeguard procedures were in place," it said in the report.

    When inspectors arrived at the Natanz nuclear plant the next day, February 10, "they were informed that Iran had already begun to feed the low enriched" uranium into the enrichment machinery the previous evening.

    In January, the Islamic republic refused to let international inspectors take samples of what it claimed was heavy water, the IAEA said in its report Thursday. Heavy water can be a key component in making plutonium, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

    The U.N. Security Council ordered Iran to suspend any work on heavy-water projects in 2006.
    As he struggles to advance U.N. sanctions against Iran for its defiant pursuit of nuclear capability, President Barack Obama is about to launch a month of high-profile international meetings designed to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons. But Iran's resistance to international pressure threatens the credibility of the entire enterprise. Rather than opening a new era of international cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, the next four weeks of summitry look more like stagecraft designed to hide failing statecraft.

    Next week Obama welcomes more than 40 heads of state to Washington for talks aimed at getting countries with existing stocks of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to do a better job of securing them so they don't fall into the hands of terrorists. Then, in May, the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will convene in New York for the treaty-review conference held every five years. Major nuclear powers such as the U.S. and Russia hope to strengthen the floundering treaty, which seeks to prevent new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons by getting those who already have them to begin disarming. (Watch TIME's video "Ahmadinejad Says Obama Should Back Off.")

    The unspoken shadow over both meetings will be Iran's pursuit of the capability to build nuclear weapons, undeterred by Washington's attempts to stop it with a combination of talks and coercion. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, which gives it the right to enrich uranium for energy purposes. But because Iran violated NPT transparency requirements, the Security Council has punished it with a series of limited sanctions. Efforts to ratchet up the U.N. sanctions, first imposed in December 2006, have thus far come to nothing.

    To say Iran has the advantage here is an understatement. Every attempt to curtail its nuclear program has failed. Obama's outreach in the first year of his Administration produced neither a change in Iran's behavior nor a willingness among other countries to increase the pressure on Tehran. The Administration currently claims it is making progress toward tougher sanctions, and the President said this week that he hoped the Security Council would pass a new sanctions resolution this spring. But it is increasingly clear that any new U.N. sanctions, if they come, will contain few new penalties. (See pictures of the world's worst nuclear disasters.)

    Russia, which the Administration has touted as a convert to the punish-Iran coalition, has in fact not changed its position from the last round of sanctions: Moscow supports penalties only against companies involved directly in the proliferation business. "Sanctions must be directed exclusively on the resolution of nonproliferation tasks and not aimed at the financial and economic suffocation of this country," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko late last month. Such sanctions have failed until now, and Washington wants new measures to raise the cost in economic pain for the Tehran regime's defiance. But so far there's no sign that Russia supports the farther-reaching measures the U.S. and its allies had hoped to impose.

    The situation with China, which wields a veto at the Security Council, is worse. After weeks of refusing even to discuss a new sanctions resolution (as punishment for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and talks with the Dalai Lama), Beijing said this week it was willing to restart the conversation. But even if China were to agree in those talks to a moderate expansion of the same sanctions within existing categories, that's a far cry from the "crippling sanctions" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had last year threatened would be the price of continued Iranian defiance. (Read "On Iran Sanctions, Is the U.S. Spinning Its Wheels?")

    That leaves the Administration hoping the appearance of unanimity will prove more convincing than the actual sanctions. Which explains why Obama will make such a big deal out of the coming talks. The Administration hopes the unity on nonproliferation will make Iran think twice about flouting international agreements. And the goals of the two conferences even have the backing of hawkish U.S. critics of Obama's Iran policy. "These programs are worthwhile, and they were continued in [the] Bush [Administration]," says John Bolton, who represented the previous Administration at the U.N. and who advocates a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Despite all the talk of nonproliferation, fears of the Iranian program might have the opposite effect in the region. Says David Albright, a respected proliferation expert at Washington's Institute for Science in International Security: "As Iran marches down the path to nuclear weapons, either Saudi Arabia will try to buy elements of a nuclear program, or will pursue one with its own nuclear reactors, or will get them through an alliance with Pakistan. Egypt says they might withdraw from Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Syria, there's still a sense that they haven't abandoned their ambition. And even Turkey says they want fuel cycle facilities [the ability to enrich uranium], and they've opposed bans on fuel cycles in the nuke-suppliers group."

    No amount of talk seems likely to reverse that trend — some argue there's even a danger in trying. If Iran does get the capacity to build nuclear weapons and others in the region start pursuing their own programs, the U.S. will have two options: attack Iran, as Bolton and some neocons would like, or try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran while strengthening international consensus to restrict the spread of nukes. Going through the motions now could damage the credibility of the enterprise later. But the Administration is betting it's better to start now than to wait for things to really fall apart.

    Read more: Iran Unlikely to Cooperate in Nuclear Nonproliferation - TIME
    That's pretty much it right there. ^

    Quote Originally Posted by luther
    Best thing for Iran all things considered would be to get atomic weapons in view of how WashingtonDC runs roughshod over international law and rules otherwise to gin up wars.

    Next best thing would be to seek out firm alliance with China or Russia or both to those nations. WashingtonDC will pay heed to such arrangements as they are of a scale to create political and economic blowback WashingtonDC may find too risky or open ended.
    And there it is, luther firmly backing Iranian action. Obviously, Iran is going to do what's in Ahmedinejad's hallucinatory best interest. He's doing it right now. But what he, and you, don't understand is that its going to lead to nothing good. Their only allies in the region are Syria, Hizbullah, and one or two Emirates. Everyone else hates the idea of them with nukes. How you can leghump the Palestinians and Iranians, while hating Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, etc is beyond me. Oh, right, you didn't say you hate them. Guess what? Standing by Iran like you do is at odds with the rest of the region, against the regions interest, and your desire to see Iran succeed, and the region, along with the US, fail, is just mind-blowing. That you'd be happy if Iran cozied up to Russia or China just goes to show where your heart is.

    My guess as to what your Ahmedinejad-love stems from? You hate Israel SO MUCH that you'd side with and support anyone who acts against them, and deride anyone who supports them, including your own country.

    ****ing expats. You remind me of my Swiss friend: "I saw Loose Change, it was all planned by the US!" Enjoy your koolaid. And try not to ruin too many young kids minds.
  7. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Your comments about US troops being 'bored and ready for war' expose how ignorant and naive you are.

    As for Iran:





    That's pretty much it right there. ^



    And there it is, luther firmly backing Iranian action. Obviously, Iran is going to do what's in Ahmedinejad's hallucinatory best interest. He's doing it right now. But what he, and you, don't understand is that its going to lead to nothing good. Their only allies in the region are Syria, Hizbullah, and one or two Emirates. Everyone else hates the idea of them with nukes. How you can leghump the Palestinians and Iranians, while hating Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, etc is beyond me. Oh, right, you didn't say you hate them. Guess what? Standing by Iran like you do is at odds with the rest of the region, against the regions interest, and your desire to see Iran succeed, and the region, along with the US, fail, is just mind-blowing. That you'd be happy if Iran cozied up to Russia or China just goes to show where your heart is.

    My guess as to what your Ahmedinejad-love stems from? You hate Israel SO MUCH that you'd side with and support anyone who acts against them, and deride anyone who supports them, including your own country.

    ****ing expats. You remind me of my Swiss friend: "I saw Loose Change, it was all planned by the US!" Enjoy your koolaid. And try not to ruin too many young kids minds.


    In addition: a recent 9-page CIA report http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf states:



    Also:

    You posted an excerpt that said:

    Iran may be working to develop a nuclear-armed missile.
    But as Juan Cole correctly notes: http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/obam...sanctions.html

    "This Reuters article also misinterprets the stance of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN, which continues to certify that none of Iran's nuclear material, being enriched for civilian purposes, has been diverted to military uses. The IAEA has all along said it cannot give 100% assurance that Iran has no weapons program, because it is not being given complete access. But nagging doubt is not the same as an affirmation. We should learn a lesson from the Iraq debacle."

    Meanwhile, The New York Times' David Sanger -- who is the Judy Miller of Iran when it comes to hyping the "threat" based overwhelmingly, often exclusively, on anonymous sources -- continues his drum beat this week. In an article co-written with William Broad, Sanger warns -- "based on interviews with officials of several governments and international agencies" ("all" of whom "insisted on anonymity") -- that "international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build more sites in defiance of United Nations demands."

    But rather than the secret, nefarious scheme which the NYT depicts this as being, these plans for additional sites were publicly announced -- by the Iranian government itself -- many weeks ago. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...ear9-2010feb09
  8. poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Few people agreed with US 'intelligence' about the Iraq war; virtually no US allies thought it a great plan, including Israel.

    June 2005: Former Israeli Intelligence Director Bemoans US Decision to Attack Iraq, Not Iran
    Edit event

    Former director of Israeli intelligence Uzi Arad says that many Israelis were keenly disappointed in the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq and not Iran. Arad says: “If you look at President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ (see January 29, 2002), all of us said North Korea and Iran are more urgent. Iraq was already semi-controlled because there were [UN-imposed economic] sanctions. It was outlawed. Sometimes the answer [from the Bush neoconservatives] was ‘Let’s do first things first. Once we do Iraq, we’ll have a military presence in Iraq, which would enable us to handle the Iranians from closer quarters, would give us more leverage.’” Arad’s words are almost verbatim echoes from three years before (see Late January 2002). [Unger, 2007, pp. 307-308]
    Everyone (the Brits, the UN, Germany, France, Israel, etc) is on the same page as to what Iran is doing. They may disagree about what needs to be done, but no one is doubting Iran's intentions.

    As fun as it is for you to use the Iraq failure as a prism through which to view future US actions, you simply cannot do that. Americans understand the failure, they voted decisively, and now you must give the current administration time to switch gears, and exit the situation, while dealing with Iran.
  9. ecosocialist's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    204

    Reputation

    America > Iran.

    Hell ya.

    /thread.
  10. slacker86's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    28
    Posts
    838
    Rep Power
    489

    Reputation

    America=good
    Iran = bad

    end of story.
    Last edited by slacker86; 04-14-2010 at 09:48 PM. Reason: got too carried away.
  11. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by slacker86 View Post
    America=good
    Iran = bad

    end of story.


    How old are you again?
  12. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    Few people agreed with US 'intelligence' about the Iraq war; virtually no US allies thought it a great plan, including Israel.



    Everyone (the Brits, the UN, Germany, France, Israel, etc) is on the same page as to what Iran is doing. They may disagree about what needs to be done, but no one is doubting Iran's intentions.

    As fun as it is for you to use the Iraq failure as a prism through which to view future US actions, you simply cannot do that. Americans understand the failure, they voted decisively, and now you must give the current administration time to switch gears, and exit the situation, while dealing with Iran.
    Even the most hawkish anonymous leaks from inside the intelligence community, when bashing the 2007 NIE, merely claim that analysts "now believe that Iran may well have resumed 'research' on nuclear weapons -- theoretical work on how to design and construct a bomb -- but that Tehran is not engaged in 'development' -- actually trying to build a weapon."

    By the way,people don't build nukes to use them but in order to join the club. When and if Iran gets nukes Israel and America would have to start behaving as politely to the Iranians as they would any other club member.

    And,despite the best efforts of the corporate media to convince us otherwise the world is still a long way from any consensus on sanctions against Iran.

    China in particular is far from ready to impose sanctions.New Dehli is likewise opposed to imposing sanctions on Iran

    The only countries that seem ready to consider punitive measures on Iran (meaning they agree on what Iran is doing) are America, its Western allies and Israel.

    So in effect we have a division on the issue developing along global lines. On the one hand we have Israel and its allies, on the other, the rest of the world.



    To me a bomb is a rational choice for Iran.

    It has been attacked repeatedly, often with Western support. Russia and Britain invaded during WWII; the US overthrew Iran’s govt in 1951; Iraq invaded with US blessings. Enemies (the US, Gulf states and Israel) surround Iran.

    It’s threatened with military action (and nuclear strikes) by US and Israelis. Iran tried diplomacy: its attempts – eg, helping the US in Afghanistan - were rebuffed. With this history and geography, an Iranian deterrent makes sense.

    “Iran will nuke Israel! Arm Al Qaeda!”, one hears. That’s silly. Iran’s leaders are cold-blooded autocrats. Such regimes are evil, but not necessarily incompetent: we managed to deal with nuclear-armed USSR and China despite their own totalitarian systems.

    If Iran’s bomb leads to a Saudi one, war between the region's 3 leading powers would become too risky. Classic deterrence, in other words. Stability in the Middle East will be enhanced with an Iranian bomb, not diminished by it.
  13. poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    America and israel would have to start behaving politely? 1) not necessarily; israel has the power to squash iran many times over, with the gloves off, and US land is not threatened by an iranian nuke. 2) are you implying the US included Iran in the Axis of Evil before Iran ever rattled a sabre? Iran has instigated this fight with rhetoric, with nuclear aspirations and voicing the desire to use them, and instigating turmoil in the region, both political and violent. The only country that likes iran is syria: lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, turkey, saudi arabia, none want iran to gain nuclear power, because no one wants iran spreading their brand of militant islam, which involves a loss of freedom, abuse of women, and a xenophobic attitude.

    I don't understand how you can even begin to sympathize with the militant regime in Iran, AGAINST all of the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. Instead of embracing moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon (on a good day), etc, you back the country who wants to **** those moderates over. That's just stupid. And yes, I believe you side with Iran because they're the only semi-credible threat to israel, and that plays into your anti-israel fantasy.

    China and russia are not backing US moves against Iran because both are in direct competition with the US on a global scale, and because they both have lucrative oil and gas deals with Iran. And neither would hesitate to annihilate Iran, given any semblance of misbehavior from them.

    That you think a nuclear iran would stabilize the region is laughable. They destabilize it enough without a nuke, costing thousands of american lives already. Just you wait. If it's dead americans and israelis you want, that's what you're gonna get. Try to control your glee.
  14. slacker86's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    28
    Posts
    838
    Rep Power
    489

    Reputation

    forget it i quit,

    Luther u have fun with ur biased sources... im not dealing with ur retarded statements anymore.
    Last edited by slacker86; 04-16-2010 at 12:38 AM. Reason: definately went to far
  15. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    America and israel would have to start behaving politely? 1) not necessarily; israel has the power to squash iran many times over, with the gloves off, and US land is not threatened by an iranian nuke. 2) are you implying the US included Iran in the Axis of Evil before Iran ever rattled a sabre? Iran has instigated this fight with rhetoric, with nuclear aspirations and voicing the desire to use them, and instigating turmoil in the region, both political and violent. The only country that likes iran is syria: lebanon, jordan, iraq, egypt, turkey, saudi arabia, none want iran to gain nuclear power, because no one wants iran spreading their brand of militant islam, which involves a loss of freedom, abuse of women, and a xenophobic attitude.

    I don't understand how you can even begin to sympathize with the militant regime in Iran, AGAINST all of the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. Instead of embracing moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon (on a good day), etc, you back the country who wants to **** those moderates over. That's just stupid. And yes, I believe you side with Iran because they're the only semi-credible threat to israel, and that plays into your anti-israel fantasy.

    China and russia are not backing US moves against Iran because both are in direct competition with the US on a global scale, and because they both have lucrative oil and gas deals with Iran. And neither would hesitate to annihilate Iran, given any semblance of misbehavior from them.

    That you think a nuclear iran would stabilize the region is laughable. They destabilize it enough without a nuke, costing thousands of american lives already. Just you wait. If it's dead americans and israelis you want, that's what you're gonna get. Try to control your glee.
    Again,Iran has been attacked repeatedly, often with Western support. Russia and Britain invaded during WWII; the US overthrew Iran’s govt in 1951; Iraq invaded with US blessings. Enemies (the US, Gulf states and Israel) surround Iran.

    It’s threatened with military action (and nuclear strikes) by US and Israelis. Iran tried diplomacy: its attempts – eg, helping the US in Afghanistan - were rebuffed. With this history and geography, an Iranian deterrent makes sense.

    “Iran will nuke Israel! Arm Al Qaeda!”, one hears. That’s silly. Iran’s leaders are cold-blooded autocrats. Such regimes are evil, but not necessarily incompetent: we managed to deal with nuclear-armed USSR and China despite their own totalitarian systems.

    If Iran’s bomb leads to a Saudi one, war between the region's 3 leading powers would become too risky. Classic deterrence, in other words. Stability in the Middle East will be enhanced with an Iranian bomb, not diminished by it.
  16. poison's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,904
    Rep Power
    37730

    Reputation

    Iran: Quds Force in Venezuela
    April 22, 2010 | 2253 GMT
    Text Resize:

    Iran: Quds Force in Venezuela
    AFP/Getty Images
    Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces participate in military exercises in 2006
    Summary

    A recently published U.S. Department of Defense report claims that members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force (IRGC-QF) currently are operating in Venezuela. STRATFOR sources claim that the relatively limited number of IRGC-QF in Venezuela are focused on intelligence operations, paramilitary training for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and security assistance for the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Though the IRGC-QF presence brings certain benefits to the Venezuelan government, Chavez also has an interest in keeping their proxy militant focus on Colombia.
    Analysis

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submitted a report to Congress in April on the current and future military strategy of Iran. Included in the report is a claim that the Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of Iran’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has developed a significant presence in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela. STRATFOR sources connected to this Iranian military unit have confirmed a small but notable presence in Venezuela. Though IRGC-QF members in Venezuela are believed to be providing some security assistance to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader does not appear interested in incurring reprisals from the United States and is consequently trying to direct the anti-U.S. activities of the IRGC-QF toward neighboring Colombia.

    As the Pentagon report states, IRGC-QF members usually are stationed in foreign embassies, charities and religious or cultural institutions as intelligence officers to develop ties with the Shiite diaspora and other potential allies. The U.S. military even has labeled incoming and outgoing Iranian ambassadors to Iraq as IRGC-QF members. On a more narrow scale, the IRGC-QF arms, funds and trains various paramilitary groups as an extension of Iran’s well-developed militant proxy arm. The IRGC-QF is believed to have worked with proxies to orchestrate major attacks against U.S. and U.S.-allied targets, including the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and a number of insurgent attacks targeting U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. By keeping this elite unit in reserve in various pockets of the globe, Iran has the ability to carry out attacks under plausible deniability. The reality of Iran’s retaliatory options — made possible by the IRGC-QF — has factored heavily into U.S. war-gaming exercises against Iran.

    Joined by their mutually hostile relationship with the United States, Iran and Venezuela have grown to be close allies in the past several years. A good portion of this relationship consists of rhetoric designed to grab the attention of Washington, but significant forms of cooperation do exist between the two countries. STRATFOR sources have indicated many of the inflated economic deals signed between Iran and Venezuela and the establishment of the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo (an Iranian banking subsidiary headquartered in Caracas) are designed to facilitate Iran’s money laundering efforts while providing the Venezuelan government with an additional source of illicit revenue.

    The Iranian-Venezuelan relationship also extends into the militant proxy world. Though this information has not been confirmed, STRATFOR sources claim the current IRGC-QF presence in Venezuela is limited to roughly 300 members. This estimate could well be on the high side, considering the likelihood that it includes all IRGC-QF paramilitary trainers and personnel working under diplomatic, business and religious cover. Many of these IRGC-QF members are focused on developing relationships with Venezuelan youth of Arab origin, who are viewed as potential intelligence and militant recruits. Some of these recruits are brought to Iran for training, and STRATFOR sources claim that several Hezbollah trainers are included among the IRGC-QF personnel. However, these efforts remain limited given the relatively small size of the Shiite community in Venezuela, believed to be less than one percent of Venezuela’s Muslims, which comprise roughly four percent of the population.

    A portion of IRGC-QF members are believed to interact with militants belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Colombia’s largest paramilitary group. The Chavez government is widely believed to provide direct support for FARC rebels and smaller Colombian paramilitary groups, but the Venezuelan president also appears wary of the IRGC-QF interaction with these groups. A STRATFOR source has indicated that IRGC-QF links with FARC are designed to give Iran the option of targeting U.S. interests in Colombia should the need for retaliation arise (for example, in the event of a U.S. military strike on Iran). The source says the IRGC-QF does not have a presence in Colombia but supports FARC from the paramilitary group’s sanctuary along the Venezuelan border. While it remains highly doubtful that Iran would be able to exert the necessary influence over FARC to direct their attacks against U.S. targets, simply having FARC as the main culprit for attacks in Colombia could provide Iran with the plausible deniability it seeks in such attacks.

    The Venezuelan government appears to be benefiting in part by hosting the IRGC-QF, but, like Iran, wants to ensure some level of plausible deniability. A STRATFOR source claims that some IRGC-QF members have been integrated into Venezuela’s National Guard and police force, where they provide assistance to the Chavez government in containing the opposition. IRGC-QF and Hezbollah personnel also are believed to be involved in irregular warfare training for some Venezuelan army units, in addition to FARC. Chavez has publicly endorsed the concept of “asymmetric warfare” in his restructuring of the Venezuelan army to guard against potential military threats from Colombia and the United States.

    That said, Chavez also is wary of IRGC-QF activities directed at the United States. According to the source, Chavez has strongly cautioned Iran against allowing IRGC-QF to target U.S. interests in Venezuela itself. Despite his heated rhetoric against the United States, the Venezuelan president does not wish to invite a strong U.S. reprisal and would rather keep their militant focus on Venezuela’s main regional *****, Colombia.

    B...b...but Iran just wants to be LOOOVVEEEDD, WAAAA!
  17. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by poison View Post
    B...b...but Iran just wants to be LOOOVVEEEDD, WAAAA!
    Iran has been attacked repeatedly, often with Western support. Russia and Britain invaded during WWII; the US overthrew Iran’s govt in 1951; Iraq invaded with US blessings. Enemies (the US, Gulf states and Israel) surround Iran.

    It’s threatened with military action (and nuclear strikes) by US and Israelis. Iran tried diplomacy: its attempts – eg, helping the US in Afghanistan - were rebuffed. With this history and geography, an Iranian deterrent makes sense.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. War against Iran predictable.
    By masterX in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-25-2010, 11:18 AM
  2. Iran Yay or Nay?
    By nopeace in forum Politics
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 09:27 AM
  3. True Lemon / True Lime
    By BigVrunga in forum Recipes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2006, 02:25 PM
  4. Iran nad nukes
    By judge-mental in forum Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-06-2006, 07:37 AM
  5. All the things they say about Chuck Norris is true! Video
    By LakeMountD in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-30-2006, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in