|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 15, 2006 20:51:17 GMT -5
I've been hearing their president talk of crazy shit like wiping out Israel and wanting to start "the end of times" by causing havoc around the world
I think countries besides the USA and the usuals should start expytssing some concern over this shit
I have alot more sirt on this guy and the facts if anyone wants to disagree with me so bring it!
Here;sn article about an aspect of Iran's threat
With war in Iraq looming and North Korea defiantly pursuing its own nuclear program, the last thing President Bush needs is another nuclear crisis. But that is what he may soon face in Iran. On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."
Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.
The IAEA declined to comment. A senior State department official said he believed El Baradei was trying to resolve the issue behind the scenes before going public. But experts say the new discoveries are very serious and should be handled in public. "If Iran were found to have an operating centrifuge, it would be a direct violation [of the non-proliferation treaty] and is something that would need immediately to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for action," says Jon Wolfstahl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and told elBaradei that Tehran intends to bring all of its programs under IAEA safeguards. U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
The new discoveries could destabilize a region already dangerously on edge in anticipation of war in Iraq. Israel — which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak in a 1981 raid — is deeply alarmed by the developments. "It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous." Israel will not take the "Osirak option" off the table, the official says, but "would prefer that this issue be solved in other ways."
The revelations come at a particularly bad time for Washington, which is locked in a battle to gain U.N. approval for an attack on Iraq and to build consensus among its allies for a multilateral approach to the crisis in North Korea. Critics of the Administration say Bush's hard public line against the so-called "Axis of Evil," combined with the threatened war with Iraq, have acted as a spur to both Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear programs. "If those countries didn't have much incentive or motivation before, they certainly did after the Axis of Evil statement," says one western diplomat familiar with the Iranian and North Korean programs. The Administration counters that both programs have been underway for many years.
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Jan 15, 2006 21:19:55 GMT -5
just imagine the uproar it would cause if Ahmadinejad had said that about Palestine.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 15, 2006 21:20:09 GMT -5
something NEEDS to be done about Iran, and our allies better get their shit together this time
infact, we prob should have gone into Iran first, instead of Iraq
but try explaining all this to the majority of the public who believed everything in Moore's Far. 9/11.....how can people be so stupid to actually let a bias film decide what they believe in....
there was great public backing for Iraq bc everyone knew the evilness of Saddam and WMD
but explain the above to the left wing nuts (ie Sheehan type people) and those that believed every word in Far. 9/11....
You think bush is stupid? ha, im sorry, but the majority of people who cant see the threat the existed in Iraq (with OR without WMD) and who cant see the WORLDWIDE threat from Iran now, is not only blind and ignorant, but down right stupid.--sorry, its true
There's a reason Bush is president and YOU'RE not...
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Jan 15, 2006 21:22:12 GMT -5
i think this is all the support this thread is going to get. :/
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 15, 2006 21:35:09 GMT -5
i think this is all the support this thread is going to get. :/ you're prob right and thats sad
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Jan 16, 2006 11:55:24 GMT -5
There's a reason Bush is president and YOU'RE not... If you think the main reason Bush is President is, of ALL reasons, because he is CLEVER, then you are frankly stark raving mad. There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 16, 2006 12:06:22 GMT -5
something NEEDS to be done about Iran, and our allies better get their shit together this time so come on then Einstein, tell us, what should be done about Iran?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 13:43:20 GMT -5
Hypocrites, America has nuclear weapons and so do we in the UK until we disarm and stop using nuclear power we have no right to tell countries that we dislike not to have nuclear power or weapons.
I personally would rather Mugabe be dealt with than anyone else because it is obvious that he is a terrorist, and I thought terrorists were the enemy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2006 13:46:05 GMT -5
but try explaining all this to the majority of the public who believed everything in Moore's Far. 9/11.....how can people be so stupid to actually let a bias film decide what they believe in.... i watched it knowing it was biased and having been against the war and george buch well before hand. But the real intresting part of the film was when george bush stated early in his presidency that iraq was no threat. How times change.
|
|
|
Post by Currian on Jan 16, 2006 16:31:51 GMT -5
Although Fahrenheit 9/11 was very anti-Bush and thus subjective as hell, I enjoyed watching it very much. I'll never use the things in that documentary as an argument for my opinions though (except for the things said about the Saudis).
But well, Iran might be a serious threat - not only for the nuclear plant but also most Shi'a muslims live there, and most of them are the anti-Western ready-to-blow-themselves-away fellows. We shouldn't be too serious about this however, Iran's strength is highly overrated. Just because they challenge the West doesn't make them powerful.
I fear there's a War hanging in the air. It may not come in a few years, but I think it will come eventually. Maybe in 2020. There's just too much segregation, too much differences these days. Too much tension that must explode some time. It's a sad thing really.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 16, 2006 18:15:01 GMT -5
i'll just stroll into this thread...in amongst all the lefties, liberals and communists.... (yes thats you globe ) (and yes i will call you that every single time i post on this forum! ;D ) can the people talking about Farenheit 9/11 please stop before i vomit. and that goes for the people who dont get what the nuclear deterrent is all about Sorry but for such a serious issue as Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, its a bit depressing to see such off-topic tripe already posted.... (and thats coming from the self-proclaimed king of off-topic tripe....) anyway, the international community needs to do a big fat investigation of this issue and get the facts out in the open. this will be a big test of the UN's power....will be interesting to see if it has a backbone after all seems to me like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pretty clear on allowing nuclear technology for energy needs but not for developing new weapons so will have to see which side of the fence Iran is on. apparently (since they have no need for the energy, obviously) they want the technology for the prestige and power it brings, rather than the full on production of weapons... so they're kind of in the middle with that one. one for the lawyers i guess...and once everyone's looked at the evidence, we'll see what the UN is really made of....
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 16, 2006 18:35:39 GMT -5
i'll just stroll into this thread...in amongst all the lefties, liberals and communists.... (yes thats you globe ) (and yes i will call you that every single time i post on this forum! ;D ) can the people talking about Farenheit 9/11 please stop before i vomit. and that goes for the people who dont get what the nuclear is all about Sorry but for such a serious issue as Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, its a bit depressing to see such off-topic tripe already posted.... (and thats coming from the self-proclaimed king of off-topic tripe....) anyway, the international community needs to do a big fat investigation of this issue and get the facts out in the open. this will be a big test of the UN's power....will be interesting to see if it has a backbone after all seems to me like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pretty clear on allowing nuclear technology for energy needs but not for developing new weapons so will have to see which side of the fence Iran is on. apparently (since they have no need for the energy, obviously) they want the technology for the prestige and power it brings, rather than the full on production of weapons... so they're kind of in the middle with that one. one for the lawyers i guess...and once everyone's looked at the evidence, we'll see what the UN is really made of.... thats fine, im totally comfortable with you calling me that i agree with more or less everything youve just said there about this matter mate. i was just dying to here live4ever and lions' views on how to deal with this issue since they seem to know all the facts about whats going on in iran before anyone else on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 16, 2006 18:56:06 GMT -5
thats fine, im totally comfortable with you calling me that i agree with more or less everything youve just said there about this matter mate. i was just dying to here live4ever and lions' views on how to deal with this issue since they seem to know all the facts about whats going on in iran before anyone else on the planet. urgh I'm touching Globe's posts....i feel so dirty.... haha yeah live4ever had a good rant earlier in the thread...i'm fucked if i know who the hell he was arguing with but it was entertaining nonetheless! ;D i just find it funny that 3 of the people who oppposed the Iraq war and posted in that other thread, have came onto this one and launched anti-american sentiments that have nothing to do with the real Iran issue. what the fuck are you people on? then you have live4ever doing the same biased rant but from a pro-bush stance.....im just gobsmacked by people sometimes.... its like no one read lions' article or watched the latest news updates....they just came on here with a pre-determined viewpoint and got on their soapboxes about irrelevant BS.... where's that gonna get us??
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 16, 2006 19:00:21 GMT -5
something NEEDS to be done about Iran, and our allies better get their shit together this time infact, we prob should have gone into Iran first, instead of Iraq but try explaining all this to the majority of the public who believed everything in Moore's Far. 9/11.....how can people be so stupid to actually let a bias film decide what they believe in.... there was great public backing for Iraq bc everyone knew the evilness of Saddam and WMD but explain the above to the left wing nuts (ie Sheehan type people) and those that believed every word in Far. 9/11.... You think bush is stupid? ha, im sorry, but the majority of people who cant see the threat the existed in Iraq (with OR without WMD) and who cant see the WORLDWIDE threat from Iran now, is not only blind and ignorant, but down right stupid.--sorry, its true There's a reason Bush is president and YOU'RE not... I can't believe that Americans still think that Saddam Hussein was a threat for the States or even the world. I just cannot see how? Could you please proove that with facts? Do you know how all that mess looked like from outside the US? I mean the US secretary of defense LIED to the UN! One also has to look at that from a historical point of view, and also from the point of view of arabian states. And I can clearly remember the debate of the "mother of all coalitions", "the new europe" or "freedom fries". These where reactions to governments that were afraid, that a war in iraq on the basis of non-evidence will destabilize the whole area. And what do we have now? Mission is not completed at all! All these things gave a fatal impression of the US government in the world. And compared to Iraq, Iran is pobably a 100 times more dangerous! But remember how long Mahmud Ahmadineschad is in power. For only half a year now! And like you said: There's a reason why he's president, and you not!
|
|
|
Post by jonnyapp on Jan 16, 2006 19:02:46 GMT -5
bet north korea is just sitting back waiting for the west to fight iran; then what do we do if we have most of our armies in the middle east, war isnt the solution
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Jan 16, 2006 19:30:19 GMT -5
I can't believe that Americans still think that Saddam Hussein was a threat for the States or even the world. I just cannot see how? Could you please proove that with facts? Do you know how all that mess looked like from outside the US? I mean the US secretary of defense LIED to the UN! i'm presuming you're referring to the US secretary of state Colin Powell's speech to the UN outlining the case for the war? (if not then ignore me! lol). well i saw him being interviewed tonight by Britain's best political interviewer (i salute you, Lord Paxman....) and he was accused of this. he countered it (somewhat successfully in my opinion) with his argument that he presented the best evidence that his government's intelligence agencies had, alongside all the evidence of other countries intelligence, and based on this as well as saddam's history and repeated failure to abide by UN regulations - and came to the conclusion that iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. so to say he outright lied is unfair on him. if you believe the evidence was manipulated then fair enough. but thats a whole different issue i guess. questions had to asked, why didnt saddam co-operate fully with the weapons inspectors? why were they banned for several years? why wasnt saddam caught and imprisoned for war crimes after the first gulf war? There were plenty of facts and issues to support the war btw, im pretty certain Iran's recent path would have taken the same direction regardless of the Iraq war.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 16, 2006 19:44:57 GMT -5
Poor Colin Powell Was the man who convinced Bush Sr. not to go get Sadaam after the first Gulf War ended. Then he gets accused of lying to the UN. Its funny how 7/8 of the posts here are about Iraq. And like the man in the pink bra said how it seems everyone dismissed what i had to say and skipped the article. Ignorant bastards
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 16, 2006 22:53:26 GMT -5
daysleeperYeah, sorry, I always confuse that in the US administration... ;D But nevertheless, I do not believe, that a person who is ahead of the greatest intelligence apparatus is not capable to present more solid evidence than that he presented at the UN hearing. I just cannot believe that, considering that there's thousands of satellites watching our earth - and nothing is found in the end? No, sorry, that's rubbish. And actually, I don't know exactly anymore, but hadn't it been like that, that everybody knew that this british intelligence report about Saddam trying to buy nuclear material in Africa was wrong? And that was one major evidence, the speech of Colin Powell based on. In the end, the material was not very solid. Not solid enough to start a war actually... And if he says that this was the best evidence that the US and other countries' intelligence had... Well then it sounds to me, that Mr Colin Powell just needed any evidence, no matter if it was true or not. Because that so called evidence was rubbish. And in the end: I don't believe that a powerful man like C.P. really believes in that rubbish! Bring me ANY evidence. And to say some words to Iran: I am not talking about this fucker, because everyone in the world knows he's mad. I just ask myself, how this man could have been elected last year. And that has devenitely something to do with the war on Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jan 16, 2006 23:16:36 GMT -5
first off:
it did make sense to remove Saddam. By removing him, and setting up a terror-free regime, Iran would be in the middle of Iran and Syria, thus hoping to destabalize terrorism in the middle east.
Also, Iraq has become Al-Qaeda's base (since they no longer have Afgah. thanks to our President). WHEN we finally succed in Iraq, Al-Qaeda will no longer have that base either....and thus weakening them EVEN FURTHER.
Also, by invading Iraq, we were able to set the example to the rest of the world to not fuck with us. ie Dropping of the atomic bombs after WWII (first one justified, second one not--neither here nor there anyway). Now Iran, Syria, N. Korea KNOW that when we say we might have to use our military, they might take us more seriously.
The U.N DOESNT WORK. So some country has to step up and look after the world. That role belongs to the superpower, and thats the U.S now. WE HAVE ALWAYS INTERVENED SINCE WWI....AND WE WILL ALWAYS INTERVENE WHEN NECCESSARY...
Saddam's a threat to the WORLD. When a dictator gases his own people, god knows what he will do to others. Majority of Iraqis actually support what we are doing (of course the media doesnt report that), and a SUCCESSFUL ELECTION was just held.
Is the Iraq war going well? of course it's not. But you can't pull out now, it will just create even more chaos. So...then why criticize? How about wait until the whole war is over (which it technically is now, we're fighting insurgents) and then judge. If we all get behind the troops and support them, maybe the confidence that we have in them will lift their morales and become even more encourged to finish this war.
WE ARE WINNING THE IRAQI WAR but AL-QAEDA IS ALSO WINNING IN RESPECT TO THE U.S DOMESTICALLY BC OF OUR ATTITUDES -- now to Iran
i havnt followed this THAT cloesly (had exams last week, work and dance over the weekend, etc)
but i know the main jist of the situation--how can you not?
Someone above wanted to know why the U.S can have nukes and Iran cannot.
I hate that argument...nothing is THAT black and white. The U.S is the superpower, first off, and we would never use them--unless for retaliation purposes.
Countries like N. Korea, Iran, Iraq etc have evil dicators at the realm. We can NOT trust these people. I don't think some people realize that just one attack by a nuclear war head any where in the world would be infact, the begining of the end of the world.
Such weapons cannot be in the hands of people that would abuse such weapons. And dont use the hypothetical situation that Blair might attack the U.S....so why should he have them....that is FUCKING POOR...(my friend said that once to me, i was like wtf are you talking about)
The Iran 'president' has made some grave threats towards the west and Israel....something needs to be done before it's too late
of course we will try diplomacy first...AS WE DID WITH IRAQ FOR 10 YEARS....but if it fails (AS IT DID WITH IRAQ) we will use our military power.
The US will not lose the war with Iraq, nor with Iran should there be one.
But, ffs, have faith. And think, what would happen if Kerry was president? How would Iraq look now with all the troops gone? How threatened would the world be if Iran had the nuclear weapons?
ATLEAST Bush is doing something. All you democrates do is just criticize...well, suggest something better (thats why you lost the last election)....and remember, hindsight is always 20/20
right, im putting on scrubs and then going to bed...school tomorrow...i await you calling me bias and wrong again, but i really am not....just think how insane some of your criticizims are...i'm not saying everything i say is correct, but i am saying nothing better has been suggested.
So, tell me what would you do? Leave the fuck alone with the world, and let the world become an even more dangerous place? you people make no sense
good night
|
|
|
Post by mape on Jan 17, 2006 0:06:53 GMT -5
I know this is about the Iran nuclear issue but oh well. How many times are you gonna try to justify what's going on in Iraq with the statements you make? Saddam was not a threat to the world. It's quite clear now that he had no weapons, and all he had were Scud missles that couldn't fly straight. There were two no-fly zones over the entire country, and I can assure you there was an immense amount of surveilance and reconnaisance going on to make sure Saddam didn't pull any shit. The country was already crippled with all the sanctions on it so i doubt saddam would have tried anything silly. how did Iraq 'fuck' with the US? And are you trying to say that since the US has the power they can push their agenda wherever they please? What kind of message is that to send to the rest of the world? I wonder why the red white and blue is so loved around the globe I don't know where you get the idea that the majority of Iraqi's support what's going on, especiallly after you say the media doesn't report that. Do you have an inside man working in Iraq? do tell. As for that election you speak of - how democratic was it really? Many Sunni candidates were not allowed to run for office, as were some parties, many people in areas where support for the coalition is not strong were not allowed to vote and were forced to stay indoors due to aggression. All we are seeing is the creation of another puppet regime in another part of the world. ummm have you ever sat through any sort of history class? The US joined WW1 late, and also WW2 late. Now as for Iran. Hmmm well so far Iran's president has been stating that he wishes to enrich Uranium not for nuclear weapons, but for nuclear energy. It is hard for everyone to digest that at the moment especially after he made those comments that he did towards israel. I just heard that some sort of deal might have been reached where Russia would do the enrichment, which in turn would ease a lot of people. We'll have to wait and see. I don't believe any country in this day and age would use a nuclear weapon on another nation. But now it has become more of a defensive weapon more than an offensive one. In the end I think most countries want to keep the monopolization of power in the middle east in the hands of israel. If most of these countries want to reduce the threat of nuclear warfare, they should destroy their own arsenals first in order to avoid hipocracy.
|
|
|
Post by brumoscardo on Jan 17, 2006 1:17:33 GMT -5
Where are you guys getting those news? All I'm hearing is that CNN had a very bad if not the world's worst translator and instead of translating 'Iran has the right to have nuclear power' he understood ' Iran has the right to have nuclear weapon'. CNN has already apologised for it but they've sent the channel off their country coz they don't know yet if that was intentional or not. So.. lions, where's that article from?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jan 17, 2006 7:50:33 GMT -5
first off: Also, Iraq has become Al-Qaeda's base (since they no longer have Afgah. thanks to our President). WHEN we finally succed in Iraq, Al-Qaeda will no longer have that base either....and thus weakening them EVEN FURTHER. Al-Qaeda arent some kind of gang of mates who hang around together in one country and then move on to another one because they are removed. Those guys who blew themselves up on the London underground last summer weren't Iraqi, Afghani or Iranians. They were British. These people arent holed up in some cave in the Torabora mountains, they are living amongst us. Going into Iraq, Iran or any other country isnt gonna win any "war on terror". If you believe that, I'm sorry but youre fucking kidding yourself. Also, I've asked this question before but never had a reply for some reason. If the current US regime is so interested in stopping terrorism and saving the world, then I take it the President is now gonna go after all those Americans who have been funding the IRA for the last 30 years?
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jan 17, 2006 9:23:47 GMT -5
@live4ever
How can you destabilize terrorism with an unjustified war? That simply doesn't work, in fact it increases the support for the terrorists among the people of other states in that region. And, again, Iran has this new president for only half a year now! So what do you think, which incident might have radicalized the country?
Listen, I do not doubt that the president of the iran is mad! And there is no doubt, that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator! And totally agree, that Iran cannot be trusted in this conflict, today.
But this conflict is a direct consequence of the war in Iraq. And I am NOT saying, that the US troops should pull out right now. No, they'll have to stay in. Otherwise Iraq would be a total chaos. But I say, that this war did not weaken terrorism but strengthened it. Like you said, the war showed, that no country should fuck with the US. That leaves terrorism as the only alternative for people who are not willing to accept a US dominated middle east.
As long as the US are leading wars of aggression islamic terrorism will never disappear. The US are doing exactly what these terrorists want. Kill one Bin Laden, and 10 new ones will appear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2006 14:01:02 GMT -5
Poor Colin Powell Was the man who convinced Bush Sr. not to go get Sadaam after the first Gulf War ended. Then he gets accused of lying to the UN. Its funny how 7/8 of the posts here are about Iraq. And like the man in the pink bra said how it seems everyone dismissed what i had to say and skipped the article. Ignorant bastards nice one, you clearly didn't read my first post which was about iran, and only read my second post which was about michael moore and was a direct refrence to live4evers post. You seem to think that only the original post is allowed to be read and answered.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jan 17, 2006 16:25:24 GMT -5
Poor Colin Powell Was the man who convinced Bush Sr. not to go get Sadaam after the first Gulf War ended. Then he gets accused of lying to the UN. Its funny how 7/8 of the posts here are about Iraq. And like the man in the pink bra said how it seems everyone dismissed what i had to say and skipped the article. Ignorant bastards nice one, you clearly didn't read my first post which was about iran, and only read my second post which was about michael moore and was a direct refrence to live4evers post. You seem to think that only the original post is allowed to be read and answered. yes i am god - answer only to me fuck off
|
|