To be honest your posts make you come off as someone who supported the war and the sanctions so I'm surprised to see you don't.
I call it like I see it. I hold no loyality to any party here in the US. I always like to see all sides of an arugment before I decide what I think is right.
As for the other countries, you do realise that persecution of the public for holding different beliefs comes from the governments of these countries. Governments which have either been placed or supported by the West.
interesting ... that's different from the stuff i was reading in the summer - in any case - there is still plenty of time according to this article ... why raise the tension level?
Never said it was but the West is as much to blame probably even more for whats happening in the region. Ever since the 19th century they have been meddling and building hatred.
interesting ... that's different from the stuff i was reading in the summer - in any case - there is still plenty of time according to this article ... why raise the tension level?
better question is why lie about it? if they want electricity fine. let the IAEA have complete control. 3 years is not a long time for them to have a nuclear weapon.
Never said it was but the West is as much to blame probably even more for whats happening in the region. Ever since the 19th century they have been meddling and building hatred.
the responsibility still falls on the people in those countries. I happen to believe that people should live free. that doesnt seem to be something that is accepted in the region.
the responsibility still falls on the people in those countries. I happen to believe that people should live free. that doesnt seem to be something that is accepted in the region.
How you define freedom is not how everyone else defines it.
We are talking about a region that was "conquered" by the Ottomans who fucked with them, then the British and the French who fucked with them, then the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue, then America.. this stuff builds a lot of hatred with time. Rulers have been continuously imposed on the people.
So when they pick a government like Hamas there is a reason they do so. You keep stabbing someone with a knife and wounding them one day they will buy a gun and shoot the fuck out of you to make it stop.
We are talking about a region that was "conquered" by the Ottomans who fucked with them, then the British and the French who fucked with them, then the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue, then America.. this stuff builds a lot of hatred with time. Rulers have been continuously imposed on the people.
So when they pick a government like Hamas there is a reason they do so. You keep stabbing someone with a knife and wounding them one day they will buy a gun and shoot the fuck out of you to make it stop.
you make great points. but dont you think some of the blame falls on the interpretation of the quran by some? the freedoms I mentioned above are strickly forbidden in some large areas of the region.
Again you assume that I believe aggression is the only remedy to the possible problem. Iran's goals are to included in all Middle eastern affaisr, which they ahve largely been excluded from because of the US. If Iran truely wants to be a leader in that region creating nuclear weapons is not the way to go about it. It will only further isolate them and well as spread chaos through out the region. The best way, again this is just my opinion, for the US to handle the situation is through direct talks with Iran. Offer them a slice of the pie in return for transparency. Of course this administration will not do that because their heads are too far up their asses.
As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.
Iran has made some big allies behind the US's back. It could also be a political move to see how the propaganda flies in the media so they can all take a whiff and gauge intentions. You never know what agreements are made behind closed doors, and we know Iran has been making them.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I think those are basic rights of a human being.
you make great points. but dont you think some of the blame falls on the interpretation of the quran by some? the freedoms I mentioned above are strickly forbidden in some large areas of the region.
It is not the interpretation of the Quran but people mongering for power and control. They could add a couple of lines in there if it helped their cause.. they couldn't care less. These people are not so much fundamentalists than people who use a tool that can sway people in their benefit. Then you have the supporters as you have in America that will believe what is told to them by their leaders without questioning its truth.
The western leaders use fear as a tactic.. these people distort religion.. both target individuals on a very personal level.
From early reports, the latest IEAE reports will state that the level of cooperation from the Iranian government has decreased since the last report in August. Under NPT guideline and rules, countries have to fully cooperate with the IEAE. I hate to sound so black and white but when it comes to nuclear programs there is full cooperation or no cooperation, not this half assed attempt of showing you a little just to keep the dogs at bay.
Again I'm not stating that this is proof positive that Iran is in the process of weaponizing their program. We don't know that for sure but we should move forward with trying to intice Iran with being fully compliant with the IEAE.
everything is quite speculative ... it seems that the IEAE do not think any threat is imminent or anything ... i do think the rhetoric can't be positive tho ... the constant accusations don't seem to inspire any kind of co-operation ...
There was some article I remember reading saying they found traces of plutonium in Iran... perhaps I dreamt it. i can;t remember. It's not worth splitting hairs for brownie points imo.
We'll see if this trend continues, however I find it interesting people are equating it immediately to nuclear weapons being launched at everything now. That's the propaganda/hype portion.
Nobody is equating Iran having a bomb and actually using it except people, like yourself, who want to distort the views of those they disagree with in order to dismiss and castigate them as "fear-mongerers/war-mongerers/propganda-spreaders".
If Iran has a bomb is there a chance they could use it - sure. But that is hardly the real worry here. The essential problem is that most of the Western world disagrees with Iran on many, many issues. These issues range from international and regional conflicts (i.e. Iraq and Palestine) to historical disagreements (Holocaust) to domestic and cultural issues (ruling by religous edict/treatment of women/homosexuals/banning western music, etc.)
Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.
Any reasonable person can understand that if Iran obtains a bomb, then nearly all leverage will be lost to negotiate and find mutual solutions to these problems. Does it make sense that Iran is trying to get a bomb - you're damn right it makes sense for them. Does that make it legitimate, hell no! I don't know where you people get that from...
As JLEW pointed out. If Iran truly wanted peaceful nuclear energy, then no other nation would have a solid argument against it. It is the fact that Iran is being militant in attitude, defiant in the face of international pressure and refusing to be completely honest and forthright with their program that draws the ire of other nations.
So the problem is that if Iran has a bomb, other nations will lose their ability to influence that country. The Mullahs pretty much know their day is comng. The world is liberalizing, even their own citizens do not like their present government. And so they are buyinh their regime life insurance with a bomb.
Can you please understand this and stop trying to dismiss those that oppose a nuclear Iran as "fear-mongers or sheep or propaganda spreaders" becuase they think Iran is going to nuke everyone???
Iran has made some big allies behind the US's back. It could also be a political move to see how the propaganda flies in the media so they can all take a whiff and gauge intentions. You never know what agreements are made behind closed doors, and we know Iran has been making them.
But I am not basing my opinion on what the US government is saying but on what the IEAE is saying.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
better question is why lie about it? if they want electricity fine. let the IAEA have complete control. 3 years is not a long time for them to have a nuclear weapon.
well ... i don't think its as simple as that ... if i had a garage and you wanted one but had to jump thru so many more hoops then me ... i'm guessing you aren't gonna be too happy ...
whether it be the 3 or 8 years ... nobody at the IEAE seems to concerned right now ...
Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.
You need to get your facts straight. First of all Hizb-Allah is made up of two ideologies one which is more influenced by the Syrians and one which is more influenced by the Iranians. In the end they all follow their leader Nasrallah.
If anything it is more the Syrians that control Hizb-Allah than the other way around. (which are exactly the political problems going on in Lebanon right now).
Iranians did not create Hizb-Allah.. it was created as a resistance movement during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983.
And trust me when the Israelis tried to invade last summer they didnt hide behind any women or children. You should go ask some IDF soldiers of their opinions of Hizb-Allah fighters. You will surprised to know they actually respected those who fought against them on land during the summer war.
But I am not basing my opinion on what the US government is saying but on what the IEAE is saying.
It doesn't matter all that much. the IAEA is a third party, and an essential part of the process. They will give their report, then all the media stories will fly, and everyone will watch and read. If Iran says behind closed doors "hey guys guess what? I'm going to pull back on co-operating a little bit. Watch for all the hate articles that parade through the media saying I'm going to blow up the middle east now."
You never know, very possible it is politics.
I'd like to know more particulars of what the IAEA is saying.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
well ... i don't think its as simple as that ... if i had a garage and you wanted one but had to jump thru so many more hoops then me ... i'm guessing you aren't gonna be too happy ...
whether it be the 3 or 8 years ... nobody at the IEAE seems to concerned right now ...
you are getting good at blocking out what others say and only believing the voice in your head.
if I wanted a garage? a garage is a little different then a nuclear weapon. what is it with these cute ridiculous analogies lately.
first of all its the IAEA. The International Atomic Energy Agency. and they are and have been concerned for a long time. otherwise they wouldnt even mention it. we are talking about nuclear weapons. the sheer mention of a problem is cause for concern.
Nobody is equating Iran having a bomb and actually using it except people, like yourself, who want to distort the views of those they disagree with in order to dismiss and castigate them as "fear-mongerers/war-mongerers/propganda-spreaders".
If Iran has a bomb is there a chance they could use it - sure. But that is hardly the real worry here. The essential problem is that most of the Western world disagrees with Iran on many, many issues. These issues range from international and regional conflicts (i.e. Iraq and Palestine) to historical disagreements (Holocaust) to domestic and cultural issues (ruling by religous edict/treatment of women/homosexuals/banning western music, etc.)
Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.
Any reasonable person can understand that if Iran obtains a bomb, then nearly all leverage will be lost to negotiate and find mutual solutions to these problems. Does it make sense that Iran is trying to get a bomb - you're damn right it makes sense for them. Does that make it legitimate, hell no! I don't know where you people get that from...
As JLEW pointed out. If Iran truly wanted peaceful nuclear energy, then no other nation would have a solid argument against it. It is the fact that Iran is being militant in attitude, defiant in the face of international pressure and refusing to be completely honest and forthright with their program that draws the ire of other nations.
So the problem is that if Iran has a bomb, other nations will lose their ability to influence that country. The Mullahs pretty much know their day is comng. The world is liberalizing, even their own citizens do not like their present government. And so they are buyinh their regime life insurance with a bomb.
Can you please understand this and stop trying to dismiss those that oppose a nuclear Iran as "fear-mongers or sheep or propaganda spreaders" becuase they think Iran is going to nuke everyone???
So what you're saying is the US should retain control over Iran by preventing this?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
you are getting good at blocking out what others say and only believing the voice in your head.
if I wanted a garage? a garage is a little different then a nuclear weapon. what is it with these cute ridiculous analogies lately.
first of all its the IAEA. The International Atomic Energy Agency. and they are and have been concerned for a long time. otherwise they wouldnt even mention it. we are talking about nuclear weapons. the sheer mention of a problem is cause for concern.
Iran is not only oppressing and holding its own citizens back, it is holding the entire region back. They rule according to religious guidelines and force those rules on everyone. As history has shown for the last 2,000 years - this is just backwards and never works.
The only reason Iran is able to do this is because of oil wealth. That's it! That is the only source of stable income the country has.
Instead of tapping into the resources of their citizens to create a more robust and diverse economy, they simply tap a new oil well.
Instead of facing the realities of international pressure towards their form of rule, they insultate themselves by signing huge oil contracts with the likes of Russia and China to make sure they are immune from UN resolutions and military attack.
Iran does not want to face the music, literally. Listening to the Beatles over there is against the law. Obtaining a bomb will only prolong the oppression and the problems that are plaqing the Middle East.
So what you're saying is the US should retain control over Iran by preventing this?
Hardly. In a perfect world, the solution would be for China and Russia to agree to meaningful economic sanctions against Iran. Only then will Iran back down, as they will be seen internally by their citizens as ruining the economy and domestic life for Islamic pride. The country wouldn't stand for that, and the Mullahs would have to back down.
I want Iran to liberalize and democratize on their own schedule. I don't want it artificialy influenced by a US invasion OR the possesion of a nuclear bomb!
It doesn't matter all that much. the IAEA is a third party, and an essential part of the process. They will give their report, then all the media stories will fly, and everyone will watch and read. If Iran says behind closed doors "hey guys guess what? I'm going to pull back on co-operating a little bit. Watch for all the hate articles that parade through the media saying I'm going to blow up the middle east now."
You never know, very possible it is politics.
I'd like to know more particulars of what the IAEA is saying.
A third party with no alligiance to the US. There report will be un-baised as the IEAE has butted head with the US before and does not bow to our whims. If the IEAE reports states that there are concerns over the nuclear program you can bet that it's not simple war or fear mongering.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Hardly. In a perfect world, the solution would be for China and Russia to agree to meaningful economic sanctions against Iran. Only then will Iran back down, as they will be seen internally by their citizens as ruining the economy and domestic life for Islamic pride. The country wouldn't stand for that, and the Mullahs would have to back down.
I want Iran to liberalize and democratize on their own schedule. I don't want it artificialy influenced by a US invasion OR the possesion of a nuclear bomb!
Don't you find it odd that China and Russia are in fact doing the exact opposite of your suggestions let alone just being passive? How would you explain that?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
A third party with no alligiance to the US. There report will be un-baised as the IEAE has butted head with the US before and does not bow to our whims. If the IEAE reports states that there are concerns over the nuclear program you can bet that it's not simple war or fear mongering.
Right and that's the benefit of a unbiased third party. If Iran says to his newfound allies "hey watch this" and the western media quickly jumps gun and obliges with a string of Iran is going to build a bomb and start bombing people, the alliance would be strengthened.
It all pretty much depends on the climate of US reputation what is to come for Iran. It's a popularity contest (Iran's oil reserves don't hurt either...as money talks)
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Don't you find it odd that China and Russia are in fact doing the exact opposite of your suggestions let alone just being passive? How would you explain that?
No, I'm not surprised, actually. These are not my own words, but I agree with them.
"The Chinese, have only one foreign policy, given its own autocratic nature: to the degree any government sells us oil or minerals, we support it. The Russians have one foreign policy: to the degree, any government incites international chaos, raising the price of oil or causing the U.S. a headache, we support it."
The Chinese and Russians aren't worried about an Islamic bomb, becuase more than likely it would not be used against them. China and Russia, unlike the US could care less about the condition of human rights in countries like Iran. They see radical Islam as a problem for the West, not the East.
Right and that's the benefit of a unbiased third party. If Iran says to his newfound allies "hey watch this" and the western media quickly jumps gun and obliges with a string of Iran is going to build a bomb and start bombing people, the alliance would be strengthened.
It all pretty much depends on the climate of US reputation what is to come for Iran. It's a popularity contest (Iran's oil reserves don't hurt either...as money talks)
Well as far as Iran's allies, even Russia has stated that they are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe China did as well, but I'm not sure. So it's not just the US and our allies who are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
no, i guess i would sent the people who SIGNED UPto be in the army...you know those people who go to war for their country
...
So... you're saying they are idiots if they are pissed off that YOU want to send them to War for YOUR entertainment?
...
Support Our Troops... yeah... right.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, I'm not surprised, actually. These are not my own words, but I agree with them.
"The Chinese, have only one foreign policy, given its own autocratic nature: to the degree any government sells us oil or minerals, we support it. The Russians have one foreign policy: to the degree, any government incites international chaos, raising the price of oil or causing the U.S. a headache, we support it."
The Chinese and Russians aren't worried about an Islamic bomb, becuase more than likely it would not be used against them. China and Russia, unlike the US could care less about the condition of human rights in countries like Iran. They see radical Islam as a problem for the West, not the East.
I think the US should figure out how not to make retaliation from Islam a problem in the future (if that's at all possible). I think it's still salvageable. Maybe that's not the plan. Iran did undergo 8 years of suffering, and it really wasn't that long ago from a bad memories, and sentiment perspective. This new threat to Iran was also not such a great idea. This taking it by force thing is only going to go so far, and Iran is holding the spigot on the oil that everyone wants. If I was the US, I would dump it all into alternate energy, divorce it (oil), and pray it pays out. The alternative seems to be balls all sand to glass.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Since you duck the question by saying you don't understand English jlew.
If Iran with the Shah in power had nuke plants given by the US and then lthe shah had to leave the country what would be any different? Your country was willing to cough up the technology back then. Like I said, if you can't see the big picture you like to try to belittle people. Why? I don't know. Anyway try commenting on the part about the US willing to chirp up the technology when they have the right person in power and how that is right. I am sure you are not stupid enough to not understand what I just typed. Then again...........
seriously, does everyone think its ok for Iran to have nukes?
Does everyone think its ok for the US to have nukes? After all it is the only country to have ever used them against anyone - TWICE.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
Comments
right, so its our fault.
interesting ... that's different from the stuff i was reading in the summer - in any case - there is still plenty of time according to this article ... why raise the tension level?
Never said it was but the West is as much to blame probably even more for whats happening in the region. Ever since the 19th century they have been meddling and building hatred.
better question is why lie about it? if they want electricity fine. let the IAEA have complete control. 3 years is not a long time for them to have a nuclear weapon.
the responsibility still falls on the people in those countries. I happen to believe that people should live free. that doesnt seem to be something that is accepted in the region.
How you define freedom is not how everyone else defines it.
We are talking about a region that was "conquered" by the Ottomans who fucked with them, then the British and the French who fucked with them, then the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue, then America.. this stuff builds a lot of hatred with time. Rulers have been continuously imposed on the people.
So when they pick a government like Hamas there is a reason they do so. You keep stabbing someone with a knife and wounding them one day they will buy a gun and shoot the fuck out of you to make it stop.
you make great points. but dont you think some of the blame falls on the interpretation of the quran by some? the freedoms I mentioned above are strickly forbidden in some large areas of the region.
Iran has made some big allies behind the US's back. It could also be a political move to see how the propaganda flies in the media so they can all take a whiff and gauge intentions. You never know what agreements are made behind closed doors, and we know Iran has been making them.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It is not the interpretation of the Quran but people mongering for power and control. They could add a couple of lines in there if it helped their cause.. they couldn't care less. These people are not so much fundamentalists than people who use a tool that can sway people in their benefit. Then you have the supporters as you have in America that will believe what is told to them by their leaders without questioning its truth.
The western leaders use fear as a tactic.. these people distort religion.. both target individuals on a very personal level.
Edit: And thank you.
everything is quite speculative ... it seems that the IEAE do not think any threat is imminent or anything ... i do think the rhetoric can't be positive tho ... the constant accusations don't seem to inspire any kind of co-operation ...
Nobody is equating Iran having a bomb and actually using it except people, like yourself, who want to distort the views of those they disagree with in order to dismiss and castigate them as "fear-mongerers/war-mongerers/propganda-spreaders".
If Iran has a bomb is there a chance they could use it - sure. But that is hardly the real worry here. The essential problem is that most of the Western world disagrees with Iran on many, many issues. These issues range from international and regional conflicts (i.e. Iraq and Palestine) to historical disagreements (Holocaust) to domestic and cultural issues (ruling by religous edict/treatment of women/homosexuals/banning western music, etc.)
Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.
Any reasonable person can understand that if Iran obtains a bomb, then nearly all leverage will be lost to negotiate and find mutual solutions to these problems. Does it make sense that Iran is trying to get a bomb - you're damn right it makes sense for them. Does that make it legitimate, hell no! I don't know where you people get that from...
As JLEW pointed out. If Iran truly wanted peaceful nuclear energy, then no other nation would have a solid argument against it. It is the fact that Iran is being militant in attitude, defiant in the face of international pressure and refusing to be completely honest and forthright with their program that draws the ire of other nations.
So the problem is that if Iran has a bomb, other nations will lose their ability to influence that country. The Mullahs pretty much know their day is comng. The world is liberalizing, even their own citizens do not like their present government. And so they are buyinh their regime life insurance with a bomb.
Can you please understand this and stop trying to dismiss those that oppose a nuclear Iran as "fear-mongers or sheep or propaganda spreaders" becuase they think Iran is going to nuke everyone???
But I am not basing my opinion on what the US government is saying but on what the IEAE is saying.
well ... i don't think its as simple as that ... if i had a garage and you wanted one but had to jump thru so many more hoops then me ... i'm guessing you aren't gonna be too happy ...
whether it be the 3 or 8 years ... nobody at the IEAE seems to concerned right now ...
You need to get your facts straight. First of all Hizb-Allah is made up of two ideologies one which is more influenced by the Syrians and one which is more influenced by the Iranians. In the end they all follow their leader Nasrallah.
If anything it is more the Syrians that control Hizb-Allah than the other way around. (which are exactly the political problems going on in Lebanon right now).
Iranians did not create Hizb-Allah.. it was created as a resistance movement during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983.
And trust me when the Israelis tried to invade last summer they didnt hide behind any women or children. You should go ask some IDF soldiers of their opinions of Hizb-Allah fighters. You will surprised to know they actually respected those who fought against them on land during the summer war.
It doesn't matter all that much. the IAEA is a third party, and an essential part of the process. They will give their report, then all the media stories will fly, and everyone will watch and read. If Iran says behind closed doors "hey guys guess what? I'm going to pull back on co-operating a little bit. Watch for all the hate articles that parade through the media saying I'm going to blow up the middle east now."
You never know, very possible it is politics.
I'd like to know more particulars of what the IAEA is saying.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
you are getting good at blocking out what others say and only believing the voice in your head.
if I wanted a garage? a garage is a little different then a nuclear weapon. what is it with these cute ridiculous analogies lately.
first of all its the IAEA. The International Atomic Energy Agency. and they are and have been concerned for a long time. otherwise they wouldnt even mention it. we are talking about nuclear weapons. the sheer mention of a problem is cause for concern.
So what you're saying is the US should retain control over Iran by preventing this?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
right ... got it ...
The only reason Iran is able to do this is because of oil wealth. That's it! That is the only source of stable income the country has.
Instead of tapping into the resources of their citizens to create a more robust and diverse economy, they simply tap a new oil well.
Instead of facing the realities of international pressure towards their form of rule, they insultate themselves by signing huge oil contracts with the likes of Russia and China to make sure they are immune from UN resolutions and military attack.
Iran does not want to face the music, literally. Listening to the Beatles over there is against the law. Obtaining a bomb will only prolong the oppression and the problems that are plaqing the Middle East.
Hardly. In a perfect world, the solution would be for China and Russia to agree to meaningful economic sanctions against Iran. Only then will Iran back down, as they will be seen internally by their citizens as ruining the economy and domestic life for Islamic pride. The country wouldn't stand for that, and the Mullahs would have to back down.
I want Iran to liberalize and democratize on their own schedule. I don't want it artificialy influenced by a US invasion OR the possesion of a nuclear bomb!
A third party with no alligiance to the US. There report will be un-baised as the IEAE has butted head with the US before and does not bow to our whims. If the IEAE reports states that there are concerns over the nuclear program you can bet that it's not simple war or fear mongering.
Don't you find it odd that China and Russia are in fact doing the exact opposite of your suggestions let alone just being passive? How would you explain that?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Right and that's the benefit of a unbiased third party. If Iran says to his newfound allies "hey watch this" and the western media quickly jumps gun and obliges with a string of Iran is going to build a bomb and start bombing people, the alliance would be strengthened.
It all pretty much depends on the climate of US reputation what is to come for Iran. It's a popularity contest (Iran's oil reserves don't hurt either...as money talks)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No, I'm not surprised, actually. These are not my own words, but I agree with them.
"The Chinese, have only one foreign policy, given its own autocratic nature: to the degree any government sells us oil or minerals, we support it. The Russians have one foreign policy: to the degree, any government incites international chaos, raising the price of oil or causing the U.S. a headache, we support it."
The Chinese and Russians aren't worried about an Islamic bomb, becuase more than likely it would not be used against them. China and Russia, unlike the US could care less about the condition of human rights in countries like Iran. They see radical Islam as a problem for the West, not the East.
Well as far as Iran's allies, even Russia has stated that they are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe China did as well, but I'm not sure. So it's not just the US and our allies who are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
So... you're saying they are idiots if they are pissed off that YOU want to send them to War for YOUR entertainment?
...
Support Our Troops... yeah... right.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think the US should figure out how not to make retaliation from Islam a problem in the future (if that's at all possible). I think it's still salvageable. Maybe that's not the plan. Iran did undergo 8 years of suffering, and it really wasn't that long ago from a bad memories, and sentiment perspective. This new threat to Iran was also not such a great idea. This taking it by force thing is only going to go so far, and Iran is holding the spigot on the oil that everyone wants. If I was the US, I would dump it all into alternate energy, divorce it (oil), and pray it pays out. The alternative seems to be balls all sand to glass.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If Iran with the Shah in power had nuke plants given by the US and then lthe shah had to leave the country what would be any different? Your country was willing to cough up the technology back then. Like I said, if you can't see the big picture you like to try to belittle people. Why? I don't know. Anyway try commenting on the part about the US willing to chirp up the technology when they have the right person in power and how that is right. I am sure you are not stupid enough to not understand what I just typed. Then again...........
Edit: as much as I hate citing this place....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
Have a gander at the first line my American friend.
Does everyone think its ok for the US to have nukes? After all it is the only country to have ever used them against anyone - TWICE.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
surprised it took so long to pop in with this bullshit.