I agree that the reasons we're interfering with Iran are shady. Very shady.
But I'm going to have to disagree with you about Obama's "imperialistic intent." I wouldn't say that having talks with Iran, supposedly about ceasing their nuclear program and so-called support of Iraqi insurgents, necessarily constitutes an imperialistic intent. Seems more like an attempt at stabilization to me.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
You are against political discussions with Iran because you think it shows imperialistic views? So we can't even talk to them about getting rid of their weapons program?
I would be for disarming every nuclear weapon on the planet, and I wish the US would take the lead. I don't see anything good coming out of Iran having nuclear weapons. I'd like to see diplomacy come to the front on this issue. How can we be diplomatic if you don't even want us to talk to them?
I'm not trying to come down on you, I'm just wanting to see where you're coming from.
You are against political discussions with Iran because you think it shows imperialistic views? So we can't even talk to them about getting rid of their weapons program?
You're talking to ME, not Roland.
And IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A WEAPONS PROGRAM.
They have a Nuclear POWER program.
See how warped you people are from the news media and the fucking government propaganda?
IRAN IS MAKING NUCLEAR FUEL. POWER. NUCLEAR POWER
IRAN IS PURSUING NUCLEAR POWER FOLKS!
The whole "weapons program" bullshit is nothing more than unbacked US Allegations that serve a not-so-well concealed political agenda.
Even the allegations that Iran is helping insurgents is nothing more than that, ALLEGATIONS.
And remember who is engaged in the ILLEGAL (international law) and Unconstitutional (domestic law) war ... before you start jumping to that argument as a worth one. WE are in the wrong here. 100%.
I love America, and I'm a patriot, but this bullshit will not stand with me. I will not swallow it.
So yes, attempting to FORCE Iran off of a policy of pursuing PEACEFUL ENERGY in the face of international law that says they can do it (not to mention their own domestic soverignty) IS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for? Further, if you need power then why do the "power stations" need to be buried in military bunkers surrounded by state of the art Russian anti aircraft systems? I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program. The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible. But you just don't have facts...
Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for?
I'm no great scientist either, but straight from howstuffworks.com ...
"What's a uranium centrifuge?
[... lots of talk about a centrifuge and then...]
With this highly concentrated U-235 metal, you can either make a nuclear bomb or power a nuclear reactor."
So what's the problem?
Apparently a centrifuge is nothing more than a device necessary for enriching uranium, be it to 5% or 95%.
Further, if you need power then why do the "power stations" need to be buried in military bunkers surrounded by state of the art Russian anti aircraft systems?
If you know the United States may consider bombing your extremely expensive and sensitive nuclear program to bits, you may need some AA guns. Right? Case in point, don't you remember bush talking about "tactical nukes" repeatedly last year? Not that AA guns could shoot those down, but they are protecting an investment. Whether for power or bombs, this is no proof.
I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program. The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible.
Here is the latest IAEA report i could find. You can skip straight to the conclusion which states in summary:
The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran
has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required
nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.
Now, to be fair, it also says that their transparency has diminished since 2006, but it seems pretty clear.
There are two remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear
programme: Iran’s past and current centrifuge enrichment programme and the alleged studies. The
Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge
programmes are consistent with its findings.
Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to
questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work
plan.
All they could complain about was that Iran was being "reactive" rather than "proactive". Oh well. Oh, and they need to adopt "additional protocol" so that they can prove yet again that they are aiming for power, not bombs.
I can also dig up the previous report which was very explicit in Iran's current activities being peaceful, if you want.
Here is an older Washington Post that is horribly damning to the US, not Iran: "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.
Im no physicist but if your not pursuing Nuclear Weapons what do you need centrifuges for?
You don't have to have to have a degree in Physics to know that having centrifuges is necessary for nuclear energy. That little detail means nothing.
I mean I hate to confuse you with the facts
Oh, don't worry about it. So far, I've seen nothing worth being nervous about.
but every international institution in the world including the IAEA, UN, EU, and everyone else besides the Russians agree they are pursuing a weapons program.
Everyone in the world except Russia? Haha, I'm gonna need some proof on this. the EU and the US have been against Iran from the beginning, but it doesn't mean anything. Oh, and not to mention the fact that France has flipflopped so many times that it's hard to keep count.
The fact they may also be attempting legitimate uses of nuclear technology is also plausible. But you just don't have facts...
Actually, if you're the one who's accusing them of going after nuclear arms, you're supposed to present the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, and so far you've proven..............umm.............. nothing.
Now please, tell me how I'm a simple-minded sheep who believes everything I hear because I don't make a giant assumption based on trying to read between the lines of a completely vague statement.
when obama shoots hoops awaiting election results he is really meeting with the CFR plotting the NWO and the coming invasion of China...
The blind patriotism "cast no discerning eye" towards politicians regardless of who they are thing is pretty damn pathetic imo...
This get tough on Iran rhetoric is troubling to the most casual of unbiased eyes.
all we need to do is lok at what history tells us....screams at us actually.
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.
The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...
Correct me if i am wrong, but was America not discussing the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran last year?
Hmm.
I can't seem to remember the last time ANYONE in the Iranian government came forward suggesting using arms, especialy fucking nuclear arms, against America.
You are free to have an opinion on the legitimacy of Iran's world views, but the fact remains they have done nothing to warrant agression.
The US on the other hand has OPENLY suggested dropping "tactical" nuclear missles on production facilities in Iran.
I'm not sure how you get off saying that Iran is on the wrong side of this one.
What is the problem exactly?
Because Iran feels the same way about Israels policy towards the Palestians as it feels about the US policy towards they themselves?
You know what, NONE of that is supposed to be the concern of the US.
And you are probably refering directly to the thoroughly debunked "wipe israel off the face of the map" quote, aren't you?
Please.
No one is saying Iran has a great ideology.
All we are saying is that it is the UNITED STATES that is eager for war with Iran. NOT the other way around.
There is no way you can spin that one.
Sheesh.
Oh and by the way, the "islamic revolution" was by and large a creation of US Foregn Policy to begin with! Had we not overthrown and then assassinated their first publicly elected president in HISTORY back in the 50s, and then used the CIA to install a murderous and cruel puppet dictator, and THEN interfered with their region for the next 50 years, they probably wouldn't have much to be pissed off about.
On the other hand, what exactly is the United States crying about?
We pissed someone off, and now they are holding a grudge?
Hahah.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...
You don't think he has a right to tell the US to bugger off and stop meddling in the region?
hmm...crack open any history books lately?
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.
Correct me if i am wrong, but was America not discussing the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran last year?
Hmm.
I can't seem to remember the last time ANYONE in the Iranian government came forward suggesting using arms, especialy fucking nuclear arms, against America.
You are free to have an opinion on the legitimacy of Iran's world views, but the fact remains they have done nothing to warrant agression.
The US on the other hand has OPENLY suggested dropping "tactical" nuclear missles on production facilities in Iran.
I'm not sure how you get off saying that Iran is on the wrong side of this one.
What is the problem exactly?
Because Iran feels the same way about Israels policy towards the Palestians as it feels about the US policy towards they themselves?
You know what, NONE of that is supposed to be the concern of the US.
And you are probably refering directly to the thoroughly debunked "wipe israel off the face of the map" quote, aren't you?
Please.
No one is saying Iran has a great ideology.
All we are saying is that it is the UNITED STATES that is eager for war with Iran. NOT the other way around.
There is no way you can spin that one.
Sheesh.
Oh and by the way, the "islamic revolution" was by and large a creation of US Foregn Policy to begin with! Had we not overthrown and then assassinated their first publicly elected president in HISTORY back in the 50s, and then used the CIA to install a murderous and cruel puppet dictator, and THEN interfered with their region for the next 50 years, they probably wouldn't have much to be pissed off about.
On the other hand, what exactly is the United States crying about?
We pissed someone off, and now they are holding a grudge?
Hahah.
No, the onus is on you to provide evidence that U.S. statesmen officially discussed the use of nucelar weapons against Iran. All I have heard the U.S. say is that all options are on the table.
I don't think either side is eager for a war. I just don't think you look at the situation unbiasedly. Amedinijad is a disturbing individual, and world leader. I don't think many people would argue with that.
No, the onus is on you to provide evidence that U.S. statesmen officially discussed the use of nucelar weapons against Iran. All I have heard the U.S. say is that all options are on the table.
Honestly man. What the fuck are you talking about?
It was ALL OVER the fucking news ... i mean the TELEVISION ... probably the prefered source of news for sheeple, right ... isn't that good enough? A year or so ago it was ALL they could talk about, you don't remember the fucking hype?
If the tube isn't a good enough source for you ... how bout the Jews themselves ... Yaweh knows the Jews would never lie:
Article in New Yorker says that U.S. government is preparing a massive campaign to neutralize Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is compared in the White House to Hitler
Ynet Published: 04.08.06, 13:19 / Israel News
The U.S. government is planning to carry out massive bombardment against Iran and using bunker-busting nuclear bombs in order to destroy facilities and development centers in which nuclear weapons exist. These details will be exposed in a new report as part of an investigation in the New Yorker, to be publicized April 17.
I could find you a half dozen more easy, but instead i'm going to go over to my cousins house and talk with her about peaceable things.
You people just keep on with the head in the sand.
Jesus.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
A year or so ago it was ALL they could talk about, you don't remember the fucking hype?
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, and their power of forgetting is enormous." - Adolf Hitler
....enormous
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.
[haven't checked this out, just clicked and linked. looks good, if not slightly dated from 02]
Chill out man, what is your problem?
This isn't proof that the US publicly talked about using nuclear weapons in Iran. Just becuase the talking heads on cable TV talk about it, doesn't mean its US policy.
No need to attack my intelligence because I disagree with you okay?
Seriously, doesn't that say more about you than me?
It's not directed towards you specifically it's just a phenomena in general that you happen to be a part of.
I'm talking about a lot of people. It's epidemic really.
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.
It's not directed towards you specifically it's just a phenomena in general that you happen to be a part of.
I'm talking about a lot of people. It's epidemic really.
LOL, doesn't make much difference if you specifically target me or if I'm just one of a million. You are still targeting me, no?
And why? You think I'm somehow ignorant, under-educated or lack your intellegence becuase I disagree with your point of view.
I'm the one here trying to debate. You're the one here trying to insult me. George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.
The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.
The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.
The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.
The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.
Yup.
You are right.
The United States has vigorously tried to impose its unwarrented and unwanted will upon Iran. Not just this decade, but since at least the 1950's. Praise be to America for trying so hard to twist the arm of Iran through "tuff talk" and only threatining to stop them from receiving basic goods, because they fail to conform to our social norms or to give us as much oil as we want, or sell it in dollars. Praise be to America.
The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay?
Wow. Again, based on what exactly !?!
Iran hasn't done shit. What should we be so scared of?
Besides ourselves? It is America that is digging itself in to a hole with respect to it's own relations with Iran. Iran has never been the agressor with the US. Unless you want to try and bring up a hostage incident which was a response to the US killing off an elected leader and installing a brutal tyrant which it supported with money and arms.
Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
Oh okay.
You know, you're right.
We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.
That makes sense to me.
Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?
:thumbsdown:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This isn't proof that the US publicly talked about using nuclear weapons in Iran. Just becuase the talking heads on cable TV talk about it, doesn't mean its US policy.
You're right.
A declassified official US Government document released due to a Freedom of Information Request which specificaly iterates US Policy regarding tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian "proliferation" facilities isn't proof.
I'm so sorry.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Wow.
W not a war-monger !?!
You wanna talk about warped world views.
Sweet mother... !
Yup.
You are right.
The United States has vigorously tried to impose its unwarrented and unwanted will upon Iran. Not just this decade, but since at least the 1950's. Praise be to America for trying so hard to twist the arm of Iran through "tuff talk" and only threatining to stop them from receiving basic goods, because they fail to conform to our social norms or to give us as much oil as we want, or sell it in dollars. Praise be to America.
Wow. Again, based on what exactly !?!
Iran hasn't done shit. What should we be so scared of?
Besides ourselves? It is America that is digging itself in to a hole with respect to it's own relations with Iran. Iran has never been the agressor with the US. Unless you want to try and bring up a hostage incident which was a response to the US killing off an elected leader and installing a brutal tyrant which it supported with money and arms.
Oh okay.
You know, you're right.
We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.
That makes sense to me.
Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?
:thumbsdown:
Dude, get over yourself. There is no reason to come down on me becuase I share a different view than you.
You say things like the U.S. sanctions are unwarranted. That is highly debatable, so don't act like it's out of the realm of discussion. Make your points, and I'll make mine.
This is about much more than social norms and you know it. So use some judgement, and quit just letting off steam at me.
As if becuase you are upset, it makes you right. Jesus, you make me sound like a liberal.
This is about much more than social norms and you know it.
I'm letting off steam because in a half dozen posts i have shown you legitimately why you are most likely wrong on all counts, and all you come back with is unsubstantiated claims.
You have yet to make one valid assertion about Iran that would warrant anything. Talk or otherwise.
So what is it.
Formulate a thought for fucks sake and tell me what it is that bothers you so fucking bad about Iran that you think the US is justified in forcing them to a table to talk about something that they don't seem to think they need to talk about.
We want them to stop doing something they have a right to do, and they rightly don't want to stop doing it.
Yet you think we are right to threaten them if they dont "talk" with us. "Talk" being code for "agree and conscent to our unreasonable demands" that they stop doing what they have a right to do.
So you tell me, Mr. Offended,
what the hell has Iran done that warrants such posturing?
And do you really think it is justified for us to be discussing dropping nuclear bombs on them for fucks sake?
-still not over myself-
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm letting off steam because in a half dozen posts i have shown you legitimately why you are most likely wrong on all counts, and all you come back with is unsubstantiated claims.
You have yet to make one valid assertion about Iran that would warrant anything. Talk or otherwise.
So what is it.
Formulate a thought for fucks sake and tell me what it is that bothers you so fucking bad about Iran that you think the US is justified in forcing them to a table to talk about something that they don't seem to think they need to talk about.
We want them to stop doing something they have a right to do, and they rightly don't want to stop doing it.
Yet you think we are right to threaten them if they dont "talk" with us. "Talk" being code for "agree and conscent to our unreasonable demands" that they stop doing what they have a right to do.
So you tell me, Mr. Offended,
what the hell has Iran done that warrants such posturing?
And do you really think it is justified for us to be discussing dropping nuclear bombs on them for fucks sake?
-still not over myself-
The world is divided into spheres of influence. Weak countries are influenced by powerful countries. Welcome to geopolitics 101.
Iran is attempting to spread its influence and export the Islamic revolution across the Middle East. This can be seen through its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Israel to aiding the insurection in Iraq.
Iran's interest in the region are at odds with those of the United States. Just let me know if I need to expain this to you or provide examples.
If Iran controls the Middle East, they will control the supply and distribution of the most precious and important commodity on earth - oil.
They can then use this as leverage to influence the region, and the world for that matter; culturally, politically and regiously.
Obtaining a nuclear weapon, or the means to make one is a threat the US becuase in doing so - Iran makes itself immune from conventional attack. We need Iran to be vulnerable in order to check their influence in the region.
If Iran is immune from a military attack, then the government just bought itself life insurance. You won't see an American army topple the Islamic revolution like it toppled Saddam's goverment.
If Iran is immune from a military attack, then the government just bought itself life insurance. You won't see an American army topple the Islamic revolution like it toppled Saddam's goverment.
Okay so besides saying that we need to nuke Iran to stop their spreading relgion around the world, you are now saying that if Iran goes nuclear we can't take them out like we did Iraq ... which by the way we invaded specificaly BECAUSE we said they had WMDs ?!?!
Do you see anything incongruous with that logic?
???????????????????????????????????????????????
OH and by the way, way to make a perfect claim for US Imperialism in the top portion.
There is legitimate protection of "US interests" and there is blatant imperialism where you FORCE your will upon another country because you feel yourself some how morally superior and because your army is better you get to blow them up.
If that is your opinion,
then we have just concluded this debate,
because IMHO, youre view is as "evil" as those in the alleged "Axis of Evil".
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Okay so besides saying that we need to nuke Iran to stop their spreading relgion around the world, you are now saying that if Iran goes nuclear we can't take them out like we did Iraq ... which by the way we invaded specificaly BECAUSE we said they had WMDs ?!?!
Do you see anything incongruous with that logic?
???????????????????????????????????????????????
OH and by the way, way to make a perfect claim for US Imperialism in the top portion.
There is legitimate protection of "US interests" and there is blatant imperialism where you FORCE your will upon another country because you feel yourself some how morally superior and because your army is better you get to blow them up.
If that is your opinion,
then we have just concluded this debate,
because IMHO, youre view is as "evil" as those in the alleged "Axis of Evil".
The world is not carved up into little countries that exist individually in a vacuum. Nations influence other nations, this is the reality of our planet. What gives Iran the right to meddle in the affiars of the Palestinians, the Lebonese and the Iraqi's? I don't see you condeming their effort to exert their views on politics, religion and culture in these places. They are blatantly trying to otherthrow the government in Lebanon and would launch another war against Israel in a heartbeat if they thought they could overthrow their government.
The fact is, if the U.S. leaves the Middle East entirely - this game will still be played. It would be shear stupidity for the United States to sit this one out, in the hopes that other nations will join our utopian vision for the world. They will all laugh at us as they continue to solidify their agendas.
I do not see the United States forcing our will on anybody. In regards to Iraq, we are simply trying to support a democratically created government. A government that is unfortunately dominated by Shities (much to the dismay of the US) and is hardly a puppet for Washington, as evidenced by a $3 trillion dollar trade agreement signed earlier in the week with Iran.
LOL, doesn't make much difference if you specifically target me or if I'm just one of a million. You are still targeting me, no?
And why? You think I'm somehow ignorant, under-educated or lack your intellegence becuase I disagree with your point of view.
I'm the one here trying to debate. You're the one here trying to insult me. George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.
The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.
The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
If people forget what's in the media, and what has transpired in the past how exactly is that my problem?
If people feel offended...what would you like done about it? Should I lie about the situation to make people feel better?
This is totally a connect the dots exercise from the past 100+ years.
If you disagree well then history disagrees with you as well.
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.
Oh okay.
You know, you're right.
We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.
Comments
But I'm going to have to disagree with you about Obama's "imperialistic intent." I wouldn't say that having talks with Iran, supposedly about ceasing their nuclear program and so-called support of Iraqi insurgents, necessarily constitutes an imperialistic intent. Seems more like an attempt at stabilization to me.
You are against political discussions with Iran because you think it shows imperialistic views? So we can't even talk to them about getting rid of their weapons program?
I would be for disarming every nuclear weapon on the planet, and I wish the US would take the lead. I don't see anything good coming out of Iran having nuclear weapons. I'd like to see diplomacy come to the front on this issue. How can we be diplomatic if you don't even want us to talk to them?
I'm not trying to come down on you, I'm just wanting to see where you're coming from.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
You're talking to ME, not Roland.
And IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A WEAPONS PROGRAM.
They have a Nuclear POWER program.
See how warped you people are from the news media and the fucking government propaganda?
IRAN IS MAKING NUCLEAR FUEL. POWER. NUCLEAR POWER
IRAN IS PURSUING NUCLEAR POWER FOLKS!
The whole "weapons program" bullshit is nothing more than unbacked US Allegations that serve a not-so-well concealed political agenda.
Even the allegations that Iran is helping insurgents is nothing more than that, ALLEGATIONS.
And remember who is engaged in the ILLEGAL (international law) and Unconstitutional (domestic law) war ... before you start jumping to that argument as a worth one. WE are in the wrong here. 100%.
I love America, and I'm a patriot, but this bullshit will not stand with me. I will not swallow it.
So yes, attempting to FORCE Iran off of a policy of pursuing PEACEFUL ENERGY in the face of international law that says they can do it (not to mention their own domestic soverignty) IS IMPERIALIST AGRESSION.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm no great scientist either, but straight from howstuffworks.com ...
"What's a uranium centrifuge?
[... lots of talk about a centrifuge and then...]
With this highly concentrated U-235 metal, you can either make a nuclear bomb or power a nuclear reactor."
So what's the problem?
Apparently a centrifuge is nothing more than a device necessary for enriching uranium, be it to 5% or 95%.
If you know the United States may consider bombing your extremely expensive and sensitive nuclear program to bits, you may need some AA guns. Right? Case in point, don't you remember bush talking about "tactical nukes" repeatedly last year? Not that AA guns could shoot those down, but they are protecting an investment. Whether for power or bombs, this is no proof.
Here is the latest IAEA report i could find. You can skip straight to the conclusion which states in summary:
Now, to be fair, it also says that their transparency has diminished since 2006, but it seems pretty clear.
Regarding the centrifuges specificaly:
Hmm. No problems there.
And then to conclude:
All they could complain about was that Iran was being "reactive" rather than "proactive". Oh well. Oh, and they need to adopt "additional protocol" so that they can prove yet again that they are aiming for power, not bombs.
I can also dig up the previous report which was very explicit in Iran's current activities being peaceful, if you want.
Here is an older Washington Post that is horribly damning to the US, not Iran: "U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel"
Huh. Interesting.
Huh. I could have sworn I just ...
oh wait ... could you clarify for me please?
:sigh:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Oh, don't worry about it. So far, I've seen nothing worth being nervous about.
Everyone in the world except Russia? Haha, I'm gonna need some proof on this. the EU and the US have been against Iran from the beginning, but it doesn't mean anything. Oh, and not to mention the fact that France has flipflopped so many times that it's hard to keep count.
Actually, if you're the one who's accusing them of going after nuclear arms, you're supposed to present the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, and so far you've proven..............umm.............. nothing.
when obama shoots hoops awaiting election results he is really meeting with the CFR plotting the NWO and the coming invasion of China...
:rolleyes:
This get tough on Iran rhetoric is troubling to the most casual of unbiased eyes.
all we need to do is lok at what history tells us....screams at us actually.
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)
(")_(")
The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...
Correct me if i am wrong, but was America not discussing the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran last year?
Hmm.
I can't seem to remember the last time ANYONE in the Iranian government came forward suggesting using arms, especialy fucking nuclear arms, against America.
You are free to have an opinion on the legitimacy of Iran's world views, but the fact remains they have done nothing to warrant agression.
The US on the other hand has OPENLY suggested dropping "tactical" nuclear missles on production facilities in Iran.
I'm not sure how you get off saying that Iran is on the wrong side of this one.
What is the problem exactly?
Because Iran feels the same way about Israels policy towards the Palestians as it feels about the US policy towards they themselves?
You know what, NONE of that is supposed to be the concern of the US.
And you are probably refering directly to the thoroughly debunked "wipe israel off the face of the map" quote, aren't you?
Please.
No one is saying Iran has a great ideology.
All we are saying is that it is the UNITED STATES that is eager for war with Iran. NOT the other way around.
There is no way you can spin that one.
Sheesh.
Oh and by the way, the "islamic revolution" was by and large a creation of US Foregn Policy to begin with! Had we not overthrown and then assassinated their first publicly elected president in HISTORY back in the 50s, and then used the CIA to install a murderous and cruel puppet dictator, and THEN interfered with their region for the next 50 years, they probably wouldn't have much to be pissed off about.
On the other hand, what exactly is the United States crying about?
We pissed someone off, and now they are holding a grudge?
Hahah.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You don't think he has a right to tell the US to bugger off and stop meddling in the region?
hmm...crack open any history books lately?
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, the onus is on you to provide evidence that U.S. statesmen officially discussed the use of nucelar weapons against Iran. All I have heard the U.S. say is that all options are on the table.
I don't think either side is eager for a war. I just don't think you look at the situation unbiasedly. Amedinijad is a disturbing individual, and world leader. I don't think many people would argue with that.
Honestly man. What the fuck are you talking about?
It was ALL OVER the fucking news ... i mean the TELEVISION ... probably the prefered source of news for sheeple, right ... isn't that good enough? A year or so ago it was ALL they could talk about, you don't remember the fucking hype?
If the tube isn't a good enough source for you ... how bout the Jews themselves ... Yaweh knows the Jews would never lie:
Ynet News - A Jewish News Source
I could find you a half dozen more easy, but instead i'm going to go over to my cousins house and talk with her about peaceable things.
You people just keep on with the head in the sand.
Jesus.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Praise Be To FIRs!
[haven't checked this out, just clicked and linked. looks good, if not slightly dated from 02]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, and their power of forgetting is enormous." - Adolf Hitler
....enormous
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)
(")_(")
Chill out man, what is your problem?
This isn't proof that the US publicly talked about using nuclear weapons in Iran. Just becuase the talking heads on cable TV talk about it, doesn't mean its US policy.
No need to attack my intelligence because I disagree with you okay?
Seriously, doesn't that say more about you than me?
It's not directed towards you specifically it's just a phenomena in general that you happen to be a part of.
I'm talking about a lot of people. It's epidemic really.
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)
(")_(")
LOL, doesn't make much difference if you specifically target me or if I'm just one of a million. You are still targeting me, no?
And why? You think I'm somehow ignorant, under-educated or lack your intellegence becuase I disagree with your point of view.
I'm the one here trying to debate. You're the one here trying to insult me. George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.
The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.
The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
Wow.
W not a war-monger !?!
You wanna talk about warped world views.
Sweet mother... !
Yup.
You are right.
The United States has vigorously tried to impose its unwarrented and unwanted will upon Iran. Not just this decade, but since at least the 1950's. Praise be to America for trying so hard to twist the arm of Iran through "tuff talk" and only threatining to stop them from receiving basic goods, because they fail to conform to our social norms or to give us as much oil as we want, or sell it in dollars. Praise be to America.
Wow. Again, based on what exactly !?!
Iran hasn't done shit. What should we be so scared of?
Besides ourselves? It is America that is digging itself in to a hole with respect to it's own relations with Iran. Iran has never been the agressor with the US. Unless you want to try and bring up a hostage incident which was a response to the US killing off an elected leader and installing a brutal tyrant which it supported with money and arms.
Oh okay.
You know, you're right.
We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.
That makes sense to me.
Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?
:thumbsdown:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You're right.
A declassified official US Government document released due to a Freedom of Information Request which specificaly iterates US Policy regarding tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian "proliferation" facilities isn't proof.
I'm so sorry.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Dude, get over yourself. There is no reason to come down on me becuase I share a different view than you.
You say things like the U.S. sanctions are unwarranted. That is highly debatable, so don't act like it's out of the realm of discussion. Make your points, and I'll make mine.
This is about much more than social norms and you know it. So use some judgement, and quit just letting off steam at me.
As if becuase you are upset, it makes you right. Jesus, you make me sound like a liberal.
I'm letting off steam because in a half dozen posts i have shown you legitimately why you are most likely wrong on all counts, and all you come back with is unsubstantiated claims.
You have yet to make one valid assertion about Iran that would warrant anything. Talk or otherwise.
So what is it.
Formulate a thought for fucks sake and tell me what it is that bothers you so fucking bad about Iran that you think the US is justified in forcing them to a table to talk about something that they don't seem to think they need to talk about.
We want them to stop doing something they have a right to do, and they rightly don't want to stop doing it.
Yet you think we are right to threaten them if they dont "talk" with us. "Talk" being code for "agree and conscent to our unreasonable demands" that they stop doing what they have a right to do.
So you tell me, Mr. Offended,
what the hell has Iran done that warrants such posturing?
And do you really think it is justified for us to be discussing dropping nuclear bombs on them for fucks sake?
-still not over myself-
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The world is divided into spheres of influence. Weak countries are influenced by powerful countries. Welcome to geopolitics 101.
Iran is attempting to spread its influence and export the Islamic revolution across the Middle East. This can be seen through its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Israel to aiding the insurection in Iraq.
Iran's interest in the region are at odds with those of the United States. Just let me know if I need to expain this to you or provide examples.
If Iran controls the Middle East, they will control the supply and distribution of the most precious and important commodity on earth - oil.
They can then use this as leverage to influence the region, and the world for that matter; culturally, politically and regiously.
Obtaining a nuclear weapon, or the means to make one is a threat the US becuase in doing so - Iran makes itself immune from conventional attack. We need Iran to be vulnerable in order to check their influence in the region.
If Iran is immune from a military attack, then the government just bought itself life insurance. You won't see an American army topple the Islamic revolution like it toppled Saddam's goverment.
Okay so besides saying that we need to nuke Iran to stop their spreading relgion around the world, you are now saying that if Iran goes nuclear we can't take them out like we did Iraq ... which by the way we invaded specificaly BECAUSE we said they had WMDs ?!?!
Do you see anything incongruous with that logic?
???????????????????????????????????????????????
OH and by the way, way to make a perfect claim for US Imperialism in the top portion.
There is legitimate protection of "US interests" and there is blatant imperialism where you FORCE your will upon another country because you feel yourself some how morally superior and because your army is better you get to blow them up.
If that is your opinion,
then we have just concluded this debate,
because IMHO, youre view is as "evil" as those in the alleged "Axis of Evil".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The world is not carved up into little countries that exist individually in a vacuum. Nations influence other nations, this is the reality of our planet. What gives Iran the right to meddle in the affiars of the Palestinians, the Lebonese and the Iraqi's? I don't see you condeming their effort to exert their views on politics, religion and culture in these places. They are blatantly trying to otherthrow the government in Lebanon and would launch another war against Israel in a heartbeat if they thought they could overthrow their government.
The fact is, if the U.S. leaves the Middle East entirely - this game will still be played. It would be shear stupidity for the United States to sit this one out, in the hopes that other nations will join our utopian vision for the world. They will all laugh at us as they continue to solidify their agendas.
I do not see the United States forcing our will on anybody. In regards to Iraq, we are simply trying to support a democratically created government. A government that is unfortunately dominated by Shities (much to the dismay of the US) and is hardly a puppet for Washington, as evidenced by a $3 trillion dollar trade agreement signed earlier in the week with Iran.
If people forget what's in the media, and what has transpired in the past how exactly is that my problem?
If people feel offended...what would you like done about it? Should I lie about the situation to make people feel better?
This is totally a connect the dots exercise from the past 100+ years.
If you disagree well then history disagrees with you as well.
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)
(")_(")
What are you talking about here? I'm pretty confused. What is it that I have forgoten in the media? Please explain.