Off Topic · Iran (page 1)

BRIGGS @ 3/21/2009 10:05 AM
I don't get these people. Every time I listen to them speak they chant "Death To Americans" or something of that ilk. I really don't think people in the US give a flying F about people in Iran so we don't say anything nor should we. They need something else to focus on--that is as radical/ extreme as it gets. This is why these people cannot be trusted with anything nuclear. I didnt support bombing Iraq but if they truly ever get the idea that Iran IS in the process of making ANY weapon that is associated with nuclear material--then I would give 110% full support of a massive-pre-emptive strike with low level nuclear arsenal to take out a large portion of their military and ANY suspected nuclear sites. These people need to start living in the 20th century--thats the problem.
Nalod @ 3/21/2009 10:19 AM
We talking the people or the minority but ruling government. Self Serving Mofo's are up for reelecton in June are trying to stay in power.

The PEOPLE need to decide thier fate and get rid of "im-a-dinner-jacket" and move forward.

Their economy is weak and low oil prices are hurting them. They will use this nuke plant capacity as leverage. They are easier to bribe than reason with.
TMS @ 3/21/2009 3:43 PM
i'm pretty sure people over there have no idea what Americans are thinking either invading other countries for greed driven purposes... if Russia had invaded Cuba, Mexico or Canada for similar reason & were pressuring us to change the way we govern our own nation, i'm sure we'd all be pissed at them too... i think we gotta walk in the shoes of others before trying to figure out what drives their mindset.

that said i agree w/u, for our own sake we can't let Iran become a nuclear power w/that type of animosity towards us... we gotta think about protecting our own before all else.

[Edited by - TMS on 03-21-2009 12:43 PM]
nixluva @ 3/21/2009 4:43 PM
From every real respectable source i've read in the past it seems the actual everyday person in Iran has a more positive view of America than their leaders would have you believe. Remember that many students have come here over the years and the KNOW what the people here are really like and what our society is like. They are the connection to the people there and cut thru the propaganda.

bitty41 @ 3/21/2009 7:32 PM
From every real respectable source i've read in the past it seems the actual everyday person in Iran has a more positive view of America than their leaders would have you believe.

Thank you and this bares repeating. In terms of rebuilding serious diplomatic relations with Iran that will always be difficult if the American government continues to have unfailing allegiance to Israel.
Nalod @ 3/22/2009 12:38 PM
Posted by bitty41:
From every real respectable source i've read in the past it seems the actual everyday person in Iran has a more positive view of America than their leaders would have you believe.

Thank you and this bares repeating. In terms of rebuilding serious diplomatic relations with Iran that will always be difficult if the American government continues to have unfailing allegiance to Israel.


Too bad, they make their choices and cannot yield.

I really would hate to light them up. But desporate govenments who are detached from the people and are starved for powers are dangerous.

Bitty, you make it seem we should turn our back on israel? Israel can certainly take care of itself but the stakes are way too high for everyone. While you might not have a financial or emotional interest in their survival, they will retaliate to no avail and then when the worlds ecnomy is in a tailspin it will effect all of us.

That might not be right, but its the way it is.

The goal of dominations extends beyond israel, but to europe and America. Death to infidels who don't convert has been a centuries old problem. Isreal is only 60 years old.
bitty41 @ 3/22/2009 1:14 PM
Posted by Nalod:
Posted by bitty41:
From every real respectable source i've read in the past it seems the actual everyday person in Iran has a more positive view of America than their leaders would have you believe.

Thank you and this bares repeating. In terms of rebuilding serious diplomatic relations with Iran that will always be difficult if the American government continues to have unfailing allegiance to Israel.


Too bad, they make their choices and cannot yield.

I really would hate to light them up. But desporate govenments who are detached from the people and are starved for powers are dangerous.

Bitty, you make it seem we should turn our back on israel? Israel can certainly take care of itself but the stakes are way too high for everyone. While you might not have a financial or emotional interest in their survival, they will retaliate to no avail and then when the worlds ecnomy is in a tailspin it will effect all of us.

That might not be right, but its the way it is.

The goal of dominations extends beyond israel, but to europe and America. Death to infidels who don't convert has been a centuries old problem. Isreal is only 60 years old.

Who and what are you talking about? The talk about domination and death to infidels you need to me more specific.

I'm not saying we should turn our back on Israel but we just always remember whom comes first: American interests; these interests are not always going to coincide. If America wants to restore credibility in the Middle East they need to start but treating Israel with an even hand. How can our government possibly advocate for sanctioning Iran for developing nuclear power yet we supply Israel with huge stockpiles of Nuclear weapons every year? Now this may seem completely logical and fair to you but to the rest of the world particularly the Middle East region it will always make it unevenness remains fact.

This is all a bit misleading Nalod because the country most threatened by Iran is Israel. I think there is a legitimate fear that Israel will take a page of GWs book of creating war by manufacturing evidence to bring about a conflict. Is Iran really more dangerous then the China or Russia.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
U.S., Israel Disagree on Iran Arms Threat
Senate Panel Told Tehran Has Not Made Decision to Pursue Nuclear Weapons
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said the Islamic republic is keeping its options open on whether to try to produce weapons-grade uranium.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said the Islamic republic is keeping its options open on whether to try to produce weapons-grade uranium. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)



Iran has not produced the highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon and has not decided to do so, U.S. intelligence officials told Congress yesterday, an assessment that contrasts with a stark Israeli warning days earlier that Iran has crossed the "technological threshold" in its pursuit of the bomb.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said that Iran has not decided to pursue the production of weapons-grade uranium and the parallel ability to load it onto a ballistic missile.

"The overall situation -- and the intelligence community agrees on this -- [is] that Iran has not decided to press forward . . . to have a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile," Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Our current estimate is that the minimum time at which Iran could technically produce the amount of highly enriched uranium for a single weapon is 2010 to 2015."

The five-year spread, he explained, is a result of differences in the intelligence community about how quickly Iran could develop a weapon if it rekindled a weapons program it suspended in 2003.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel that Iran is "keeping open that option."

Iran recently announced its first space launch and said Sunday that it had successfully tested an air-to-surface missile with a 70-mile range. Maples said the launch of the Safir space vehicle "does advance their knowledge and their ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missiles," but he and Blair said there may be no connection between the country's development of missiles and any ambition to have nuclear weapons.
ad_icon

"I believe those are separate decisions," Blair said. "The same missiles can launch vehicles into space. They can launch warheads, either conventional or nuclear, onto . . . land targets, and Iran is pursuing those -- for those multiple purposes. Whether they develop a nuclear weapon which could then be put in that . . . warhead, I believe, is a . . . separate decision which Iran has not made yet."

Israeli officials have a different view of Iran's goals.

"Reaching a military-grade nuclear capability is a question of synchronizing its strategy with the production of a nuclear bomb," Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, Israel's chief of military intelligence, told cabinet ministers, according to a senior Israeli official briefing reporters in Jerusalem. "Iran continues to stockpile hundreds of kilograms of low-level enriched uranium and hopes to use the dialogue with the West to buy the time it requires in order to move towards an ability to manufacture a nuclear bomb."

Blair said Israel was working from the same facts but had drawn a different interpretation of their meaning.

"The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view," he said.

A similar difference of opinion surfaced last week, when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen said he thought that Iran had enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on the same day that Iran was "not close to a weapon."

Blair was asked about the Chinese military and specifically a weekend incident in the South China Sea involving a U.S. ocean surveillance ship and five Chinese vessels in international waters. The intelligence chief called it the most serious episode between the two nations since 2001, when tensions rose over a collision between Chinese fighters and a U.S. surveillance aircraft in roughly the same region.

"They seem to be more militarily aggressive," Blair said, adding: "I think the debate is still on in China whether, as their military power increases, they will be used for good or for pushing people around."

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2009 1:21 PM]

[Edited by - bitty41 on 03-22-2009 1:23 PM]
Nalod @ 3/23/2009 12:19 PM
Israel is a responsable and dependable partner with its nuclear capcity.

Other countries would not be.

Need we manufacture the threat Iran has to israel? Its the retoric that speaks for itself.

Lets be clear about Iraq. There were no weapons of in Iraq because if found the UN would not lift sactions. WIth them removed Saddam was free to export oil and reap new profits to rebuild his arnsnal.

I for one believe the American public was dooped into Iraq, and the administration has not been even close to being forthright about what was in store for us. I believed it would be years we'd be there and very expensive, and it there was no selling "the truth" by the bush admin to the public to buy into it.
Silverfuel @ 3/23/2009 12:53 PM
What about Pakistan? They are more dangerous!! The ISI trains militants and provides them with weapons. And they are getting support from the US and China. Stop all money going in unless they crack down in terrorists.
bitty41 @ 3/23/2009 1:16 PM
Posted by Nalod:

Israel is a responsable and dependable partner with its nuclear capcity.

Other countries would not be.

Need we manufacture the threat Iran has to israel? Its the retoric that speaks for itself.

Lets be clear about Iraq. There were no weapons of in Iraq because if found the UN would not lift sactions. WIth them removed Saddam was free to export oil and reap new profits to rebuild his arnsnal.

I for one believe the American public was dooped into Iraq, and the administration has not been even close to being forthright about what was in store for us. I believed it would be years we'd be there and very expensive, and it there was no selling "the truth" by the bush admin to the public to buy into it.

Of course Israel has nuclear capacity considering the American government sends them billions every year to develop their various weapons programs. But that's neither here nor there because I agree with Silverfuel Pakistan is very dangerous but what about our neighbors Mexico? If Obama and Holder do not deal with the cartels very soon we all could looking at a war on our Southern border.
bitty41 @ 3/23/2009 1:16 PM
Posted by Nalod:

Israel is a responsable and dependable partner with its nuclear capcity.

Other countries would not be.

Need we manufacture the threat Iran has to israel? Its the retoric that speaks for itself.

Lets be clear about Iraq. There were no weapons of in Iraq because if found the UN would not lift sactions. WIth them removed Saddam was free to export oil and reap new profits to rebuild his arnsnal.

I for one believe the American public was dooped into Iraq, and the administration has not been even close to being forthright about what was in store for us. I believed it would be years we'd be there and very expensive, and it there was no selling "the truth" by the bush admin to the public to buy into it.

Of course Israel has nuclear capacity considering the American government sends them billions every year to develop their various weapons programs. But that's neither here nor there because I agree with Silverfuel Pakistan is very dangerous but what about our neighbors Mexico? If Obama and Holder do not deal with the cartels very soon we all could looking at a war on our Southern border.
Nalod @ 3/24/2009 9:32 AM
Pakistan? We talking pakistan now? OK!

Of course Pakistan is a big big problem. They got the bomb and the Taliban is really trying to over run that country!

What can Pakistan do? They are currupt, have Taliban pressing on the government in ways that we can't imagine. You either play with them or they kill you and your replacement will! Same with Cartel in mexico or south AMerica. Eat silver or eat lead!

Are we saying we are running out of billions and the ones we send to Israel should go to pakistan? I think we got billions that could go both places.

There is no right or wrong here. Remember if Iran is a legit threat Israel will take it out. They did this in 1982 in Iraq, and they will do it again. Despite Irans rhetoric Israel will be seen as the agressor and all hell breaks loose. Thats what Iran, or any country hopes for. These countries might not like one another, but nothing brings them together than a potential beat down on Israel!

Regarding Pakistan, this is where India needs to step up and take care of its neighor. Like China needs to police N. Korea, India-Pakistan tensions are deep and a strong Taliban Pakistan is a threat to stability in the region. India wants to be a playa and this will test their resolve.

Its all a damm mess, but it always has been!
Silverfuel @ 3/24/2009 10:48 PM
Posted by Nalod:

Regarding Pakistan, this is where India needs to step up and take care of its neighor. Like China needs to police N. Korea, India-Pakistan tensions are deep and a strong Taliban Pakistan is a threat to stability in the region. India wants to be a playa and this will test their resolve.
Pakistan receives weapons aid from the United States and from China. Not bullets and hand guns. They get F16, F22's and battle tanks. They also receive around $6 billion from the US in cash which they turn around and pump into LeT, JeI and the Taliban. This is no secret. Every intelligence agency in the world knows the government of Pakistan is funding global terrorism. And yet they are an ally of the UK, US and China. How is this something India needs to take care of? If it were up to India, Pakistan would have been broken up 10 years ago. The world community is cuffing India, Israel and anyone else that wants to take on Pakistan because they are fooled into thinking they can negotiate with the Pakistani government.

And Nalod, Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of terrorists in Iraq and around the world. There are members in the Royal family that give out money to suicide bombers. I know we have to be nice to them because we want their oil so there are no morals here.
Nalod @ 3/25/2009 1:45 PM
If pakistan don't take care of the Taliban they are gonna be toast.

Saudi royals are sh!t's but its not "state sponsered", which don't mean a thing exept make it unofficial.
Silverfuel @ 3/25/2009 4:02 PM
Posted by Nalod:

If pakistan don't take care of the Taliban they are gonna be toast.
Umm, you dont think the US should cut funding or interfere? Thats kinda double standards that we should interfere in Iran and not in Pakistan.
Saudi royals are sh!t's but its not "state sponsered", which don't mean a thing exept make it unofficial.
royal family is the state and they make it state sponsered!
Nalod @ 3/25/2009 10:57 PM
Posted by Silverfuel:
Posted by Nalod:

If pakistan don't take care of the Taliban they are gonna be toast.
Umm, you dont think the US should cut funding or interfere? Thats kinda double standards that we should interfere in Iran and not in Pakistan.
Saudi royals are sh!t's but its not "state sponsered", which don't mean a thing exept make it unofficial.
royal family is the state and they make it state sponsered!

Cut funding to Pakistan its gonna fall off a cliff and be more of a threat.

Umm, this is really not the forum to go too much in detail, but I don't think "INTERFERE" is really a strong enough word.

Regarding Saudi, We agree. I say its "unofficial" cuz its thru the Royals.

Silverfuel @ 3/28/2009 9:13 AM
Nalod, US has been funding pakistan for 4 decades and the situation has got worse! I don't know how familiar you are with Pakistan but the money from the US and China actually funds terrorism. So if you keep up the funding, it will fall off the cliff faster.

Saudi royal family is the government. They are the officials of the country. They make it official. Yet, we still call them an ally because they sell us oil. They fund Palestinian suicide bombers. They are as official as you can get. How come they are an ally and Iran is not?
Page 1 of 1