Iran rules out possibility of U.S. military strike

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Iran rules out possibility of U.S. military strike

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran dismissed the possibility of a U.S. military strike against the country Monday and said Tehran was ready to consider a new round of talks with Washington on security in Iraq. Concerns have been mounting in recent months that the United States might attack to prevent Iran from developing atomic bombs. The U.S. has said it is trying to resolve its disputes with Iran diplomatically but also says it has not ruled out any options. "The region is not ready to tolerate a new crisis and the United States is not able to plan it, too," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, told reporters during his weekly press briefing. "However, the Islamic Republic of Iran will consider any weak possibility (of an attack)," he added. Hosseini said Iran would consider a new round of talks with the U.S. over security in Iraq if requested by both countries. "If we find the Iraqi government insistent and we receive the U.S. official request, we will consider the talks in order to lessen difficulties of the Iraqi nation and government," said Hosseini. The U.S. and Iran have held three rounds of ambassador-level talks since May on security in Iraq, but relations between the two countries remain incredibly tense. The U.S. accuses Iran of supporting Shiite militias in Iraq and covertly developing nuclear weapons -- charges Tehran denies. Washington recently passed a new round of unilateral sanctions against Iran over the country's nuclear program and is pushing for a third set of UN Security Council sanctions as well. Iran has dismissed the sanctions and refuses to agree to international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki both attended a recent conference in Turkey to discuss Iraq, but did not have a face-to-face meeting. Washington and Tehran cut diplomatic ties after militant Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in the country in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Well there's at least a sign for an open hand to talks and getting this issue resolved.

[Rainbow]

Nothing constructive within this news, except for the Iranian governing body's attempt to be recognized as a dominant factor within the Middle-East region.
That is yet another political game.

Since appx. 4-5 more years is needed to obtain the enriched uranium at an acceptable level that might be used for WMD, expect to see some more political games, on daily-basis, to come.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rainbow Nothing constructive within this news, except for the Iranian governing body's attempt to be recognized as a dominant factor within the Middle-East region. That is yet another political game.

Well, it is all a game, sure. Such statements are indeed strategic, but it is notable that Iran has not overtly threatened war against the US recently.
I honestly cannot say the same about the Bush Administration.

Grandpa h.

[tinybear]

Of course Iran hasn't overtly threatened war against the USA. She would be pretty stupid to do so at this point in time.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Well, it is all a game, sure. Such statements are indeed strategic, but it is notable that Iran has not overtly threatened war against the US recently. I honestly cannot say the same about the Bush Administration. Grandpa h.

I am not aware of the Bush Administration threatening war with Iran over nuclear issues. I am aware of their claims along the lines of "all options are available" which includes negotiations, which have been going on now for oh about the length of the entire Bush Administration. Its the usual suspects who are insisting on hearing a drumbeat for war.

[Praxius]

Quote by: BobbyO I am not aware of the Bush Administration threatening war with Iran over nuclear issues. I am aware of their claims along the lines of "all options are available" which includes negotiations, which have been going on now for oh about the length of the entire Bush Administration. Its the usual suspects who are insisting on hearing a drumbeat for war.

Funny I saw the words come right out of Bush's mouth on TV:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/wa...in&oref=slogin

“If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it’d be a dangerous threat to world peace,” Mr. Bush said. “So I told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” “I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously,” he said.

But they don't have a nuclear weapon, nor has there been any evidence thus far that they are planning development of nuclear weapons.

And he's talking about starting WWIII to prevent Iran from having the "Knowlege" of how to create nuclear devices.... that's a pretty damn bold if you ask me.... all for the sake of preventing knowlege, let alone anything remotely resembling "action."

[grandpa]

I was going to reply to BobbyO, but Prax beat me to it.
Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius Funny I saw the words come right out of Bush's mouth on TV: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/wa...in&oref=slogin But they don't have a nuclear weapon, nor has there been any evidence thus far that they are planning development of nuclear weapons. And he's talking about starting WWIII to prevent Iran from having the "Knowlege" of how to create nuclear devices.... that's a pretty damn bold if you ask me.... all for the sake of preventing knowlege, let alone anything remotely resembling "action."

No. He is pointing out that Iran is a dangerous state in the region, intent on spreading its ideology. An Iran with nuclear weaponry will make Iran more bolder and more difficult to counteractm, thus increasing the chances of a war with Iran while trying to block its moves. Its the classic "the Germans should have been stopped at the Rhineland" argument that has been going on since 1945.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO He is pointing out that Iran is a dangerous state in the region, intent on spreading its ideology.

When the leader of a country says to obey him "if you’re interested in avoiding World War III," obviously some will interpret that as a threat.

And I meant the Bush Administration has overtly threatened war against the US population, via the war on terror, which undoubtedly places the US in danger in many ways. If you look at the very
nature and history of empires, they prove deadly to all sides.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Bush Administration has overtly threatened war against the US population, via the war on terror

"overtly threatened war against the US population"? Please explain.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval "overtly threatened war against the US population"? Please explain.

Well, first there is the very nature of empire building and conquest abroad, which is dangerous. And, as a corollary of that, we have seem what is essentially police state-legislation getting proposed and often passed, which is dangerous, and basically a declaration of war upon civil libertarians.

Do you need a further explanation?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

BTW, Israel has apparently not ruled out the possibility of striking Iran.

'US afraid of an Israeli strike in Iran' | Jerusalem Post

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement Wednesday that Iran had 3,000 working centrifuges raised fears in Washington that Israel would respond to the statement with a preemptive military strike, the Times reported Thursday. The British paper quoted military sources in the US capital as saying that the figure presented by Ahmadinejad could be the "tipping point" that touches off an IAF strike. Washington was reluctant to go forward with a strike against Iran, but Israel was a "different matter," the officials said.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Well, first there is the very nature of empire building and conquest abroad, which is dangerous. And, as a corollary of that, we have seem what is essentially police state-legislation getting proposed and often passed, which is dangerous, and basically a declaration of war upon civil libertarians. Do you need a further explanation? Grandpa h.

Keep going on your "police state-legislation"...

[Praxius]

Quote by: grandpa BTW, Israel has apparently not ruled out the possibility of striking Iran. 'US afraid of an Israeli strike in Iran' | Jerusalem Post

All I have to say is if Israel pulls another idiot stunt in flying into another country's airspace and attacks any compound on their soil, thereby starting the fight, I hope they get hell rained down on them....

I mean, if the overall image of the US is the World Police, then Israel is the drunk deputy, thinking they have powers they can use without consequence with the protection of the sherif.

I'm not racist of an anti-semite, but I am seeing what people have been saying about Israel and their actions.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa When the leader of a country says to obey him "if you’re interested in avoiding World War III," obviously some will interpret that as a threat. And I meant the Bush Administration has overtly threatened war against the US population, via the war on terror, which undoubtedly places the US in danger in many ways. If you look at the very nature and history of empires, they prove deadly to all sides. Grandpa h.

It was stupidly phrased by the president, to be sure. If A-jad takes it as a warning that the United States will not allow Iran to run amok in the region, so be it.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius All I have to say is if Israel pulls another idiot stunt in flying into another country's airspace and attacks any compound on their soil, thereby starting the fight, I hope they get hell rained down on them.... I mean, if the overall image of the US is the World Police, then Israel is the drunk deputy, thinking they have powers they can use without consequence with the protection of the sherif. I'm not racist of an anti-semite, but I am seeing what people have been saying about Israel and their actions.

The president of Iran has stated that Israel should not exist. They are desirous of developing nuclear energy. It arms, equips, and probably trains Hezbollah who routinely launch attacks upon Israel. Why is Iran exempt from the consequences of its actions?

[Praxius]

Quote by: BobbyO The president of Iran has stated that Israel should not exist. They are desirous of developing nuclear energy. It arms, equips, and probably trains Hezbollah who routinely launch attacks upon Israel. Why is Iran exempt from the consequences of its actions?

My merciful arse nuggets.... how many times do I have to hear that the president said Israel should not exist? That can mean several things, the people, the country, the princples, one thing, all of it.... none of it.... You gotta have something better then that. If he said he wanted to destroy the country and all it's people by any means nessicary, then you might have a case.

China does the same thing to Taiwan, I don't see anybody trying to jump on China because they reconize them as a part of their empire.

What about those in Tibet who want liberation? Should they be considdered evil and be oppressed further becase they do not accept the norm?

Just because they state their position, doesn't mean they will take action. That's the power of influence without action.

[rmnunez]

I like the Iranian's dismissal, I think it then compells the US to reiterate how serious it is about attacking. I think it is significant Iran's president publicly dismisses any threat from the US and await the forceful united statian response. Perhaps they could use a couple of nuclear-armed Tomahawks recently suposedly hijacked during routine operations, to be sidelined closer to the Iraqi theatre.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Keep going on your "police state-legislation"...

Well, there is plenty of this: The Patriot Act for one.

The administration wants to allow hearsay evidence. They also want it so defendants can be barred from their own trial and allow the submission of coerced testimony.

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf


Reform the Patriot Act | Section 215
What is Section 215?

Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents. The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity. The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy. Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised. If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius All I have to say is if Israel pulls another idiot stunt in flying into another country's airspace and attacks any compound on their soil, thereby starting the fight, I hope they get hell rained down on them.... I mean, if the overall image of the US is the World Police, then Israel is the drunk deputy, thinking they have powers they can use without consequence with the protection of the sherif.

Well, I don't want Israel "to get hell rained down on them," but they're not immune to that possibility any more than Iran is.

Grandpa h.