The Coming More of the Same in Iran

[Ken Carman]

If you were a betting woman, or man, where would you place your bet regarding when the war will be extended to Iran? Why would you place your bet there? I'm betting on Spring of 2008 because it's close enough to affect the election and right now "is not a good time to roll out new product."

[butterbut]

Probably never. Bush wouldn't make the same mistake and congress would never approve unless there was indisputable evidence that Iran had WMDs.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: butterbut Probably never. Bush wouldn't make the same mistake and congress would never approve unless there was indisputable evidence that Iran had WMDs.

Maybe you're right, but I know I've seen and heard a lot of the same people being proven wrong as to how far he would go saying it again and again. Congress? Given the right pressure, I think they'll fold faster than a punched baby. Kind of like Kerry, "I'm not going to allowed them to..." then doing nothing after that, or how all the Reps have to do is say they'll filibuster and they give in.

[Dieval]

I think it depends on A) they continue to fund the killing of our troops in Iraq; B) they persue building a nuclear weapon.

So, I'd say HOPEFULLY never, but there's a good chance they won't cease their current actions.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval I think it depends on A) they continue to fund the killing of our troops in Iraq; B) they persue building a nuclear weapon. So, I'd say HOPEFULLY never, but there's a good chance they won't cease their current actions.

First let me point out how the decision isn't solely up to Iran.
Second, I submit that Iran is acting quite like the US might act if someone invaded Canada or Mexico. We too might sneak in some weapons and fighters, if not engage in all-out war.

Next, I must point out the head-spinning hypocrisy of the only country that "nuked" another telling others they can't have nuclear programs.

Also, maybe Iran is under the impression the US is their enemy?

Even little events like what I link to below here can explain why some Muslims might flock to Iraq.

'US forces worse than Saddam': World: Iraqi Dossier: News24

Abu Dhabi - A prominent Iraqi Shi'ite cleric, saying he was detained and beaten by United States forces, said on Wednesday that American methods were "worse" than those employed by the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein.

Really, the chief decider here is the United States. If it doesn't "cease its current actions," its leaders and followers can predict Iran and others will intervene in Iraq, and elsewhere. None of this is hard to understand.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa First let me point out how the decision isn't solely up to Iran.

Wrong. The decision is SOLELY up to Iran. They ARE supplying weapons to both factions in Iraq in and effort to destabilize the country and cause harm to US troops. That ALONE should be considered and act of war on the US.

Quote by: grandpa Second, I submit that Iran is acting quite like the US might act if someone invaded Canada or Mexico. We too might sneak in some weapons and fighters, if not engage in all-out war.

We would not let Canada or Mexico be invaded. Comparing Iran to the US is not even CLOSE to being a valid comparison.

Quote by: grandpa Next, I must point out the head-spinning hypocrisy of the only country that "nuked" another telling others they can't have nuclear programs.

Think about the context of our use of nuclear weaponry. Your "hypocrisy" statement is just your anti-American sentiment shining through. Iran also has signed the NPT so they should not be building an nuclear weapon, by the own agreement.

Quote by: grandpa Also, maybe Iran is under the impression the US is their enemy?

And? Does that make it ok for them to build nuclear weapons when they agreed not to?

[jose]

Quote by: Dieval Iran also has signed the NPT so they should not be building an nuclear weapon, by the own agreement. And? Does that make it OK for them to build nuclear weapons when they agreed not to?

Have you ANY proof that they ARE building a nuclear weapon?
by signing the NPT they Are permitted to use nuclear energy right?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Wrong. The decision is SOLELY up to Iran.

No, it is not. Iran is not in charge of anything the US is doing.

My comparing the situation to what America would do is relevant. We would most likely intervene, and for obvious reasons. Iranian leaders came to similar conclusions any number of countries would reach under similar circumstances. I'm not saying they should, but the explanations are obvious.

Oh, and then you venture off into the "anti-American" nonsense, just because I illustrated an obvious hypocrisy. You didn't even make an argument, just used a childish tactic anyone should dismiss instantly.

Iran may have signed an agreement, but that doesn't really matter. All kinds of countries break agreements and laws. What matters is the rationale, and what is actually done. Iran is reacting in a predictable way, and not just because they are some supremely evil Muslim country.

If they are indeed building nukes, they are doing so for reasons practically identical to why others do it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: jose Have you ANY proof that they ARE building a nuclear weapon? by signing the NPT they Are permitted to use nuclear energy right?

Maybe Colin Powell will come back and do another slideshow. But you are right, it could be another administration lie, unless some evidence is provided.

In any case, I doubt Iran will ever have a nuclear monopoly.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa No, it is not. Iran is not in charge of anything the US is doing. My comparing the situation to what America would do is relevant. We would most likely intervene, and for obvious reasons. Iranian leaders came to similar conclusions any number of countries would reach under similar circumstances. I'm not saying they should, but the explanations are obvious. Oh, and then you venture off into the "anti-American" nonsense, just because I illustrated an obvious hypocrisy. You didn't even make an argument, just used a childish tactic anyone should dismiss instantly. Iran may have signed an agreement, but that doesn't really matter. All kinds of countries break agreements and laws. What matters is the rationale, and what is actually done. Iran is reacting in a predictable way, and not just because they are some supremely evil Muslim country. If they are indeed building nukes, they are doing so for reasons practically identical to why others do it. Grandpa h.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously. Your excuse for everything - It's ok to break laws and agreements that some party doesn't agree with.

[Dieval]

Quote by: jose Have you ANY proof that they ARE building a nuclear weapon?

Enriching uranium is used for fuel for nuclear reactors AND in nuclear weapons. Fuel that is accounted for and certified by the IAEA can be used instead of enriching their own, yet they refuse to do that. That isn't rock solid proof of their intentions, but it does show that they are unwilling to cooperate with the international community when it comes to their nuclear facilities.

Quote by: jose by signing the NPT they Are permitted to use nuclear energy right?

My understanding is yes, for civilian use.

So, to me, it comes down to, do you take the Iranian president (former US hostage taker) at his word that it's only for civilian use? :rolleyes:

[bishop]

i voted "after the election"... if satan/clinton gets elected, i have no doubt that she'll want to prove how tough she can be by having a war of her own creation.. (of course, i think most of the establishment candidates would also choose to own a war against iran.)

Quote by: dieval They ARE supplying weapons to both factions in Iraq in and effort to destabilize the country and cause harm to US troops.

do you have proof that the government of iran is orchestrating this? the weapons may be iranian made, but that doesn't instantly mean that iran has been supplying them. and, it also doesn't mean that the iranian government is behind it.

you must be eagerly awaiting another gulf of tonkin situation....


it's amazing how the warmongers so quickly look for war to be their answer, rather than diplomatic/economic alternatives..

[Dieval]

Dupe Post

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop do you have proof that the government of iran is orchestrating this? the weapons may be iranian made, but that doesn't instantly mean that iran has been supplying them. and, it also doesn't mean that the iranian government is behind it.

Quote by: link Iran continues to supply Shi’a extremist groups with training, funding, and weapons, including rockets, mortars, and particularly explosively-formed projectile devices, which account for an increasing percentage of U.S. combat deaths. ... In late July, after two trilateral meetings at the ambassador level, the United States, Iraq, and Iran formed a Security Subcommittee which met for the first time on August 6, 2007 in Baghdad. The Security Subcommittee has focused on curtailing the activities of militias and foreign terrorists in Iraq and developing ways to increase control over Iraq’s borders. Despite these efforts, the Iranian government has shown no signs of curtailing their destructive activities inside Iraq -- including the direct provision of lethal munitions and training to Shi’a extremist groups that are attacking Coalition forces and Iraqis. Benchmark Assessment Report

U.S.: Iran training Iraqi militants in bombings

Quote by: bishop you must be eagerly awaiting another gulf of tonkin situation....

Contrary to your belief, I'm not "eagerly awaiting" another war, and I hope this situation can be resolved peacefully, but when Iran continues to supply weapons that are killing our troops, it is harder and harder to leave military action off the table.

[bishop]

what a load... that article you cited was from april. surely, if the allegations had any merit, we'd be hearing a lot more about iranian involvement now.

moreover, an allegation is not proof - as we've so painfully learned with the b.s. surrounding the "grave threat" that iraq was supposed to be..

AlterNet: ForeignPolicy: Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure

Quote by: dieval Contrary to your belief, I'm not "eagerly awaiting" another war, and I hope this situation can be resolved peacefully, but when Iran continues to supply weapons that are killing our troops, it is harder and harder to leave military action off the table.

when you get verifiable PROOF that the allegations are true, be sure to let us know. until then, they are nothing more than unproven allegations.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: grandpa Maybe Colin Powell will come back and do another slideshow. But you are right, it could be another administration lie, unless some evidence is provided. In any case, I doubt Iran will ever have a nuclear monopoly. Grandpa h.

I got a kick out of Mike Malloy on his talk show the other night. He mentioned the administration's "proof" and then commented on how unspecific, especially when it comes to helping insurgents in Iraq, it is. Then he quoted an Iranian spokesperson who rather specifically mentioned how America could qualify as a terrorist state: including taking people off the streets because someone suggested they might be helping terrorists, rendition, torture scandals... some of the spokesperson's comments were pretty out there, some spot on.

The sad and dangerous trend here is that those who are most pro-conflict have no interest, or apparently any ability, to see it from the other side. All this, if it makes America and the world a safer place, well good... but I know that will take so long I won't be alive to see it. If it doesn't? There's a damn good chance no one will be alive to say "I told you so," or "I was wrong." Unless of course the great Cloud Being takes away the true believers... or hands out virgins. No matter what flavor true believer we're referring to, I have no interest in hanging around for an eternity where they are. I'd be whispering...


:eek:

"I see CRAZY PEOPLE!"

:eek:

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Again, this is why no one takes you seriously. Your excuse for everything - It's ok to break laws and agreements that some party doesn't agree with.

There's a difference between and excuse and an explanation. This situation doesn't look all that happy, and I was explaining why, and noting how any number of countries might react similarly, regardless of their leadership.

You may not take me seriously, but I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop what a load... that article you cited was from april. surely, if the allegations had any merit, we'd be hearing a lot more about iranian involvement now. moreover, an allegation is not proof - as we've so painfully learned with the b.s. surrounding the "grave threat" that iraq was supposed to be.. AlterNet: ForeignPolicy: Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure when you get verifiable PROOF that the allegations are true, be sure to let us know. until then, they are nothing more than unproven allegations.

I'm sorry...Let me run right over to the coalition HQ in Iraq and get the serial numbers for you from the Iranian weapons they've found so far... :rolleyes:

[bishop]

i appreciate the offer, but serial weapons won't even prove that the iranian government is involved...

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Strikes beyond this region would probably be best
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...ilfields78.jpg

a long term and long range world sponsored bombing campaign should subdue the local hostiles sufficiently for a small peace corps to be deployed to mop up any mild opposition remaining.

sponsorship by CNN, Murdoch and Fox, Discovery and McDonalds should guarantee a global view

We should also consider the area of local hostiles as a world dump for chemical and bio logical armistice dump. These weapons could be safely disposed of in the region before irradicating using nuetron devices