Deja Vu, I'm sure another similar sounding country has ridden this ride already.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3418659&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news

Iran May Face Deadline to Show Not Making N-Bomb

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States and more than a dozen allies pushed the U.N. nuclear watchdog to approve a resolution Wednesday that would give Tehran until October 31 to prove it has no clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Of course we all know proving to the US that something doesn't exist when they want it to is as easy as proving that the tooth fairy has a $400 a day crack cocaine habbit.

Japan, Turkey, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with Washington and nine other nations by co-sponsoring a draft that demanded Iran demonstrate full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which the United States says Tehran has violated.

The toughly-worded draft resolution, circulated at a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."

The toughly-worded draft resolution, circulated at a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."

Iran's foreign minister warned that the Islamic republic would "review" cooperation with the U.N. watchdog body if its governing board came down too hard on Tehran

Iran has said the traces of enriched uranium detected at Natanz were found on machinery that was already contaminated before Iran purchased it abroad in the 1980s. This explanation has met with skepticism inside and outside the IAEA.

Malaysia's ambassador to the U.N. in Vienna, Dato Hussein Haniff, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), said most of the 15 NAM countries on the board opposed the idea of imposing a deadline on Iran, because that would also mean imposing a deadline on ElBaradei.

"We want to give (ElBaradei) a free hand to decide," he said. "If you have a specific deadline, then there is also a sense that you're telling (ElBaradei) that you must complete your job by that time."


Meet the new Hans Blix

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi went a step further and told the IRNA news agency in Tehran that Iran would be forced to reconsider cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it was denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said.

A Western diplomat told Reuters that this kind of comment from Tehran was "blackmail."


This sort of comment coming from "A Western diplomat" is hypocracy.

I suspect Isreal will handle this one for us.

just like in the 80's :D

i really hope it doesn't come to this but if it does, Israel will have to protect the world's ass yet again.

imagine what would've happened if Israel wouldn't have bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors back in the day?

I see no reason for Iran not to get the bomb, she is under the nuke threat from Israel all the time with her Neutrons, and Jericho II missiles. I also see Israel doing the bidding on this one, the US can't pull that off she is not a pariah state like Israel is. I think Iran will get the bomb soon enough, I think Iran already has a missile able to strike Israel. The Shalab 3, developed from NK's TP1. What should be scaring Israel is not Iran alone it's the alliance btwn Iran and NK, that has gotten very strong since the "Axis of Evil" B.S. Do I think Israel can pull it off? I don't know because I know that Iran's nuke facilities are VERY well protected.

Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
Of course we all know proving to the US that something doesn't exist when they want it to is as easy as proving that the tooth fairy has a $400 a day crack cocaine habbit.Nice try, did you even read the article? It's not the US demanding it, it's the IAEA. Kinda sucks that you can't blame it on OMG SO EVIL AMERIKKKA, doesn't it?
Originally posted by nico
I know that Iran's nuke facilities are VERY well protected.I would like to see your source(s) corroborating this.

In an effort to ward off future airstrikes against Bushehr and other strategic sites, Iran has sought to purchase Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia. According to reports, Russia agreed in December 2001 to sell S-300 PMU-01 missiles and to train Iranian personnel in how to operate the system. While it is unclear whether or not such units will be stationed in the immediate vicinity of the reactor facility, current IKONOS imagery does not indicate an air defense presence.


Now I know that The SA-10 system is protable, and I am confident that Iran will place the SA-10 near the Bushehr. Also Iran's revamped F-14's (supposedly) by the Russians, and Su-27's, and MiG-29's. And there are Anti-Aircraft batteries around Bushehr and Anyways it's of no concern Israel nor the US would dare attack Iran's nuke facility with Russians on the ground.

Iran warns Israel against attacking nuclear plant

UAE: February 6, 2002

DUBAI - Iran warned Israel this week not to consider attacking its nuclear power plant, saying the Islamic republic would retaliate in ways "unimaginable" to the Jewish state.


"If Israel carries out any military action against Iran, it will face a response that will be unimaginable to any Israeli politician," Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani told Arabic-language al-Jazeera television. He said he was not referring to a nuclear response.
The admiral was responding to a question about what Iran's reaction would be to a possible Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear power plant under construction by Russian experts near the Gulf port of Bushehr.

Iranian media often warn of a possible Israeli strike against the Bushehr plant similar to Israel's air attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

"Iran is not a small country like Iraq. Iran has a powerful artillery, a disciplined army and skilled air defences," Jazeera quoted Shamkhani as saying.

The warning came amid growing U.S. pressure on Iran to halt its alleged efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. President George W. Bush has in the past week issued a series of warnings to Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, accusing them of being an "axis of evil".

Iran strongly denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its atomic programme is for non-military use.

Both Israel and the United States have tried but failed to convince Russia to stop its military and nuclear energy cooperation with the Islamic republic.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE


Granted it's old but it is indictive to the fact that Iran is indeed aware and scared of such actions. Iran knows the best defence against a attack from Israel or the US is to have the Russians on the ground as long as possible. I have to see any evidence though of re-processing in Iran, or anything to really suport there nuke program. I am not saying that they do, or don't.

I don't really see that Israel has a choice here. I think the danger is greater to them from a nuclear armed Iran than Iraq. Outwardly, I can see European countries publicly decrying such a move, but inwardly breathing a sigh of relief. In reality and despite all the blustering of France and Co., does anyone truly want a nuclear armed Iraq, let alone a fundamentalist Islamic state like Iran with such weapons. Particularly, when you look at how many of the 9/11 related terrorists were in Germany or all the Muslims in France, I would be worried.

What perplexes me somewhat is Russia's involvement in Iran's nuclear program, though I suspect I know the answer, hard currency. When you look at the war in Chechnya and how it has been characterized as a war against Islam, and Russia's past oppression of Islamic states in the former USSR, do you really want this? Or did they make a pact with the devil in order to stave off economic problems?

Any thoughts?

Well, going a bit off topic here, I don't think the U.S. PEOPLE would approve of the invasion of Iran after all the lies that are being published about the invasion of Iraq. But then again, I don't know anymore who runs this damn country.

Anyway, back no topic.

Hmmm.
Iraq. No Nuclear Weapons. Invaded.
North Korea. Nuclear Weapons. Not Invaded.

Anyone still wondering why Iran won't let in the inspectors, nor comply with demands from the UN or the US regarding it's nuclear program?

Yet the US invaded Iraq on her Nuke program? :confused:

IMO You cannot expect Iran to give up nukes if Israel still has gers targeted at Tehran, it's reciprocity that;s needed. I think that Iran with Nukes could have a positive side effect oddly enough. It will decrease tensions in the region. Israel's nuke monopoly is too be broken (which will eventually happen) the risks would be too great for Israel to play the game too hard. Also since it seems obvious that Iran has for the most part the ability to attack Israel. As long as China, has a vested interest in Iran, and Russia is helping out I don't see Israel doing much.

Well, let's not rehash the reasons for the war, I think we all know each other's opinions on that already.:D

While I agree that Israel's monopoly will eventually be broken, I don't think I am comforted by a MAD policy in the region. I trust the Israeli's with nukes far more than I would the Iranians, Israel does not view the West as the great satan and does not have the avowed purpose of completely wiping Iran off the map.

China's and Russia's vested interest in Iran, I believe is purely economic, neither one wants an increase in Islamic fundamentalism within their borders, something China has kept a pretty tight lid on. I think it is safe to say that all of Europe would be more at ease without Iran with the bomb too. This way gives Israel more parity, and I believe is actually more stabilizing. Though, I agree, the times are changing.

While I agree that Israel's monopoly will eventually be broken, I don't think I am comforted by a MAD policy in the region.

MAD policy is the best policy for the region,MAD= no war. Israel would be tammed and Iran would be the same. Can u really expect any state to be under threat from Israel and not expect to create there own nukes? Also plus a much more effective use of nukes would be dirties in Israel that would do more damage (psycologically) then a lumbering nuke from Tehran.

I trust the Israeli's with nukes far more than I would the Iranians,

I don't trust either:

http://www.rense.com/general35/isrnuk.htm

http://www.rense.com/general41/iran.htm

And please spare the source refutation, the things written in those two things are relevant.

This way gives Israel more parity, and I believe is actually more stabilizing.

If Iran dosen't get nukes? If that's what u mean your sadly mistaken. It will only encourage other nations to develop these weapons, and I believe personally that Pakistan is also developing with NK a missile able to attack Israel. Pakistan is already a nuke power so what then?

Well it seems to me that the only way you can stay safe from the US-Isreali axis is to have your own nuke deterrent.
This is the world as we have created it.
BTW does the US have enough spare capacity to hold Iran as well as Iraq and Afganistan?
Dee Cee

The US is not going to invade Iran. Whether or not that was a possibility I think the plans changed since the 30,000 troops that were supposed to be in Iraq at this date are instead still around 140,000. There is no invasion force for an Iranian invasion, unless the US wants to leave its rear end and logistics lines exposed to fedayeen and Ba'athist loyalists. And I don't think Israel will give a shit if Russian technicals are on the ground. They will take out that reactor and let Putin bitch at Bush. Russia will not have UN support on this since most everybody, particularly France and Germany, don't want a nuclear Iran any more than the US. Russia will bitch, the UN will publicly condemn Israel, and everybody will be secretly happy that the theocracy didn't become nuclear.

yea nico. how about every single nation gets a nuke. that way there'll be no wars. :confused:
is that your logic?

how can you possibly want a nuclear Iran???
a state that stones women to death over something as adultery, possessing nukes? you must be out of your mind.

re: defending their stupid nuclear facilities, israel will not send its pilots on a suicide mission. be sure of that. up to now israel has pulled off some pretty crazy shit. i think if they decide to try this one, they'll succeed...even with russians protecting the iranians.

now, as far as invading Iran, i don't think it'll happen. at least not in the near future. the US army is stretched too thin. even if they wanted to try something (i doubt they do) they wouldn't be able to pull anything off

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Nice try, did you even read the article? It's not the US demanding it, it's the IAEA. Kinda sucks that you can't blame it on OMG SO EVIL AMERIKKKA, doesn't it?
I would like to see your source(s) corroborating this.

I wasnt trying to pin it on just America sorry if it seemd like that i was posting on in a rush so i didnt proof read it for little bits like that which come back and bite you in the arse =(

I was just saying from the recent examples we've been through this charade already and whilst we have a few states trying to suck back up to the USA by going along with this we know that from example when the "coallition of the willing" want something to exist nothings going to proove it doesn't.

....Maybe surgecially bombing of nuclear sites could be expected at some point, but invasion ? Can the public be persuaded to pay for another invasion ?

Like the current invasion and aftermath in iraq is not costing handsfull of money and lifes....


Indeed it's the IAEA that is the watchdog, but they can only bark loudly, they cannot really enforce a nuclear shutdown ....


It's clear to all that iran is busy building nukes, but are they going to use them or is it like deterrent/leverage, just like israel????

If we for whatever reason want to stop other countries from joining the nuclear club hard action should be taken on very short term (not that me, a leftwinger would promote that haha) cause it's too late to bully the annoying north-korean government, iran is allmost there and god knows what happens in all those undergound bunkers in Libia....

Originally posted by nico
Now I know that The SA-10 system is protable, and I am confident that Iran will place the SA-10 near the Bushehr. Also Iran's revamped F-14's (supposedly) by the Russians, and Su-27's, and MiG-29's. And there are Anti-Aircraft batteries around Bushehr and Anyways it's of no concern Israel nor the US would dare attack Iran's nuke facility with Russians on the ground. They can "prepare" to be attacked all day long. Doesn't mean they'll be any more secure. The IAF uses USAF SEAD tactics, which have proven to be frighteningly effective at neutralizing air defenses in past wars, and their training and technology is first-rate, thanks to US support and their own gargantuan military budget. The biggest obstacle the Israelis face is the distance. Bombing Osirak in 1981 was easy, since it was a relatively paltry 400 mile jaunt from Israeli air space. Bushehr is over 1,000 miles away, which means IAF fighter bombers would need to tank probably twice on the way there and at least once on the way back, making such a mission pretty complicated theoretically. That said, I doubt they'd do it without clandestine assistance. Nobody wants a nuclear Iran, just like nobody wants a nuclear North Korea (except maybe nico). Israel is a nuclear rogue state, but one that hasn't been bellicose with their purported and suspected nuclear arsenal. Not to absolve them, but they're not too nefarious WRT a nuclear arsenal.
Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
I wasnt trying to pin it on just America sorry if it seemd like that i was posting on in a rush so i didnt proof read it for little bits like that which come back and bite you in the arse =(In that case, I apologize for being harsh. No worries dude. :)

Originally posted by Spyke
The US is not going to invade Iran. Whether or not that was a possibility I think the plans changed since the 30,000 troops that were supposed to be in Iraq at this date are instead still around 140,000. There is no invasion force for an Iranian invasion,

True but then again it was 12 years between them telling us Iraq had WMD and the invasion, i guess patience is a virtue, not that i'm attributing the current administration with any virtues what so ever =/

We keep a close eye on them

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/zoomviewer/index.php?display_img=natanz

With every nation on earth having MAD surely there would be no wars. If Iran get's nukes then Israel will have lost her monoploy, I trust neither Israel nor Iran with nukes. But you cannot simply sit back and accept that Zionists can have nukes meanwhile you (Islamists) can't? Where is the logic in that? I am aware of the fact that nukes are more of a peaceful force then a destructive one. Peace would be easier in the ME with it surrounded by two huge nuke powers.

how can you possibly want a nuclear Iran???


I don't of course I don't, but I also don't want a nuke Israel. As long as the cause exists then I accept the effect.

As for Israel attacking the nuke facilities, Israel has some advantages and a disadvantages. The Advantage is Israel's great pilots, and her missiles (Popeyes) and advanced ESM countermeasures. The great disadvantage is the range, they would need re-fueling. Also for SEAD to happen et all, you would a large aerial force. Also I think that Syria would tell Iran that there are a huge wave of Israeli fighters going east. Also Iran's air force is a compotent one, granted she's running low on spares. She can defend herself against a Israeli force. Also the Iranian S-300 missiles can detecct/ hit a target from over 150km and these are some of the most advanced Russia has to offer. Although Israel has one thing that is being glanced over here. Her Dolphin class subs which are armed with a cruise missile (popeye) which could be nuclear tipped or not. And it's not to say that Bushehr hasn't been attacked before:

Iran
9/30/80: Iranian F-4 fighter aircraft bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear research center.

Iraq
3/24/84: Iraqi warplanes attack Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

2/12/85: Iraqi warplanes attack Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

3/4/85: Iraqi warplanes attack Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

11/17/87: Iraqi warplanes attack Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Israel
6/7/81: Israeli F-16 aircraft destroy Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Me wonders if the North-Koreans secretely made a deal with the iranians and perhaps supplied them with 1 or 2 nukes and long range missiles to further pressurize/annoy the american government?

Iran and NK do have a very close relationship as does NK and Pakistan. The Pakistanit's seems to have helped the NK's with the nuclear portion. NK is using Iran as a testing ground for her TP missiles. So that's why I believe that TP program is much more advanced and well funded then we think. The deal is not a secret Iran and NK made a deal in 1989 to exchange fuel for arms. As for the nukes I can see NK giving Iran nukes if she really needs it.

What good is a MAD strategy against martyrs ?

Re-phrase, because there are so many political implacations to that statement I don't know where to start. So again re-state.

While I don't condone Zionist actions in Palestine, Israel has nonetheless never used a nuke, seemingly content to have them as deterrents, and has also shown no proclivity to use conventional miliary power on her neighbors since pulling out of Lebanon, even knowing she had those nukes as a deterrent against retaliation. Despite her somewhat heavy-handed internal policies, she has acted as a rational actor in her regional relations as long as her neighbors have left her alone.

Ok, I mean that Israel indeed never has used the nukes they have, but can we expect the same if some mad mullah has those nukes ?

MAD works for people who do not believe in the afterlife...

MAD works for people who do not believe in the afterlife...

MAD works for rational actors.

Yeah! It worked for Ronald Reagan.
Seriously though, I suspect there are no matyrs among any leaders of governments.

So the question is, how rational are the iranian leaders?

With troops already based in Iraq and Afganistan the logistics are in place to invade Iran on any provocation from Iran or Al-queada.

True.

How the hell can Al Qaida provoke you to invade Iran ?

:rolleyes:

You have to understand human psychology. We tend to clump things together. If someone has several enemies one will tend to think of them as working in concert. It dosn't help when the parties involved appear to be clones of each other.

I understand it very well , it is completely ignorant .

The Bush group will act on any provocation.

Your going to tell me that isn't the way humans think just about everywhere? Its the way people are.

Indeed , and people are ignorant .

The Bush group will act on any provocation.

Independant of the relation between the provocater and the supposed target , I know . This is so because there is no cause in provocation in this situation , there is mere chance to excuse behaviour . Since as we already understood that peoples are idiots , Al Qaida Iran Taliban Saddam and what not are all considered the same thus a chance to excuse behaviour emerges WHOEVER acts out in WHATEVER way .

It wouldnt even surprise me if they pull in Kimmie as some secret Taliban Al Qaeda spy .

9-11 turned America into a wounded animal. It is always unwise to provoke a wounded animal. If the Arab world wants to defuse the situation they had better convince Bin-Laden to cut out the threats. If he backs off things might cool off but releasing a tape on the aniversary of 9-11 was an error in judgement. The voices that spoke against the invasion of Iraq are now having second thoughts after this insult.

If the Arab world wants to defuse the situation they had better convince Bin-Laden to cut out the threats.

The representatives of the Arab world are a bunch of corrupt dictators caring only for maintaining their own power . UBL is no friend of theirs in order to listen to them .

If he backs off things might cool off but releasing a tape on the aniversary of 9-11 was an error in judgement. The voices that spoke against the invasion of Iraq are now having second thoughts after this insult.

It wasnt released on the anniversary but one day before . Anyways UBL nor Journalistic institutions have the objective to please the Amerikan .

Dont think that the damage Amerika is doing today is of anything new just because its a media-hype , to the Arab world as far as common peoples go , its pretty much the same as always .

Amerika can only go sofar , eventually they will loose their heads , afterall how spectacular 9-11 may have seem it was a complete joke if we are take a realistic look at the numbers . Its psychological warfare today , but one day it will become actually physical .

BTW Iran isnt an Arab country so if this would evolve from the issue dealing with in this thread ........

In the public eye there isn't much of a line between the Talaban, Hamas, any of the other Middle Eastern Islamist terrorist groups, clerics ranting about barbie dolls and having the strange delusion that they are jewish, Saddam, Iran's theocracy, and anybody else calling us "infidels".

In the public eye there isn't much of a line between the Talaban, Hamas, any of the other Middle Eastern Islamist terrorist groups, clerics ranting about barbie dolls and having the strange delusion that they are jewish, Saddam, Iran's theocracy, and anybody else calling us "infidels".

I know all negro's look alike

Its a psychological system of simplicity that has an ignorant core one couldnt even imagine , and Im very well aware of it .

Dont think that the representation of a Westerner or Amerikan is of any difference outside of the first world .

Hey, all too often the people calling Americans "infidels" clump America, anybody who wear business suits, christianity, jusaism, anyone not calling Amercans "infidels", corperations from just about anywhere, most of the UN, and barbie dolls together. This is not an isolated phenomenon.

Ghassan,

You really do not understand Americans. We have a unity of belief in ourselves as the best hope for the future.

I dont think many of you understand yourselves very well .

I dont think an imaginary unity will create anyother than hope and wishfull thinking , and I dont think those will stand against the physical reality that will eventually fall over Amerika .

I also dont think this group you mention represents more than themselves , rather than the entire 280 m peoples in USA .

There are many groups with many thoughts , dont think that their merging into one mainstream has replaced all differences , alligned in this unity of self-esteem you sketch .

Both of you make me ashamed to be living in the West. You are the morons and the ilk that give them (everyone else) the impression of imperialistic, capitalist, militaristic, ignorant, arrogant assholes. Well To the rest of the world we aren't! I believe that most Americans if they ever cared to learn about the world would reject that mass of juched ignorance. I mean your entire posts collapsed at the false belief of Iran being a Arab state, and having the same goals of a sunni organization. Oddly enough Iran is Shi'a, and they don't get along.


Hey, all too often the people calling Americans "infidels" clump America, anybody who wear business suits, christianity, jusaism, anyone not calling Amercans "infidels", corperations from just about anywhere, most of the UN, and barbie dolls together. This is not an isolated phenomenon.

That's the problem they do clump, they should pick morons like you instead.

Nico,

Have you ever travelled outside NA?

Let's see:

Sao Paulo, Brazil
Rio, Brazil
Montevideo, Uruguay
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Hawaii (woo hoo)

Nico,

When you were in SA did you notice how people craved things American like jeans, movies, and music? There are reasons why these are desired items.

That region of the world is part of the west, and they are much more European then American anyday. So it's not much to compare. But if you are talking about a non-westernized nation that's where the problems start.

Originally posted by nico
Also Iran's air force is a compotent one, granted she's running low on spares.hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Only if "compotent" means "clanky piece of decrepit shit".

ps. check your spelling

Well it is against a Israeli force, yes it can be a rather compotent force against a small Israeli one. With Su-27's, F-14's Phalcon radar, and Mig-29's it won't be easy for the Israeli's. But for the US it would be no contest. I know that Iran's F-14s are used to as AWACS, and the Su-27's would deal with the F-15's and F-15I's and the Mig-29's the F-16's. And even before that the S-300. I don't know if Israel can pull it off.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
I dont think many of you understand yourselves very well .

I dont think an imaginary unity will create anyother than hope and wishfull thinking , and I dont think those will stand against the physical reality that will eventually fall over Amerika .

I also dont think this group you mention represents more than themselves , rather than the entire 280 m peoples in USA .

There are many groups with many thoughts , dont think that their merging into one mainstream has replaced all differences , alligned in this unity of self-esteem you sketch .

And who are you to know Americans? What makes you think that you have this all encompassing knowledge of The West?

Who are you to question my knowledge on Amerikans or the West you 16 year old little piece of dogshit , go and ask your mother to slap your ignorant ass .

Whoa, well I guess age isn't a factor in maturity, now is it?

In your case it obviously is go waste your time elsewhere little girl .

End of discussion .

I was going to try and be civil about this, but obviously you deserve no respect, now why don't you go blow up a bus if you can't talk to a 16 year old seriously.

Ghass: And I thought anyone over the age of thirteen was supposed to be thought of as an adult... at least by islamic law. And swearing is also a no-no.

hey baboon boy, back off
your friend Nico just turned 17 last month. why don't you hear what this girl has to say huh?

It seems like are the apes are coming in to collect leftovers that have been thrown out .

Jump on it quickly ape before someone else takes it . Quick

1. Ghassan pulls bullshit theory out of ass.
2. Theory is questioned, no amplification is provided.
3. Ghassan resorts to ad hominem attacks in lieu of rational discussion.
4. ...
5. Respect ++

Way to make an argument, ace. Go stand in front of an IDF bulldozer.

No theory has been questioned , my awareness of the issues is what has been questioned . The ad-hom was received and returned . Dont make things up Stokes , I know its only natural for you to do so but try to controll yourself now and then . They will throw out left-overs tomorrow as well .

But ofcourse not a recapturing of the situation you care for , nor the issue at hand . Be honest to yourself for once .

Go stand in front of an IDF bulldozer.

And thats the difference between you and me Stokes : I wont stand in front of any bulldozers nor will I blow myself up or commit any other actions that are paralel to the service in the deathsquad for an imaginary entity and ideal you provide on a daily basis , Stokes .

Why are you here ? Why are you not dying in Iraq ?

Go on , you know it is the right place for you to be . Go and die it is your destiny .

your friend Nico just turned 17 last month.

Oth, please I do not want to be part this mass of ad hom, and pointless insults. I turned 17 in May that was last month? Yes I am 17 and I personally don't see any relevance with age as long as you show are capable of real debate. So please refrain from comparing me to this new guy.

I know its hard to believe, but I really dont think the Bush administration is dumb enough to take any sort of military action against Iran. Although the conservatives of this country will continue to hold on to their doublethink idealogy that although (The war in Iraq is being lost) the (War on terroism is being won), it seems likely that they are doing so with a great amount of hesitation. Knowing that although (the war on terroism is being won), that theyre is also the fact that (the war is making the middle east increasingly unstable). What I would guess is that this sort of thought process has become so contradictory, that the conservatives arent really willing to take it too far in either direction. Rather, I'd guess they just want to wait out their current debacle in the Mid East and just hope that somehow things start getting better. Sure they may make the occasional verbal threat against the Iranian government, but to actually go to the next level and attack seems unlikely. Although you never know.....

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Way to make an argument, ace. Go stand in front of an IDF bulldozer.

lolol! rotflmao :D :cool:

Nico:
hey man, my point was that age is irrelevant here, and you're a good example... while dear ghass farted an ad hom insult for someone who's just a tad younger than yourself.

Floyder:
who says the war in iraq is being lost? the coalition forces have established tons of civil services, economy is running, a new police force has been established, a governing council has been established.. small moves man. small moves. everything's going according to plan....except a few terrorist bombings here and there by outsiders who are killing iraqis too. as for the death toll of soldiers, it is pretty low when comparing to previous similar conflicts (i'm not dismissing the fact they're dying out there, but in smaller numbers than avg.)

i also think that the US won't make the mistake as they did with NK... containment failed with NK. look at them now, already a [unofficial] nuclear power. you think anyone is gonna allow a fanatic theocracy to aqcuire nuclear weapons? dream on. i think the US is simply going to give a green light (under the table of course) to the israeli army to bomb the shit out of the nuclear plants in Iran.

The war in Iraq is being lost, how can u say that? Using that logic oth, the war in Afghanistan in the 80's was being won by the USSR. They also created a puppet concil, and they also created highways, and they created schools, and they also created spheres of influence and control in the cities. And in the Middle East, and Central Asia the cities are not the key. The rural areas are, and they hold the key to power. Cities like Najaf, and Saddam city are the key to power.

except a few terrorist bombings here and there by outsiders who are killing iraqis too.

Iraqi's are most certainly fighting the American occupation. I will never understand why ppl's from "superpowers" feel as if they are not hated by anyone? Iraq is worse off under US control then under SADDAM! You see protesters in Iraq kissing pictures of Saddam, this one actually:

http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/iraq/IraqPNew-10000Dinars-AH1422-2002-donatedta_f.jpg

Unless Iraqi's get jobs, and unless they actually get security they will not accept the US. Frankly Iraqi's have been rebellious against every empire that has been forced down their throats, as well as Afghanistan. The US is no different she will eventually fail. I can't even think about Iran, nor NK.

afghanis in the 80's genuinely wanted USSR outta there. the afghani people were fighting the soviets.
iraqis wellcomed US with open arms. they're not fighting US. outsiders and former baathists fight the US.
USSR came to stay.
US came to get rid of saddam, establish a gov't and leave.

Unless Iraqi's get jobs, and unless they actually get security they will not accept the US.

the economy is picking up.. the security is picking up.
these things don't happen overnight. in only 4 months since the end of major hostilities (it's the speed of light in terms of these things) look how everything has improved. imagine the progress in another 4 months. economy-wise, securit wise, gov't-wise.
you just wait and see.

the young 'uns want everything YESTERDAY:rolleyes: ;)
just wait and see it getting better and better

... i just realized this thread is about Iran... back to topic

afghanis in the 80's genuinely wanted USSR outta there. the afghani people were fighting the soviets.
iraqis wellcomed US with open arms.

LMFAO, both are so half-truths it's not even funny! Everyone in Afghanistan wanted the USSR out? Not really many of Afghanistan's population were communist, Kabul was. Look at the side effect of the invasion of 1979-89 war in Afghanistan... AL QAEDA. I think the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan will create similar effects. Iraqi's have not accepted the US as anything but a imperialist conquerer. I have yet to see a pro-US rally in Iraq. But we have seen plenty of anti- US rallies. And it's only natural to have that, since it was the US who was the most ardent against the Iraqi ppl since 1991. Who suffered under the sanctions? Surely not Saddam hussein.

US came to get rid of saddam, establish a gov't and leave.

Isn't it funny, come, make disaster, then make pseudo-government.

the economy is picking up.. the security is picking up.


Again where? In Baghdad, or in Iraq? The economy is picking up for whom? The sheep herders? In Saddam city? Donde? Why are ppl protesting in the streets because there are NO JOBS? The economy has collapsed nevermind the security situation.

these things don't happen overnight. in only 4 months since the end of major hostilities (it's the speed of light in terms of these things) look how everything has improved. imagine the progress in another 4 months. economy-wise, securit wise, gov't-wise.
you just wait and see.


I believe that the US said by September most troops would be home? Funny that more are most likely to be going instead. You know reminds me of the WWI "home by Christmas" line.

let's continue this in an "iraq" thread

No man if I say Iraq again I think I am going freak. I want to talk Iran. :D

lol

hehe
me too man, me too

Its like that south park line

"hey man realax, Iran , Iraq whats the difference!!"

Old News Loser Guy

huh?

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
[

Why are you here ? Why are you not dying in Iraq ?

Go on , you know it is the right place for you to be . Go and die it is your destiny . [/B]


:D :D .... He will wet his pants in iraq. hehee... iraq is not for sissy like him.:p

Of course he already was in the army, the canteen corps. LMFAO! :D

Sorry i guess i did make it sound like an anti-Amerika bash in that first post.

I didn't mean to make it seem that way, after all i posted the source and indeed the text listing the group of countries that had pushed for the resolution.

What i meant by "Proving to the US that something that doesn't exist when the US Wants it to exist is as easy as proving the Tooth fairy has a $400 a day Crack Cocaine Habbit" was simply reference to the Iraq war and Hans Blix as these 2 situations are frightingly similar to the ones being pushed now and the US has been the strongest leading voice in calling on this resolution and getting the rest of the countries on board.

Whilst i know it's not a US only push its been seen several of the European members that are in this resolution are pushing less aggresive and threating methods to getting this resolution through.

I just wanted to point out the blatant repetition of the same old crap (WMD Programs, proove a negative) and let in Inspectors as an alternative to war but the inspector only has x number of days to proove a negative that the entire US Army in Iraq couldnt do after taking over the place (and have in fact all but given up on).

In fact just to proove a point can anyone actually PROOVE to me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

Just an excercise in prooving a negative and how difficult it actually is.