Iran lies, lies and more lies

Discussion in 'World Events' started by cosmictraveler, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    It would seem that after all of these years we should know that Iran doesn't ever tell the truth and lies almost always .It is a country with politicians that only want to control the entire Mid East but many other countries are preventing them from doing so. If Iran is given any leeway to build a atomic weapon then they will. Matter of fact they will no matter how the negotiations go. Haven't we learned from all the lies Iran has told in the past and its taking Americans as hostages to get what it wants that there's nothing to trust about this terrorist country that supports the terrorists in many countries.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    If the West was as gullible as you make them to be, a nuclear treaty with Iran would have occurred years ago.

    No one wants a nuclear Iran. That's why these negotiations are taking so long. Iran will have to surrender all its weapon grade materials. It will be required to surrender most of its enrichment capacity And it must submit to monitoring and inspections - minor details. And sanctions would only be suspended And could be quickly restored should Iran violate the agreement.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Thanks Ronald Reagan.
     
    Kittamaru and Bells like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    name one lie? this seems more like a rant than anything else.
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I think that it's clear that Iran intends to to have nuclear weapons and for them, that's non-negotiable. The defect in the current negotiations is that they are essentially discussions of how those on the opposite side of the table can reconcile themselves to Tehran's non-negotiable stance, without losing too much face.

    Iran's long-term goal is to become the Middle Eastern superpower, armed with nuclear weapons, astride the Persian Gulf and half of the world's proven oil reserves, effectively putting them in control of the world's economy.

    I don't think that they are lying when they chant, "Death to America!", "Death to Israel!"

    They are going to push Israel as hard as they can. So far, that's involved supplying tens of thousands of rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas. I wouldn't be surprised to see them introduce their Revolutionary Guards into those confrontations, especially the so-called 'Quds Force', the Revolutionary Guards' foreign expeditionary and special operations branch. ('Quds' is their name for Jerusalem, the force was created with the express intention of seizing Jerusalem from the Jews.) Direct confrontations between Israeli and Iranian forces will be extremely dangerous once both are nuclear armed, not unlike a battle between US and Soviet forces would have been during the Cold War. The likelihood of escalation and a regional nuclear war will rise dramatically.

    Saudi Arabia won't be willing to watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons and if Iran isn't prevented from doing so, the Saudis will start a nuclear weapons program of their own. They have already said as much. The Egyptians are likely to do so as well, and perhaps the UAE in addition. So expect a regional nuclear arms race in the least stable and craziest part of the world.

    Iran will have the ability to close the Straits of Hormuz, giving them a shut-off valve for Persian Gulf oil exports. If they have ICBMs capable of hitting the United States, then they can simply warn US forces off, with the threat that if we challenge the blockade, we stand to lose New York, Washington DC, Chicago and LA.

    People might want to argue that superior American nuclear forces and the likelihood that the US could turn Iran into an ashtray will deter those kind of destabilizing adventures. But from Iran's perspective, if the US is so desperate to avoid a war even before Iran has nuclear weapons, then Washington DC will only be more circumspect after Iran is nuclear armed and a confrontation threatens to seriously damage America and its allies.

    I expect that the Iranians perceive possession of nuclear weapons as something that will dramatically increase their future freedom of action, since adversaries will have even more fear than they currently do of the possible consequences of confronting Tehran.

    Bottom line question: If war is probably inevitable, then would it be better for the war to take place before or after one's opponent has nuclear weapons?
     
    cosmictraveler likes this.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Are we really going to let this panicky crap get us into yet another war?

    Iran is entitled, by signed treaty, to develop its nuclear power industry any way it wants to. It has been blocked from doing this, in violation of signed treaty, by a cadre of countries who fear that Iran will be only a step away from nuclear weapons if allowed to proceed as everyone agreed was best for Iran back when those treaties were signed. And this is quite true - as with every other country except Japan that developed a nuclear power industry, Iran will almost certainly acquire nuclear weapons along the way. That's one of the major problems with nuclear power, currently unsolved.

    Since nuclear weapons are primarily and quite effectively defensive, that will reduce other countries's leverage on Iran - and the prospect of being unable to bully Iran and threaten to attack it with impunity means a change in behavior for several countries who prefer the status quo.

    Meanwhile, Iran is probably a far safer repository of nuclear weapons (and a far better justified developer of them) than Pakistan, North Korea, India, Israel, and so forth. Iran has a long history of non-aggression, and fighting only defensive wars.
     
  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  11. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    ...lol according to "Israeli News"...about Iran. VERY credible. lol
     
  12. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    9 confirmed or suspected nuclear armed states out of several dozen running nuclear power industries, I don't think you're very up-to-date on your world history there (or maybe you know more than I do about why Canada's still running a deficit). There's no treaty that says Iran is allowed to produce industrial quantities of weapons-grade material, and there's also no treaty that says the US has to subsidize Iran's backward economy in order to help them along this path while they threaten to go medieval on the free world.

    Nuclear weapons are not defensive in the eyes of people who believe there will be an apocalypse no matter what (and that life won't get better until then). Indeed a nuclear-armed Iran would change behaviours- it would rightfully trigger an automatic nuclear strike from the US or Israel for any missile launch that wasn't announced along with its flight path well in advance, regardless of whether the missile launch is part of a test or a long-range conventional strike. It would also trigger sanctions that would collapse Iran's economy and way of life, and prevent them from latching onto the US economy as a means of financing their ancient barbarisms and accessing modern goods and services other than oil, truck bombs, rape and carpets.

    You haven't been following recent trends in Shia militancy, I take it. None of the other states you mentioned have ever nuked anyone either, so what makes Iran any safer? Iranian nuclear armaments would simply trigger a catastrophic arms race throughout the middle east which wouldn't be good for anyone, and only the crazy mullahs themselves know the actual reason why Iran wants them in the first place.
     
  13. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    How are your own sources coming along? Still getting inside info from that crazy cokehead at the strip club?
     
    joepistole likes this.
  14. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    What are you talking about?
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I thought you said you had special insider info on what's really going on in the world?
     
  16. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
     
  17. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'm discussing Iran's saying they are not going to develop a nuclear weapon when in fact they are. That's the lie I'm discussing and I hope we can stay on track. We could also discuss Iran paying terrorists in Yemen at this time to overthrow that government as well.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    the only lie here is that they are going for a nuclear weapon. there is a general consensus in the intelligence community that they are not pursuing nukes. the CIA and Mossad doubt it. in fact all evidence suggests that if Iran goes for nukes its because of people like you in the US and Israeli governments saber rattling against them. so no their not lying you are.
     
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    You do not need centrifuges for the making of electricity. You need centrifuges for the development of enriching uranium for developing it into a weapons grade material.
     
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    um the whole reason iran's economy is hurting is because of the aggressive sanctions against them. and you missing the point. it not a treaty that allows them to. there is no treaty prohiniting thedm.



    i'm sorry but thats claptrap to a country that has had nuclear powers attacking and threatening it for decades.
    thats the very reason for Iran for persuing nukes. the US and Israel's years of aggression against them. so basicly your saying that if the US or Israel think Iran has nukes and does a missle test they would launch what is tatamount to a genocidial strike against Iran. a multinuclear strijke against iranian cities would have death percentages of 85% or higher. this paragraph shows a heavy does of bigotry and a decided lack of understanding of the Iranian people and just what the true costs of such a strike would be.



    Israel nuclear aramaments have already sparked a nuclear arms race. in all honesty a nuclear Iran would probably bring stability to the region. so far the threats of the US and Israel are keeping everyone cowed but if we keep threatening the people of the region and protecting the 2 worst states for peace in the region, Israel and Saudi arabia, someone going to push for it. the best way to stop a nuclear arms race would be to for the denuclearization of Israel not preventing nuclear parity.
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    um actually you do need centrifuges for nuclear power. at least if you want any sort of usuable amount of fuel. your belief is based on ideological saber rattling not facts.
     
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The odd reality of Iran's centrifuges: Enough for a bomb, not power

    One element that’s fully expected in a long-term arrangement is a limit on the number and kinds of centrifuges Iran can use to enrich uranium. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said there’s an irony in that.
    "If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon."
    Morell told PunditFact he said 5,000 because that was lowest number he had heard was in play. The number of centrifuges in place today is a hair over 20,000, and a likely goal is to cut that to about 5,000. But Morell’s basic point struck us as just plain intriguing. We wanted to learn more about this idea that a nuclear power program would require many more centrifuges than you’d need for a bomb -- which by extension means that limiting centrifuge capacity is just one negotiating point out of many.



    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/&ei=rC8cVaz1MonBggT9jYIg&usg=AFQjCNHheslYNAW0iXBoJFcxgFZ0Pod4HA[/QUOTE]
     
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    [/QUOTE]
    nice flip flop there
     

Share This Page