Iran lies, lies and more lies

nice flip flop there[/QUOTE]

Like I said they can and will make weapons but they say they won't. Iran also says it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. I think they would need an atomic device to do that don't you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, I forgot Canada. For the rest, I draw a distinction between "developing" nuclear power and contracting for it as developed by others.

Like the US fundamentalist Christians who have such a strong presence in the US Air Force, especially in the bases near nuke weapons repositories?

Yeah, that's a worry. But Iran has been running cooler and saner than Pakistan or Texas, in that regard.

Then the whackos need to be removed from the commands of those countries. What kind of insane nonsense is that? Is that the hair trigger we are sitting on with Pakistan? China?

An unprovoked nuke launch by Iran is a suicide. No flash response needed - five countries will glass them over at leisure, test new delivery and navigation gear, etc. And no more Iran.

Everybody has to look out for the US doing stupid shit, I suppose - we are the big elephant, even if we don't have the brains of one. But China would probably step in - they need the oil, and the US leaving their Middle East leverage on the table for the taking would be a fine opportunity.

A long history of non-aggression. Like China, they don't seem to go out of their way to pick fights as a people. When was the last time Iran started a physical fight? I doubt it involved firearms.

If Israel didn't, Pakistan didn't, I don't see why Iran would, necessarily.

The only reason anyone thinks they are trying to develop one is that their motives are so obvious - they have better justification and more need for nukes than anyone on the planet since the USSR. The threats they face are not only clear, but overt, and directly from aggressive and violent nuclear powers.

Even so, there is controversy within Iran. It's possible they will not take that last step unless pressed - only a few of the upper level folks want to deal with nuclear weapons expense and security.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The US is the only country that developed nukes without stealing or contracting the technology from anyone else. The Soviets relied on spies and sympathizers in the US to aid their progress, Mao received bomb designs from the Soviets, Pakistan and North Korea got their nuke tech from China, and India got its first nukes by reverse-engineering a Canadian-built civilian reactor. Israel got its designs with French assistance, France and Britain had scientists working on the Manhattan Project with the Americans from the beginning. Your claim is still irrelevant, there's no correlation between domestic vs. imported nuclear industries and the development of nuclear weapons.

I expected you to retort with this counter-example, and I'm well prepared to explain the difference. Fundamentalist Christians make up only one segment of the American fabric and have been held to relative moderation by its democratic system of checks and balances for over 200 years, compared to the historical governance displayed in other societies around the world. If the Ayatollah and his inner circle decide upon something (such as initiating a nuclear exchange), it doesn't matter what the average Iranian thinks about the matter, nor the officers responsible for carrying out their orders.

You may well be spot on with your comparison to Pakistan, but I've been consistently arguing that Pakistan should have been considered a hostile, belligerent state sponsor of terrorism many years ago, even before it came out that they'd been sheltering Bin Laden (or maybe they simply appointed Mr. Magoo as Minister of the Interior, and that's why Bin Laden was never noticed). As for Texas, I'm not aware of thousands of Texans being severely beaten in the streets after elections in any recent decades.

Pakistan and China haven't been openly calling America or Israel the root of all evil, nor carpet bombing civilians (in the last decade or more). If Iran wants to join the nuclear club, then its sworn enemies simply can't afford to sit back and assume that the next ballistic missile launch is merely a test/conventional attack, or that more missiles aren't already in the process of being prepped and launched, so yes hair trigger it is.

Well in that scenario, it's better to nuke Iran right away rather than risk allowing them to launch even more. This isn't a videogame.

China, Russia and Iran are all responsible for more civilian deaths than the US in the last 20 years, several times over. Enough with the stupid relativism, America is not the greatest threat to global security and never has been. If China wants to hand nukes to Iran on a silver platter, obviously the US will have to decide whether cheap dishwashers are more important than preventing nuclear-armed medieval fundamentalist theocrats.

Yeah, like their decades of non-aggression in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Yemen, and terror attacks around the globe as far away as Argentina. What more could Iran hope to accomplish through warfare, are they supposed to Blitzkrieg their way to the gates of Vienna? They've been plenty violent enough, killed many hundreds of thousands (overwhelmingly non-combatants) on foreign soil alone, and you make this bizarre assumption that Iran's leaders somehow have greater respect for the human rights of citizens in other countries than they do for their own cattle/"voters".

I say walk away from these facetious negotiations, just go back to sanctions and increase them to the maximum extent possible, and if/when Iran's interested in seriously talking about not having a nuclear weapons program, they're free to come forward and make it happen any time they want. Reports say the Ayatollah's regime has been severely weakened even by the presently reduced sanctions, and that should be taken as good news and a cue for further action by anyone of any leaning who respects secular democracy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So Iran can't make an atomic weapon but why not they have everything they need ready to do so. Another thing Iran could just buy a atomic device from Russia or China because no one can stop them and nothing in this new agreement prevents Iran from doing so.

 

Pakistan, probably; Texas... well, it's the US. Does the Pres have the right to unilateral action on deploying nukes? I can't imagine Iran, as one of the few actual theocracies in the world, has any kind of checks to its process. If the Ayatollah says go, what does the Shura council say? If the Shura says go, what then? There are too many fundamentalists in every sphere of American society save the grave, but I don't think they can let the nukes fly because "God said so" (which makes the assumption that Iran can do this) and they don't have a "non-negotiable" objective of destroying Israel.

 

what is it with people like you. do you lack the ability of self reflection to see the bigotry inherent in this statement. just because you don't like someone doesn't mean the bloody thristy bunch of psychopaths. you essentialy arguing that Iranian leadership lacks the ability to make rational decisions about there actions. Iran is not going to just up and nuke somebody or Israel for that matter just because.

 

I know! Always with the truth! We're crazy, eh?

Please explain how the supposition that Iran, which is a radical totalitarian theocracy, may lack some of the checks and balances that may characterise that of a democratic republic constitutes bigotry. The latter is a serious charge and without support or retraction will result in a complaint being leveled against you; I do not tolerate such accusations.

Thanks and best of luck.

 

Ah, yes there is something. It's called "sanctions". That is why Iranians are now dancing in the street because for the first time. With this agreement there is a very real possibility the debilitating sanctions under which they have suffered could be removed. And without this agreement, there country almost certainly would be attacked and invaded. If Dufus Baby Bush would have leveraged his invasion of Iraq, the could have done this a long time ago.

And they won't have everything they need.

• All uranium enriched beyond 5% will either be diluted or converted to uranium oxide. No new uranium at the 3.5% enrichment level will be added to Iran's current stock.

• No new centrifuges will be installed or prepared for installation.

• 50% of the centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and 75% at the Fordow enrichment facility will be left inoperable. Iran will not use its advanced IR-2 centrifuges for enrichment.

• Iran will not develop any new uranium enrichment or nuclear reprocessing facilities.

• No fuel will be produced, tested, or transferred to the Arak nuclear power plant. In addition, Iran will share design details of the reactor.

• The IAEA will be granted daily access to Natanz and Fordow, with certain sites monitored by 24-hour cameras. The IAEA will also have access to Iran's uranium mines and centrifuge production facilities.

• Iran will address IAEA questions related to possible military dimensions of the nuclear program and provide data expected as part of an Additional Protocol.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva..._Iranian_nuclear_program#Agreement_provisions

And this is just the first stage. The ultimate outcome remains unknown. It's a start.

 

The Iranian Regime on Israel's Right to Exist
The foreign minister says his country is friendly to Jews. But his country seeks the elimination of the country in which nearly half the world's Jews live.
Jeffrey GoldbergMar 9 2015, 8:32 AM ET

The Iranian regime is not populated by Nazis, but it is led by people who do, in fact, seek the physical elimination of the Jewish state and its replacement by a Muslim state. It works toward this end, by sponsoring terrorist groups that regularly kill Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere.

So, as a reminder to those who argue that Jews should stop worrying so much about people who threaten to kill them, here is some (just some) of what Iran's leaders, and leaders of its proxy militia, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, have said about Israel:
Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: “If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime … if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.” (2000)
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001)
Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (2002)
Nasrallah: “Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’” (2005)
Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps: “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” (2008)
Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei’s representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” (2010)
Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: “We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases.” (2011)
Khamenei: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” (2012)
Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: “The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel.” (2013)
Nasrallah: “The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest. It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world.” (2013)
Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: “The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.” (2013)
Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei’s representative in the Revolutionary Guard: “The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction." (2013)
Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9YDgDA&usg=AFQjCNEeALk8RWApyvkErVw5CMHgBAOYoQ

 

I would like to know that too. Also I believe Iran is the ONLY country with long history (including when it was called Persia) of about 3000 years that never invaded another, except when driving an invader like Saddam of Iraq back out of Iran. - then they did briefly occupy small southern part of Iraq.

I may be wrong on this, if so, please tell when and who, Persia or Iran invaded. They are fierce fighters when defending their land. I don't think Genghis Khan, (Mogol empire), Alexandra the Great or the Ottaman empire at its peak (shown below) ever conquered them. They are inventive smart people - invented civilization as we know it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you mean like the grecian city states?

 

the two things aren't mutually exclusive you know. Iran can be friendly toward jews. but want the elimination of the jewish country that in his mind has been used as an american proxy against his country for the past 50+ years. given the constant level of threats Israel commits against Iran wanting it gone is a sign of intelligence. also Israel doesn't have the right to exist no country does. the entire concept of a state having the right to exist is contrary to the notion of self determination.

 

no geoff your a pathological liar. i've never seen you tell the truth when their was an opertunity to troll and lie./

that was not your claim. your claim was that because Iran is a theocracy there is no check to to them launching their nukes which just isn't the case. and if you actually bothered to read my post instead of your usual waffling and preparing to run to the mods like the crybaby your after you get called on your trolling and other bs. what i refered to as bigotry was your statement that Iran would launch nukes in a suicidal strike rather than you know act like any other country when it comes to decisions about military actions.

i refuse to apologize for calling you out on a statement that is fundementally rooted in bigotry and prejudice.
i also refuse to support a claim i did not make.
i reiterate the claim i labeled as bigoted was your premise that a fundmentalist would be incapable of acting rationally and choose to commit an act that would be suicide for his state to do.

 

Iran is a terrorist state??? jj

 

Then Iran doesn't have a right either , correct?

It was the allies that put Israel on the map again after many years of not being there. The allies were not only America but 3 others as well. You seem to forget that in you way of seeing things, why is that?

 

I don't know what you speak of. Can you give a link supporting what ever you are claiming they invaded (ruled by force rather than just had some agents living there for trading, learning at Greek schools, etc.)?

 

Isreal was created by the British Foreign Office, which interational organizations and/ or agreements placed in charge of creating new nations from most of the old Ottoman Empire lands after WWII - A reasonable choice as the BFO knew much more about the region than any one else.

The BFO was forced to create Israel by the large influx of Jews needing a place to live and wanting an independent Jewish state. Initially the BFO resisted but when the terrorist Ben Grunion* blew up part of the King David Hotel, killing a few Brits (and one BFO agent, as I recall), the BFO realized that peaceful integration of the large and continuing Jewish influx was not working, and created the State of Israel, with much smaller boundary that it claims today.

If American had anything to do with this, it would have just to have been informed by the BFO before the "deed was done." The BFO created other Mid East states too. For example Iraq and what they later cut off as a separated state (Kuwait) was a sub division of Iraq.** The BFO did this after more oil was discovered in Kuwait too - BFO feared that would make Iraq too powerful. One of the thing also done then was to greatly reduce Iraq's coat line so a single British frigate could control Iraq's exports (and imports). Also it was BFO policy to mix different mutually hostile groups in the same country - Idea being they would be easier to control if they were mainly fighting with each other -

Why Iraq is roughly 1/3 Kurds, 1/3 Sunni and 1/3 Shiite Muslim and needed a "strong man" like Saddam to make it function as a "quasi-country" - It is really a collection of very extended families as normally a man marries a cousin (sometime 1st instead of 2nd). The larger and thus more powerful families have more than 500 members. Most family members follow the leadership of their elder's This is why many dozens knew where Saddam was hiding for months, and being supplied with his needs by family members, and despite multi-million dollars rewards for his location, none told his location. To have done so would be death in less than three days.

The US still does not understand that Iraq is not a nation as the west uses that term - The BFO made sure of that.

* Later Israel's first Prime Minister.
** Get a circa 1950 map made when Kuwait did not exist and see Iraq's coast line was about six times longer than it is today. Although Saddam does not deserve to even walk in Abe Lincoln's shadow, his invasion of Kuwait was like Lincoln's effort to re-unify his split country. Letting this be widely known would have undermined public support for US's invasion of Iraq. As it was the fiction that Saddam had WMD was required. That almost came untraveled when the letter from Nigerian AEC, indicting Saddam was negotiating for import of uranium, was exposed as forgery. The CIA (or some such agency) did a good job making it but their copy of the stationary was not up to date. The Nigerian AEC had changed the letter head of their stationary more than six months BEFORE the date on the letter.

If anything governments, US included, tell more lies than fishermen do. They can, as even if exposted, no individual is the source - the "error of fact" always originated at some low level in some other agency.

 

Yet you insist on making them about others.

What, in your opinion, makes human beings from Iran so crazy that they would see themselves destroyed just to lob a bomb at Israel?

The prejudice in your argument is simply to presume that there is something so inhuman about Iranian Muslims that they would disdain the leverage brought by the prospect of mutually assured destruction in order to see their entire nation erased from the planet in exchange for a chance to hit Israel.

I mean, sure, there are dangerous, fundamentalist elements that we don't want getting their hands on nukes. Kind of like Pakistan, that way.

But what about these human beings in Iran makes you think they're so different from Pakistan, Israel, India, the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France?

I think you need to stop hiding behind that pretentious faux dignity.

Iran has wanted a nuke for a long time, and it is very nearly amazing to me how the American political discourse seems to ignore what having nuclear force means to a nation's role in the geopolitical discourse. On a coldly political level, Iran has every reason on Earth to want a nuke.

And we must also remember that Iranian generals are, after all, generals. Yes, in theory, the President of the United States can order a tactical nuclear strike unilaterally. And for any number of criticisms we might aim at military brass in either the U.S. or Iran (or any other armed service, for that matter), such as the question of when viewing the world so tactically becomes a hindrance, they are the military command, and if there is one thing no general or admiral or martial will agree to, it is to lose the war in one shot for the satisfaction of having squeezed the trigger. This is part of being human, and we see all throughout history.

So what makes Iranians a specific exception to humanity?

 

Apparently you never studied history.

Cyrus II began as prince of Anshan, one of two small Achaemenid principalities nominally subject to the Median empire. In 556 BCE he took Elam from the Babylonians. In 549 BCE he killed his overlord and took over the Median empire, establishing the Persian empire. In the next two years he seized Assyria from the Babylonians. In 546 he moved into Asia minor (today's Turkey), conquering Lydia and its famously wealthy king Croesus. The Greek city states of Ionia (the eastern shore of the Aegean) were happy tributaries of Lydia, and when the Persians demanded their submission, they refused. So the Persians laid siege to them one by one. (One of the Greek cities loaded its entire population into ships and moved itself to Sicily.) In 539 BCE the Persians conquered the Neo-Babylonian empire, marking the end of the Jews' 'Babylonian captivity'. In 529, Cyrus II died fighting the Sakas (later to be prominent in Buddhist history) in what is now Afghanistan. Cambyses II, Cyrus' son, conquered Egypt in 525 BCE, taking the capital of Memphis, overthrowing the Pharoah In 522 BCE Darius overthrew Cambyses in a coup, then presided over the conquest if the Indus valley (today's Pakistan) in 520 BCE. In 516 we find him in Europe, passing through today's Bulgaria (ancient Thrace) in order to fight the Scythians in today's Ukraine. The Scyths defeated the Persians.

In 499 BCE the Ionian Greek city states took advantage of this setback to rise up in revolt with help from mainland Greece. It took five years, until 494, to put down the revolt. The Persians were angry at the Greek insolence towards their God-King and in 491 landed a large amphibious force at Marathon, in Attica near Athens. The Athenians defeated it on the beaches. (Legend has it that a runner ran the 26 miles to Athens to deliver the good news, then dropped dead.)

The Persians were determined that this insolence be stopped and that their humiliation be avenged. Darius' death in 486 slowed down preparations. But by 480, the largst invasion force the ancient world had ever seen was assembled, commanded by Darius' son, the God-King Xerxes. Tradition says the Persian forces numbered millions of men, but more likely in the hundreds of thousands. It passed into Europe, across the northern Aegean and south into Thessaly, city states falling one by one. The Greeks were scrambling to get their defenses together and they sent out a small force to slow the Persian advance.

The Spartans made their stand in a narrow canyon at Thermopylae, in what is perhaps the most famous battle in the whole history of warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

The Persians tried to scare the Greeks, proclaiming that they would fire so many arrows it would blot out the Sun. The Spartans famous reply was, "Good, we'll fight in the shade." The Persians couldn't bring their whole force to bear, so they sent in 'the Immortals', their most feared special forces. The Spartans dispatched them in hand-to-hand combat. So the Persians sent in more... and more...

Fear began to sweep through the Persian ranks, most of whom were conscripts from countries the Persians had captured, who were only fighting because they knew that their families back home would be killed if they didn't. 'What manner of men are these Greeks?' The Greeks fought to the last man and the Persians had scored a classic Pyhrric victory.

The Persians proceeded to seize, sack and burn Athens, but the potent Athenian navy escaped. At which point some Athenian traitors appeared at Xerxes' court and told him where the Athenian fleet was hidden. Except... they were really Athenian secret agents and the Persians walked into the trap, and their fleet was decimated at Salamis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis

The Greeks sheltered in the Peloponnisos, they fortified the straits of Corinth, and resorted to guerrilla warfare, burning their own crops so that the huge Persian army couldn't live off the land. Greek naval supremacy prevented the Persians from resupplying their men by sea. Subject to constant harassment attacks, the Persians finally pulled their occupation forces out of Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Wars