Iran

DoctorJay · Post by **DoctorJay** » 18 Jan 2005 13:50

What do you think about the situation in Iran?

I am not so deep into this matter up too now- I only heard that George W Bush do not exclude any possible methods( a military strike included) if Iran won't allow to view inside their atom program.

Is that right so far?
I cannot read/view much news these days because I have to learn a lot, but I have heard that such headline did not make it to the frontpage of the US newspapers ----- that sounds really ridiculous to me .

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 18 Jan 2005 15:23

its a pretty intense situation... goddamn american imperialists...

the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib story and a couple others claims he has hard evidence that american forces have been performing clandestine missions inside iran since this summer. american politicians have been crying bull-shit on him, but he's a credible source, so he may be right. who knows?

also, a number of groups in washington have been pushing for 'regime change'. these include monarchists iranians (yeah, like monarchies are better than theocracys...) other iranians who are expecting to get the same treatment that Iraqi dissidents got in washington before that war (ie, funding). As well, neoconservatives are piping up about this as well. check out this article here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/90ab5f5a-68e4- ... 511c8.html

if the US invades iran, i'm moving to europe, or maybe south america... jesus, i hate being in the same hemisphere as these fuckers...

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 18 Jan 2005 19:09

We should nuke them now and be done with it.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 18 Jan 2005 19:10

We should nuke them now and be done with it.

dazza · Post by **dazza** » 19 Jan 2005 02:05

Dan is so right and sweden should be next , but i gotta go now,
its time to teach my two year old daughter how to operate a
grenade launcher.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jan 2005 16:33

sweden should be next

I would prefer Swaziland.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Jan 2005 10:46

I don't think "not allowing viewing of their program" would be cause for a strike. Not after the WMD follies in Iraq.

Nations that want these nukes know they can fool inspectors, who will never get near their true programs.

The U.S. should just say "If Tel Aviv is atomized by an Iranian missile, then we MAY act."

Then they can pass the responsibility to Israel.

The U.S. should at least tell Israel "Hey, let us pull most of our troops out before you drop the Bomb."

Iran has said that if Israel hits them, then they see it as an attack from America and will swarm over the border into Iraq by the millions to engage U.S. forces.

This is either a correct assumption that Israel needs our green light to strike, or impotence at not being able to strike back at Israel.

p.s.

Added food for thought:

Much emphasis is placed on hitting their reactor before it goes "hot" to avoid irradiating the entire region/area.

But will the world do nothing and then act after it goes hot?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 20 Jan 2005 19:00

Man, your writing style is so unclear, I really have no idea what you`re saying. But if it sounds good to you, hey, more power to you.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 20 Jan 2005 19:34

Sentence and paragraph cohesion does come in handy... Especially because this is the "discussion" forum and thus to discuss things we must read what one another has to say.

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 20 Jan 2005 20:44

oh my god man. I can't believe you're advocating attacking a civilian power station! That's a fucking WAR CRIME. then again, so is attacking a hospital, but american soldiers did that in falluja, and it made the front page of the newyork times. under the geneva convention, basically every troop movement the US has made in the last forty years has been 'aggression'. Bush could be given the death sentance as "commander in cheif" under laws that the united states are signatories on, but I guess that's why Gonzales wrote a memo declaring the geneva convention 'quaint and antiquated' or somethign along those lines.

okay, sorry about the rant. what i should really be saying is that if the US wants Iran to stop developing weapons, perhaps it should join the bilateral european talks. there must be some incentive for a country to not build the weapons. right now america punishes other countries for trading with iran. what if america offered iran trade in return for disarmament? Only the US can make these talks work - by boycotting them, they ensure that they are useless. the alternative? the UN, where China or Russia are sure to block any viable option. then bush is free to say "the UN didn't work, again, so we're going to invade iran".

anyway, i still can't believe you think we should bomb a nuclear reactor. that's fucking sick. there is no agreement anywhere in the world banning nuclear reactors. there anti-ballistic missile treaties, and anti-nuclear proliferation treaties, but america is ignoring them in its rush to build more arms.... ah fuck. i can't even help myself. i just start fucking ranting whenever i start thinking about this. i'm going to bed. sorry.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 23 Jan 2005 20:55

Doctor Jay started the thread with:
------------------------------------------------------
What do you think about the situation in Iran?
-------------------------------------------------------

Here's a carefully scripted recap of my post, for the mentally challenged:

-------------------------
-I don't think Bush will attack Iran, if inspectors are denied access.

-I think nuclear inspectors are useless.

-I think the U.S. should do nothing until Israel is obliterated.

-I think we should pass the buck to Israel, though not overtly.

-I think Iran will blame the U.S. for ANY strike.
------------------------

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 23 Jan 2005 21:14

junkyardjew shouldn't apologize for his rant, he reminds me of war crimes we'd rather forget.

1 War-crimes trial nominations:

Bill Clinton
Madeline Albright
Sandy Berger
Wesley Clark

For high altitude murder of helpless, Serbian civilian populations, including power stations and hospitals.

If joining the I.C.C. means seeing Clinton, Albright and Berger in orange jumpsuits and shakles, then then I'm all for it.

Here's some examples from a group I probably disagree with:

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/sladjana.htm

EXAMPLES

Surdulica
Attack on a rural town, 20 civilians were killed, including 12 children, and over 100 wounded of which 24 critically (4/27/99); 20 civilians were killed and 88 injured in the attack on a Retirement Home and a Sanatorium (5/31/99). This was the only home for the aged people and hospital for lung diseases and was marked in all geographic maps. That was a legitimate military target for NATO as the spokesperson Jamie Shea stated.

Korisa
At least 87 civilians killed and over 70 injured (10 babies and 26 children) in the attack on a convoy of Albanian refugees returning to their homes (5/14/99). NATO used thermovisual bombs that raise temperatures up to 2000 degrees.

Djakovica
Djakovica-Prizren road: in the attack on two refugee columns, with four cruise missiles, 75 killed and 100 wounded, 26 critically (4/14/99). In an attack on a refugee settlement housing Serb refugees from the Republika Srpska Krajina (Croatia), 10 refugees were killed and 16 wounded (4/21/99).

Grdelicka gorge
In the attack on an international passenger train, 55 passengers were killed, including one child and 16 were wounded (4/12/99).

Village Luzani
At least 60 passengers were killed and 13 injured in an attack on the road bridge during which a passenger bus, the "Nis Expres" on the Pristina-Podujevo route, was hit. At the same time, a first-aid doctor was injured during a consecutive attack on the bridge in which an ambulance giving help to injured was destroyed (5/1/99).

Istok
100 killed and 200 injured in several attacks, in consecutive days, on the Istok Penitentiary (5/19/99 to 5/24/99).

Varvarin
17 civilians have been killed, seven are missing and 74 wounded in the attack on a road bridge, on a busy market day (5/30/99). The bridge was at first hit with missiles, and when people rushed to help the victims a few minutes later, the bridge was struck even more fiercely.

Belgrade
In the attack on the Radio Television of Serbia office building, 16 employees were killed and 19 wounded (4/23/99). The national TV station was bombed intentionally since the aggressor proclaimed it as their legitimate target since, in short, they were not satisfied with the quality of its programming and news. Four civilians (three patients and a caretaker) have been killed and several injured on the hospital "Dragisa Misovic" (5/20/99). A great part of the building for Neurology was destroyed or burned down.

Nis
At least 16 civilians were killed and more than 80 injured in repeated attacks on housing flats in central Nis (4/19/99, 5/7/99, 5/12/99) during which NATO planes dropped cluster bombs.

Savine Vode
Twenty civilians were killed and 43 injured, out of which 24 sustained heavy injuries in an attack on the "Djakovica Prevoz" passenger bus on the Pec-Kula-Rozaje route (5/4/99).

Aleksinac
Twelve civilians were killed and more than 40 wounded in an attack on housing blocks, commercial premises and administrative buildings in central Aleksinac.

Kragujevac
More than 120 workers, forming a live shield, were wounded in a deliberate attack on the car factory Zastava (4/9/99, 4/12/99).

Krk Bunar
One civilian was killed and three injured (French philosopher Daniel Schiffer, Times reporter Eve-Ann Prentis, and "Corriera della Sera" Renzo Cianfanelli) in an attack on a foreign journalist convoy on the Prizren-Brezovica road (5/31/99).

Mijatovac
Four Romanian humanitarian workers were wounded in an attack on the bridge near Mijatovac (5/8/99).

dudebud111 · Post by **dudebud111** » 07 Feb 2005 19:24

bush is so full of shit it's not funny. sure Iran has a nuclear reactor but that's not cause they want to blow you to hell it's cause they want to use it to power their country (ie electricity) Bush is pissing his pants right now because iran is right next to the caspian sea and they're one of the main sources of oil and if they become completely independent they'll be stronger than our beloved america and they'll have a stranglehold on oil and it's transportation. Even if through some crap he convinced the senate to go to Iran he should've done it before Iraq. If it takes Iraq a month to build a nuke, it takes Iran FIVE HOURS. (that's just an example) this is the same political crap that was happening under the shah's reign back in the 7o's when the wackjob muslim leader came into power

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 08 Feb 2005 11:37

I thought I'd make 2 points about nuke reactors, one serious, and one not so serious.

------------------------------------------------------------
1.

Some countries have oil coming out of it's ears,it's free. They make billions off of it annually, and probably pump it for a penny a barrel.

The idea that they need it for energy is total B.S.

They can provide all the energy they need, from oil, at a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

Having a reactor means a seat at the "Table", and black-mailing weak, Western politicians.

That being said, If I were an up-and-coming dictator (or advisor to such), I would absolutely recommend developing nukes in secret, or in the open.

The benefits out-weigh the political risk. Although if you ask Uday and Qusay, they might tell you different.

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Nuke reactors in the U.S. are an unacceptable environmental risk. Thus, lobbyists block the construction of more.

In the interest of protecting the environment of the world, ANYONE building a nuke plant is unacceptable, and ALL power of the U.S. government should be leveraged to stop it.

The need for electricity should never be justification for risking the environment.

If 10 million go without light, to sustain our environmental ideals , so be it.

If millions die annually from malaria, to sustain our environmental ideals , so be it.

We are perfectly willing to tolerate the suffering and/or death of millions or billions, for perceived environmental gains/protections.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 08 Feb 2005 11:43

without a seat at the table, terrorism becomes a more likely option for a people to express their dissatisfaction with the global politics. Countries who have no voice will make themselves known in ways far worse than offering them a seat at the table.

You don't support increasing terrorism, do you ?

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 08 Feb 2005 12:23

Tsiangkun wrote:without a seat at the table, terrorism becomes a more likely option for a people to express their dissatisfaction with the global politics. Countries who have no voice will make themselves known in ways far worse than offering them a seat at the table.

You don't support increasing terrorism, do you ?

countries that partake in reasonable diplomatic relations are often the ones offered 'seats at the table' because they are the ones that are willing to negotiate without the blackmail of nuke capability (as nathan points out, it IS blackmail...obviously) or the threat of terrorism. countries that use terrorism as a 'voice' should be governed better, but NOT offered a seat at the international negotiating table. its like rewarding them for terrorism. countries with nukes, especially countries that use the capabilities manipulatively, should also be excluded, but the nukes are so powerful that this is obviously difficult to do. blackmail should not be an accepted form of negotiation.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 08 Feb 2005 12:26

terroism is like punishment for those who won't hold a conversation to keep the peace.

I would think that . . .
As long as they can not make their voice heard at the negotiating table, terror will be justifiable in the eyes of their peoples. IF They had a legit way to get their concerns aired in public and with proper consideration, it would be much much more difficult to use terrorism and maintain popular support of their movements.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 08 Feb 2005 12:29

Are we talking about the same table?

A seat at the table means:

"I possibly could nuke your nation or your army. I cannot guarantee M.A.D. , But I may be able to nuke you if you don't smash my nation. this doesn't mean I will do it, just that I COULD do it."

This doesn't imply intent, but it gives an enemy free reign to engage in unconventional (proxy) warfare against enemies(or us).

-n

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 08 Feb 2005 12:30

Tsiangkun wrote:terroism is like punishment for those who won't hold a conversation to keep the peace.

I would think that . . .
As long as they can not make their voice heard at the negotiating table, terror will be justifiable in the eyes of their peoples. IF They had a legit way to get their concerns aired in public and with proper consideration, it would be much much more difficult to use terrorism and maintain popular support of their movements.

am i wrong that the only reason that any country is excluded is on account of extremist views, one way or an other? these peoples have personal views (like the Germans wanting to exterminate jews, for example) that are so unacceptable that this particular country is excluded from international coalitions, and even negotiations. other than that, why would a nation be excluded from international affairs?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 08 Feb 2005 12:33

because they don't have the size, wealth, and first nation status that would get the attention of the major players.