Iran

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
After we're done mopping up Iraq and getting everybody where we need them positioned around the oil fields for the endless occupation of the country where there is no evidence of any nuclear program whatsoever, we probably ought to think about continuing on next door, where there apparently really *is* something going on.




Iran's Nuclear Threat
In another worrying development for the Bush administration, Iran moves closer to operation of a facility to enrich uranium
By MASSIMO CALABRESI




Saturday, Mar. 08, 2003
With war in Iraq looming and North Korea defiantly pursuing its own nuclear program, the last thing President Bush needs is another nuclear crisis. But that is what he may soon face in Iran. On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium ? a key component of advanced nuclear weapons ? near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.

The IAEA declined to comment. A senior State department official said he believed El Baradei was trying to resolve the issue behind the scenes before going public. But experts say the new discoveries are very serious and should be handled in public. "If Iran were found to have an operating centrifuge, it would be a direct violation [of the non-proliferation treaty] and is something that would need immediately to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for action," says Jon Wolfstahl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and told elBaradei that Tehran intends to bring all of its programs under IAEA safeguards. U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The new discoveries could destabilize a region already dangerously on edge in anticipation of war in Iraq. Israel ? which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak in a 1981 raid ? is deeply alarmed by the developments. "It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous." Israel will not take the "Osirak option" off the table, the official says, but "would prefer that this issue be solved in other ways."

The revelations come at a particularly bad time for Washington, which is locked in a battle to gain U.N. approval for an attack on Iraq and to build consensus among its allies for a multilateral approach to the crisis in North Korea. Critics of the Administration say Bush's hard public line against the so-called "Axis of Evil," combined with the threatened war with Iraq, have acted as a spur to both Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear programs. "If those countries didn't have much incentive or motivation before, they certainly did after the Axis of Evil statement," says one western diplomat familiar with the Iranian and North Korean programs. The Administration counters that both programs have been underway for many years.
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
After we're done mopping up Iraq and getting everybody where we need them positioned around the oil fields for the endless occupation of the country where there is no evidence of any nuclear program whatsoever, we probably ought to think about continuing on next door, where there apparently really *is* something going on


are you really this blind... ???

my wifes father has some very high political contacts and trust me, we know Iran is a problem and they are high on the agenda.

Yes Iran is probably the biggest problem in the middle east.. we know this.. but you dont grab a snake from the front.. you take it from behind...

take a good look at a map of the middle east..

you might notice Iraq... now look at Afghanistan...... now look whats inbetween them!

You dont attack the snake head on with guns blazing..you sandwich the phukers... plant the seeds of demcoracy in Afgan and Iraq then squeeze them out..
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
for the endless occupation of the country


????? what a stupid comment..

what are you basing this on??

id like a list of the countries that America has defeted in war and then occupied it????


the US has a terrific record for helping the countries we defeat in war..

helping set up their own govt.. giving them money and what not..


:shrug:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
theGibber1 said:



are you really this blind... ???

my wifes father has some very high political contacts and trust me, we know Iran is a problem and they are high on the agenda.

Yes Iran is probably the biggest problem in the middle east.. we know this.. but you dont grab a snake from the front.. you take it from behind...

take a good look at a map of the middle east..

you might notice Iraq... now look at Afghanistan...... now look whats inbetween them!

You dont attack the snake head on with guns blazing..you sandwich the phukers... plant the seeds of demcoracy in Afgan and Iraq then squeeze them out..


It's amazing to me how many people in this small group of gamblers here at MJ's has an incredible pipeline to tons of super- secret information and then try to use *it* to validate their opinions. The inside scoop, as it were. I'm not being facetious either, I truly am amazed. What are the odds?

You called me blind, but if you actually think that the rest of the world will sit around and watch us take over and occupy Iran after we are done with Iraq, then you are truly nuts. If you would even *want* that, then you are even more nuts.

'The rest of the world has no choice but to let us take over any country we want', you might say. I say 'bullshit' and it quite possibly could lead to WW3.

BTW- I thought that Saddam was the 'snake', or is that all a smokescreen to cover the plan to take over the whole Middle East?

If your 'inside info' is even close to being correct (the plan to get Iran (the snake) from the back, or whatever you said), then I truly fear for the viability of life as we know it. If we continue on to Iran, then who in their right mind could criticize anybody for calling us imperialists. We're teetering on the border as it is.

'plant the seeds of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq and then squeeze them out' ???? Oh boy. It's just that easy, isn't it? And while we're at it, we should make sure to attack that snake up in N. Korea. After all, our smallish(by our standards) armed forces are equipped to start and win 9 major conflicts, occupy 4 Mid-Eastern countries for years, and initiate and win 13 smaller skirmishes. That's what Rumsfeld says.

Thanks God the Middle East will be stabilized when we're through with them.

I feel safer already.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
theGibber1 said:



????? what a stupid comment..

what are you basing this on??

id like a list of the countries that America has defeted in war and then occupied it????


the US has a terrific record for helping the countries we defeat in war..

helping set up their own govt.. giving them money and what not..


:shrug:


But Gibber,

This is a different type of war, it's not like all the others. Isn't that the party line? Obviously endlessly was an exaggeration, but how are we going to be able to get out of there in much less than 2 or 3 years?

'Giving them money and whatnot' is a compelling plan. Let's see what happens, huh?

Maybe we can bring this back to the top in a few years and we'll see what the stupid comment was?
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
didnt you know that Pres Bush used to be my neighbor???

LOl

i never said i have super secret info.. my wifes father is a well known poitical figure in OK... and he does have friends in congress.. does he know secret vital info?? nope i never said he did.. i only mentioned it b/c i asked him the same question you asked about Iran..




'plant the seeds of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq and then squeeze them out' ???? Oh boy. It's just that easy, isn't it?

yes... it worked in Germany, it worked in Japan, its working in Russia, and its working in Afg..

but if you actually think that the rest of the world will sit around and watch us take over and occupy Iran after we are done with Iraq, then you are truly nuts. If you would even *want* that, then you are even more nuts.

you keep using that occupy word again... i ask you again have we ever overun a country and taken it over.. no the key is to let these countries liberate themselves

so i dont think we go into and Iran and take it over as you say.. the majority of people in Iran are not happy with their govt.. they are practically slaves.. you apply the political preasure.. and let their own people do much of the work... a good example is the Northern Alliance.. we more or less give them aid and support.. and they liberate themselves!!!

shit i have to go..

but ill be back.. this is a good debate.

GL
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Better not feal safe to long. Read the thread on security. I almost chit when I heard we have 96 top of the line fighters left in this country right now. Were a dam big place for just those few. What gets me is thay annouce this chit on TV so the world knows. It's started with MSNBC but forsure CNN and Fox will be there soon.
We have so many men and machines in three differant hot spots. Im to the point where France and Germany, Russia can all have Iraq and handle it. Blow it up. Put 3000 inspectors there I dont really give a chit. Just get our men and woman the hell out of there. We may need all of them for This grazy N Korea ass hole.
One problm we do face if we dont have UN approval or at least some type of blessing to go ahead in Iraq. Then other countries can start doing the same thing. They can just say the USA say it's ok. What do we do when China deside it's time Taiwan is theres to keep. And it can only go down hill from there.
 
Last edited:

SmashMouth

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 12, 2001
3,880
0
0
53
Long Branch Nj
Maybe you are the one who is blind, Gibber. WHy is it that only the republican way of thinking is correct. Did you ever stop to think that if you blindly agree with everything your government tells you, maybe it is you who can't see. WHy do people behind this war have to resort to name calling and insults?
 

SmashMouth

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 12, 2001
3,880
0
0
53
Long Branch Nj
I guess that is a question that won't get answered. People who can't debate, have a way of getting loud and name calling. It just makes them appear ignorant to me.

My god there are people in here who take such a strong pro war stance, which is great, as that is your right. It's just funny when two guys who posted in another thread about protesters could not even spell, yet they make determinations about peoples intelligence. Would I want my son to be recruited to go to war by a recruiter that thinks one of our worst moments as a nation is spelled VIET NAM. It is one word. Now that is funny. Go ahead and edit your post, and then ask what the hell I'm talking about.
 

Blazer

ontherocks
Forum Member
Jan 4, 2003
3,201
3
0
49
Nashville
www.madjacksports.com
WW3

WW3

I just hope Iraq's allies don't show up. If they do WW3 will be the Middle East vs. the West. We will fire the first shot on March 17.

It's not that hard to see. France and Germany become neutral then give arms to protect a "sovereign state". N. Korea teams up with the Middle East.

It could end up like a street battle. Revenge for this and revenge for that.

I'm not against the war. I can see its reasons. I just fear its repercussions.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Blazer you are wise about your FEARS. I remember Nam to well. We did not have agood purpose or the right military leader ship. And some of that was the fear that Russia and China would join in. Even so we were ready and going to kick these little gooks ass all the way back to N Veitnam and China if necessary. About 5 years to long later. Well for get it. But FEAR about war is the correct fealing. I new many who talked a good game. That was about all they were good at.
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,858
430
83
54
Belly of the Beast
kosar said:
You called me blind, but if you actually think that the rest of the world will sit around and watch us take over and occupy Iran after we are done with Iraq, then you are truly nuts. If you would even *want* that, then you are even more nuts.

'The rest of the world has no choice but to let us take over any country we want', you might say. I say 'bullshit' and it quite possibly could lead to WW3.

When Bush spoke of getting rid of every terrorist organization with a global reach and then later trumpeted the "Axis of Evil," I took it to mean that these countries' regimes would be taken over and by force if necessary.

But I agree with you that the numbers don't add up for all the conflicts that are in the works. That's where the UN approval is a necessity, because we need countries with soldiers, not air bases.

While I've yet to hear a French joke that I didn't enjoy, I'm merely a poster on a message board. The way that high administration personnel are railing on the French and the Germans ("Old Europe" - Rumsfield , "I don't trust the French" - McCain) is amateur at best and when we need their support later when things get dicier, we're gonna have enemies in the place of allies.

I'm interested in who you think has the military to defend Iran if we decided to "liberate" them? And who would risk making the US an enemy for a country with leaders like Iran has?
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
I guess that is a question that won't get answered. People who can't debate, have a way of getting loud and name calling. It just makes them appear ignorant to me.

jeeze i had to leave you didnt even give me a chance...


Maybe you are the one who is blind, Gibber. WHy is it that only the republican way of thinking is correct. Did you ever stop to think that if you blindly agree with everything your government tells you, maybe it is you who can't see. WHy do people behind this war have to resort to name calling and insults?

im sorry did i call someone a name??? or question their manhood..

why do people resort to name calling? at least i didnt call you a baby killer...

sure i was a bit short with kosar cause i thought he was making it sound like we trying to conquer countries and occupy their land like a bunch of nazis.. but i enjoy a charged political debate and respect both sides of the opinion.. especially if they are consistent opinions..

which brings me to my next point.. where the hell were all of you anti war people when clinton bombed Iraq??? the man spent 600million tossing scuds into foriegn countries WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF OUR ALLIES!!! all just to cover up the fact that he was getting BJs from his interns, and nobody said shit about it?? why??
i respect those who are truly are anti war and if they want protest great... but if they werent protesting in 91 i dont want to hear a damn thing they have to say..


Sheryl Crow protest Bush's war on Iraq, but that was not the case with Clinton's war in the Balkins. She traveled with Hillary Clinton and joined the USO to entertain the troops. Listen to her Gush! In April 1996 she told USA Today:

"Once over there I felt extremely patriotic. Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace. I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music"

now she is saying war is never the answer... phuking get bent!



But now to get to your other comments........... do i blindly agree with what ever my goverment tells me?? hell no.. i read, i listen, i learn, i pay attention to what our elected officials have to say.. but you know what its hard to do.. why? b/c our govt never gets any exposure.... in my opinion (and thats all it is) the anti Bush liberals are the ones being brain washed.. day in and day out our liberal media gives 80% more air time to anti war propoganda.. the protestors and celebrities..thats all people ever see.. people are bombarded with this stuff day in and day out.. our govt doesnt get enough airtime to brain wash anyone..

i dont follow blindly.. but yes i put a certain amount of trust in our govt.. after all we elected them! thats what they are there for..

i dont know all the facts.. but neither does Susan Surandon for gods sake.. when i want to learn how to make a movie ill ask for her advice.. but when it comes to running the countrly ill give more credit to the men and women who have gone to school and have been trained for these types of situations.. Is this so blind???
But never see these people..
But we see plenty of Susan leading her war protests.. that get all kinds of TV coverage..

Last week over 8,000 people showed up for the Support our Troops Rally in San Antonio, many others in Ohio, Tulsa everywhere........... how much coverage did it get??? NONE!!! save one channel..

Kosar no hard feelings.. i like hearing others opinions.. but this is something ive tried to learn alot about.. i feel strongly about it and sometimes i fly off the handle a bit..

GL everyone
:)
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I think after iraq, iran will fall from within.The elected leader is pro west, but the mullahs right now are calling the shots. There are many young people in iran that enjoy western culture & think that once they see iraq fall they will take it upon themselves( with US covert assistance)to over-run these western hating mullahs. Then again I could be wrong(LOL).
 

SmashMouth

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 12, 2001
3,880
0
0
53
Long Branch Nj
Gibber your response was very well thought out, and your points are taken. My stance on this war has nothing to do with political beliefs. The older I get and the more money and posessions I accumulate, the more I lean to the Republican side. The reason we got involved in the kosovo thing while unpopular was humanitarian. What else cou;ld it have been? They have nothing we want there. No oil, no drugs.. We were trying to stop genecide. This war is at least partly for the wrong reasons. Which in my opinion are these:
In no such order of impotance.
Oil
Revenge for g bush senior( which I would probably do myself it were me)

The desire to have a stronger presence in the middle east.(see oil)
To keep Israel from being isolated with people who hate them and that they cannot coexist with.
To take away from the glaring inadequacy Bush has in the foreign policy and economic depatments.

Did you know at this time in his fathers presidency, he had 7 times more press conferences than his son.

I guess they figure it is better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
 

theGibber1

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 27, 2001
8,615
64
0
Dallas TX
The reason we got involved in the kosovo thing while unpopular was humanitarian

unpopular? i didnt think so.. i was glad He made the decision to go in..

what was the reason for bombing iraq though? did we gain anything from it??

my older cousin was in desert storm...

my younger cousin is there now...

lets get rid of these dictators and terr. organizations now.. so someday my son doesnt have to go.. ..

To take away from the glaring inadequacy Bush has in the foreign policy and economic depatments.

not sure how much study you have in the field of economics? either way you probably have more expericance w/ it than i do..

but the way i understand it... an economic plan doesnt change things for the better over night.. it takes years to see the positive effects..

GL:)
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
SmashMouth - I cannot believe that you are in the crowd that claims this war is about oil. Please explain to me exactly how it is about oil. We get about 5% of our oil from Iraq. We get more from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. If oil was our number one
reason for going to war, why wouldn't we just take it from any or all of the above 3? Better yet, when we liberated Iraq from Saddam the first time, why didn't we just take over their oil fields? Iraq's oil fields are productive, but they are in serious disrepair. The people of Iraq see practically none of the profits from their oil. Saddam manages to put most of it in his pockets - which in this case include Swiss bank accounts and the like. I cannot deny that the theme of "oil" is one that could be justified in conjunction with future efforts to "occupy" Iran and Saudi Arabia, if that is what you thnk may happen. given that, then I would say "oil" is key. However, even a little country like Qatar produces a load of oil. Qatar is totally supportive of the United States and has welcomed our presence there. In fact, they have moved toward a democratic system, unheard of in the Middle east. This action by our leaders may be alot of things, but "oil", the lifeblood of the world, is not the top priority. Furthermore, if getting involved in Kosovo was OK with you because it was a "humanitarian thing", can you see no comparisons in Iraq? do you know how many people Saddam has butchered? Would you not justify removing him for "humanitarian" reasons? If not, what would he have to do in order for you to think that we should remove him for "humanitarian" reasons?
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top