Next stop Iran

[Cynical Oracle]

The US is accusing Iran for stockpiling nuclear weapons.

Open for bets!

[Vaio]

Rumsfeld should go in first

Vaio

[Cynical Oracle]

I'm voting for Boucher.

[Ärketrollmannen]

Obviously it is the next target, the question is, what comes after Iran?

[Cynical Oracle]

Korea war baby!

[JammyJim]

Isnt it ironic that the quintessential 'draft dodgers' of Vietnam are now sending in thousands of american boys to die in the sand for their own personal benefits.

I wonder if the Bush-Cheney junta will ever ever get it right.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by JammyJim
Isnt it ironic that the quintessential 'draft dodgers' of Vietnam are now sending in thousands of american boys to die in the sand for their own personal benefits.

I wonder if the Bush-Cheney junta will ever ever get it right.

Not in their lifetime

Vaio

[Cynical Oracle]

What must be done to 'make it right'?

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
What must be done to 'make it right'?

I suppose that the UN should send troops in to get a legitimate government in power, one that listens to the people and will act in their interests and not in the interests of the friends of the power mad leaders. Only then will the US have a decent government

Vaio

[Zword]

100 Euro's that that is not gonna happen .....

Binlanden is the first target i guess

[Woof]

Originally posted by Vaio
I suppose that the UN should send troops in to

I like how Rummy is now asking 'Old Europe', who before the Iraq war were 'irrelevant', to help sort out the mess which america has helped create, by sending in UN troops to post war Iraq.

I hope France and Germany tell him fo fcuk off.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Vaio
I suppose that the UN should send troops in to get a legitimate government in power, one that listens to the people and will act in their interests and not in the interests of the friends of the power mad leaders. Only then will the US have a decent government

Vaio

Like this?

[endokuken]

Iran, Sudan, Oman, blow them all up

[KoeN]

Originally posted by endokuken
Iran, Sudan, Oman, blow them all up

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Woof
I hope France and Germany tell him fo fcuk off.

they did \o/

anyway, what the problem with iran having nukes?
if you would run a country almost sourrounded by us troops and the us goverment would have called you part of the axis of evil, would you do the same? nuclear weapons seems to be the only way to stop the us invading random countries.

[Cynical Oracle]

I'll give you a hint. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran don't like Israel. US does like Israel. US also has Nuclear capability

Iran has in no way the same 'blocks' for using them.

[Gargle]

we need to get nukes here in finland too.. as there is no way of knowing when the US is gonna invade us..

[Ryudo]

Oh for crying out loud, why don't we put 'bush and blair', who are up each others A**e, and 'saddam and osama', who probaby haven't even so much as emailed each other, in a small pit with one nuke each and turn our backs and let them get on with it.
I am sick to death of the whole 'IRAQ' thing. I don't suppose we could get some kind of ban for the subject?

[Cynical Oracle]

Registered: Sep 2003
Not that I think this is your first account, but that's kinda the point.

[Anu]

Originally posted by endokuken
Iran, Sudan, Oman, blow them all up

Oman?

[Jammers]

Didn't Britain (single handedly) deal with Oman back in the 70's using a combination of free health care for peasants and the SAS killing the rebels?

[Marilyn Manson]

It's not viable at the moment. And I doubt Bush would have the will, in any case.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
anyway, what the problem with iran having nukes?

Um, that they might use them? Or use them to threaten and intimidate their neighbors? Or that their neighbors will figure they have to have nuclear weapons too? In short, all the usual arguments against nuclear proliferation.

Then there's the issue of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and ratified. Shouldn't we be concerned if Iran is violating its international agreements?

if you would run a country almost sourrounded by us troops and the us goverment would have called you part of the axis of evil, would you do the same? nuclear weapons seems to be the only way to stop the us invading random countries.

Except Iran wasn't surrounded by us troops or called out as part of the "axis of evil" when they began their nuclear weapons program. I don't understand how you can use recent events to justify actions initiated many years ago. Are the Iranians prescient? Does causality work differently where you are?

[menth0l]

Are you seriously defending THIS TOO?

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Woof
I like how Rummy is now asking 'Old Europe', who before the Iraq war were 'irrelevant', to help sort out the mess which america has helped create, by sending in UN troops to post war Iraq.

I hope France and Germany tell him fo fcuk off.

Are you insinuating clown shoes rummy is doing something at all wrong?
What kind of question is that?

I told you this last press conference. I dont tihnk i need to keep saying it again and again for you to understand...

Next Question!

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by ParraCida on March 22 2003
They're just provoking Iran so they have an excuse for the next war. Clearly if they do it now, they can use the troops that are already there

You people are slow.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Um, that they might use them? Or use them to threaten and intimidate their neighbors? Or that their neighbors will figure they have to have nuclear weapons too? In short, all the usual arguments against nuclear proliferation.

so, you have a problem with them dong exactly the same the usa and israel have been doing for decades?

Then there's the issue of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and ratified. Shouldn't we be concerned if Iran is violating its international agreements?

if your goverment starts completly ignoring international organizations and invades countries at random, or whatever reasons there might be, what do you expect them to do (this includes north korea aswell)? lay back and wait for your 'liberation forces' to arrive and blow up most of the country?

Except Iran wasn't surrounded by us troops or called out as part of the "axis of evil" when they began their nuclear weapons program. I don't understand how you can use recent events to justify actions initiated many years ago. Are the Iranians prescient? Does causality work differently where you are?

they had everything stoped for decades. ofc i know they had such a program before (afterall, we started building the first reactor a short time before the revolution, after that the russians continued for a while, but stoped then.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
if your goverment starts completly ignoring international organizations and invades countries at random, or whatever reasons there might be, what do you expect them to do (this includes north korea aswell)? lay back and wait for your 'liberation forces' to arrive and blow up most of the country?

Again, you are confusing the sequence of events. It's certainly possible that the events of the past 3 years have made some countries nervous about US intentions, but I utterly fail to see how that explains their actions 10 or 20 years ago.

they had everything stoped for decades. ofc i know they had such a program before (afterall, we started building the first reactor a short time before the revolution, after that the russians continued for a while, but stoped then.

They did not have everything stopped "for decades". Maybe one decade--tops. The available evidence is that they (re)started their nuclear weapons program in the 1980s--undoubtably in response to their war with Iraq (who was also known to have a nuclear weapons program at the time).

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Again, you are confusing the sequence of events. It's certainly possible that the events of the past 3 years have made some countries nervous about US intentions, but I utterly fail to see how that explains their actions 10 or 20 years ago.

They did not have everything stopped "for decades". Maybe one decade--tops. The available evidence is that they (re)started their nuclear weapons program in the 1980s--undoubtably in response to their war with Iraq (who was also known to have a nuclear weapons program at the time).

you already gave a reason for their actions 20 years ago. they didnt do anything on their nuclear programm until somewhen last year when they bought some technoligy from the russians (to build a REACTOR, not a BOMB)

[Perle]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Um, that they might use them? Or use them to threaten and intimidate their neighbors? Or that their neighbors will figure they have to have nuclear weapons too? In short, all the usual arguments against nuclear proliferation.

I know you are not very bright , so let me inform you that Iran´s neighbors (expect the 2 countries we allready have liberated hehehe) already have nuclear weapons.
pakistan is a nuclear power since 1998
Turkey has had them for decades and that makes your argument really silly.

Originally posted by Tactitus

Then there's the issue of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and ratified. Shouldn't we be concerned if Iran is violating its international agreements?

Its funny how the US government is allowed to randomly break all treaties( ABM to name one) and other countries are not
hehehe

Originally posted by Tactitus

Except Iran wasn't surrounded by us troops or called out as part of the "axis of evil" when they began their nuclear weapons program. I don't understand how you can use recent events to justify actions initiated many years ago. Are the Iranians prescient? Does causality work differently where you are?

Iran is being called a rogue state since 1980, all relations to iran have been broken off, we have sanctions on Iran since 23 years.
maybe you should inform yourself before using big words like
causality.
oh and by the way
The US navy has had a heavy force in the persian gulf for about 40 years now.
If having a couple of carriers on your doorstep is not a serious reason of concern, I don´t know what is.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Again, you are confusing the sequence of events. It's certainly possible that the events of the past 3 years have made some countries nervous about US intentions, but I utterly fail to see how that explains their actions 10 or 20 years ago.

what actions??
I am starting to get the feeling that you dont even know what you are talking about.
when did Iran start its nuclear programm??
when did they stop?
when did they restart it?

Originally posted by Tactitus

They did not have everything stopped "for decades". Maybe one decade--tops. The available evidence is that they (re)started their nuclear weapons program in the 1980s--undoubtably in response to their war with Iraq (who was also known to have a nuclear weapons program at the time).

sources please, your claims are highly suspicious and doubtful.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
you already gave a reason for their actions 20 years ago. they didnt do anything on their nuclear programm until somewhen last year when they bought some technoligy from the russians (to build a REACTOR, not a BOMB)

Here's but one example. Iran began construction on their underground uranium enrichment planet at Natanz sometime in 2000 (no one knows for sure because, of course, they didn't tell anyone about it). The plant was "discovered" by the west in mid-2002 when some Iranian dissidents ratted on them. At that time, construction was already well underway (the Iranians subsequently admitted that construction had been underway for two years). So your assertion that they "didn't do anything on their nuclear program" until sometime "last year" is easily demonstrated as false.

Of course, to be fair, Iran insists that they needed a large, underground, secret uranium entrichment plant purely for peaceful purposes.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Perle
I know you are not very bright

My, what a charming way to join a discussion. Does insulting people's intelligence "win" a lot of arguments where you come from? Sorry, but I don't play that game nor do I care to spend my time on those that do.

[huh]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Um, that they might use them? Or use them to threaten and intimidate their neighbors?

Like America has ever since they've got them?

Originally posted by Tactitus
Shouldn't we be concerned if Iran is violating its international agreements?

Hay that's sorta like invading a country without consulting the UN!

Or ignoring the ABM treatys!

[JammyJim]

quite simply


you cannot flaut breaking international law and then use it to justify your actions elsewhere.

Its hypocracy.
America has acted a rougue state for some time. It has withdrawn from the itnernational agreement set out in the ABM treaty. It has systematically vetoed anything which endangers israel free reign

(oh yes did u know israel is fully justified in using torture to gain information from palestinians?? - oh yes this was outlawed everywhere else along time ago but the us vetoed a un resolution to deal with it...how BIZARRE)

Iraq is messed up.
It hasnt even got a democracy and is being occupied by an unwanted invading force that has not freed the people but infact enslaved them. Where is the Iraqi government?

OH WAIT THERE CANNOT BE A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ONE EBCAUSE OTHERWISE AN EXTREMIST ISLAMIC PARTY WOULD WIN AND THEYRE EXTREMISTS WHICH THE US HATES AND IT WOULD INFACT BE WORSE THAN HAVING GOOD OLD SADDAM ON THE THRONE.

SO NOW WE ARE LEFT IN THE QUANDRY OF WHAT TO DO...I KNOW LETS 'APPOINT' SOMEONE WHO CAN BE OUR LACKY AND TELL HIM TO SELL US CHEAP OIL AND LET US PUT BASES ALL OVER THE DESERT

AND NOW


THE USA WANTS TO GO AND INVADE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN IT HASNT EVEN FIXED THE MESS ITS LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE IT DECIDED TO BLOW THE **** OUT OF!!!


HURRAH FOR DEMOCRACY
HURRAY FOR THE WORLD

[JammyJim]

Incidently

The only country in the world which has ever used a nuclear weapon in anger was the United States of America.


The same country which lectures us all on human rights violates them daily when it spies on its citizens and controls its media.

It was a country build on the systematic genocide of all who lived in North America.


These are facts ladies and gentlemen.

Alot of people find it highly hypocrytical for the US to jump so quickly to lecturing other nations about their actions when theyre own are highly quesitonable.





ps. none of these are my own views. im merely expressing a rather 'extremist view' to get you guys to start 'fighting back' or agreeing.

lets see what happens shall we.

[huh]

They won't attack Iran until at least after Bush has been re-elected. I think the cost ($$$) of the Iraq war is on the mind of too many people to start a fresh war.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by huh
Like America has ever since they've got them?

To the extent that we threaten and intimidate our neighbors (or other countries in general), we really don't need nuclear weapons to do it. Two gulf wars and Afghanistan have demonstrated that.

All countries use force, or the implied threat of force, in international relations when the situation demands it (e.g., UK threatens force, and then uses it, against Argentina over the Falklands). This is nothing new. Adding nuclear weapons to all the arsenals of world would be new, however; and I think it would make the world a far more dangerous place.

Hay that's sorta like invading a country without consulting the UN!

Not really.

Or ignoring the ABM treatys!

Pulling out of a treaty isn't the same as ignoring it. If Iran wants to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it's pretty easy for them to do it. They basically just have to give one years' notice. How hard is that?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by JammyJim
ps. none of these are my own views. im merely expressing a rather 'extremist view' to get you guys to start 'fighting back' or agreeing.

lets see what happens shall we.

In other words, you're trolling. Isn't that against forum rules?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Here's but one example. Iran began construction on their underground uranium enrichment planet at Natanz sometime in 2000 (no one knows for sure because, of course, they didn't tell anyone about it). The plant was "discovered" by the west in mid-2002 when some Iranian dissidents ratted on them. At that time, construction was already well underway (the Iranians subsequently admitted that construction had been underway for two years). So your assertion that they "didn't do anything on their nuclear program" until sometime "last year" is easily demonstrated as false.

care to give any sources for that?

Of course, to be fair, Iran insists that they needed a large, underground, secret uranium entrichment plant purely for peaceful purposes.

given what happened to nuclear facilities and reactors in iraq, it was probably a good idea to hbuild them underground and in secret

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
In other words, you're trolling. Isn't that against forum rules?

he has some very good points though.

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Tactitus
In other words, you're trolling. Isn't that against forum rules?

there are various types of trolling


this is constructive and not inflamatory. its making you think.

[queball]

Originally posted by Tactitus
In other words, you're trolling. Isn't that against forum rules?

How ironic.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
care to give any sources for that?

Just google on Natanz. But since I'm bored, here's a couple:

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...tanz03_02.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz.htm

given what happened to nuclear facilities and reactors in iraq, it was probably a good idea to hbuild them underground and in secret

But it violates the spirit if not the letter of the Non-Proliferation treaty which requires transparency of participants' nuclear programs. It's a bit hard to claim you have nothing to hide when, in fact, you're hiding stuff.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
BIt's a bit hard to claim you have nothing to hide when, in fact, you're hiding stuff.

Hmmm...

Originally posted by Tactitus
Again, you are confusing the sequence of events. It's certainly possible that the events of the past 3 years have made some countries nervous about US intentions, but I utterly fail to see how that explains their actions 10 or 20 years ago.

I don't understand this "Bush is unique" line that the 'anti-Americans' (for want of a better term) use. 10 or 20 years ago the story was basically the same as it is now, except you also had the added blundering influence of the Soviets. It's not like the Middle East has only recently become a dangerous place to be.

[cnaw]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Just google on Natanz. But since I'm bored, here's a couple:

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...tanz03_02.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz.htm

But it violates the spirit if not the letter of the Non-Proliferation treaty which requires transparency of participants' nuclear programs. It's a bit hard to claim you have nothing to hide when, in fact, you're hiding stuff.

I find a good place to find info like this is at http://www.fas.org.

so just a few more links to add to yours (probably redundant )
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/arak.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Perle
...random insults..." Iran´s neighbors (expect the 2 countries we allready have liberated hehehe) already have nuclear weapons.
pakistan is a nuclear power since 1998
Turkey has had them for decades and that makes your argument really silly.


Its funny how the US government is allowed to randomly break all treaties( ABM to name one) and other countries are not
hehehe



Iran is being called a rogue state since 1980, all relations to iran have been broken off, we have sanctions on Iran since 23 years.
maybe you should inform yourself before using big words like
causality.
oh and by the way
The US navy has had a heavy force in the persian gulf for about 40 years now.
If having a couple of carriers on your doorstep is not a serious reason of concern, I don´t know what is. "

---
You might want to read that again tacitus, now with the silly insult removed, you can actually tear the arguments apart. Or maybe not...

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Tactitus

All countries use force, or the implied threat of force, in international relations when the situation demands it (e.g., UK threatens force, and then uses it, against Argentina over the Falklands). This is nothing new.

Congratulations. Thats an ill thought out response to an argument based around countries invading other countires for their own gain.

The Falkland Islands are a part of the British Isles, and have been for a long long time. What happened there was that ARGENTINA INVADED and as it was a British Colony, the UK defended itself. There was nothing to be gained, other than politically, from losing hundreds of troops defending a group of sheep herders.

We did not attack a country with nuclear weapons because we feared they would attack us. We did not gain control over a valuable commodity because we were running out of our own. And because we didnt destroy the entire infrastructure of the Islands (there wasnt much of one to destroy) , we managed to rebuild it within a short period of time, and leave it as we found it.

I do not recall a single US Military campaign where they have fixed the damage they have wrought on a country. And i dont think i will in my lifetime.

The Nation of America believes itself to be above the laws of man.

Thus , its hard not to see why other nations hate them so much.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Kurashima
Congratulations. Thats an ill thought out response to an argument based around countries invading other countires for their own gain.

The Falkland Islands are a part of the British Isles, and have been for a long long time. What happened there was that ARGENTINA INVADED and as it was a British Colony, the UK defended itself. There was nothing to be gained, other than politically, from losing hundreds of troops defending a group of sheep herders.

We did not attack a country with nuclear weapons because we feared they would attack us. We did not gain control over a valuable commodity because we were running out of our own. And because we didnt destroy the entire infrastructure of the Islands (there wasnt much of one to destroy) , we managed to rebuild it within a short period of time, and leave it as we found it.

I do not recall a single US Military campaign where they have fixed the damage they have wrought on a country. And i dont think i will in my lifetime.

The Nation of America believes itself to be above the laws of man.

Thus , its hard not to see why other nations hate them so much.

Don´t even bother with facts with this guy.
He doesn´t not know much about anything.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
---
You might want to read that again tacitus, now with the silly insult removed, you can actually tear the arguments apart. Or maybe not...

He deserves the insults.
People who talk about things they do not know the first thing about, deserve to be insulted..
and what tearing apart??
those are facts and he didn´t respond to them because he couldn´t.
He just used the insults as an excuse to not lose countenance.