Ahmadinejad: Israel Will Soon Be Eliminated by One Storm - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2006, 09:22 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:21 AM
I see your point. This nutcase has no scruples about wanting to kill everyone in Israel. I just wish to hell the Iranians hadn't elected him. I never thought democracy could be quite this lethal.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 09:27 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Well when you have a theocratic class barring candidates and boycotts by the populace the results can be dangerous.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 09:58 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Do you think Iran would've ended up this way if someone was the president rather than Ahmadinejad?
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 10:15 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Yes. The program was in place before the War in Iraq started and Ahmadinejad only became president last year.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 10:24 PM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 77
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I never thought democracy could be quite this lethal.
I would use the word "democracy" very loosely with respect to Iran. Unelected clerics effectively decided who would and would not be allowed to run for president. And the presidency is powerless to do anything the unelected clerical establishment does not want done.
__________________
redsox04 is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 11:01 PM   #21
Refugee
 
JMScoopy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Near Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,268
Local Time: 12:21 AM
i guarantee you israel is gonna blow the shit outta iran if they (iran) finish their nukes.

they did it before, and they'll do it again. they dont fuck around at all. they are surrounded by crazy, bloodthirsty arabs, and israel wont hesitate for a minute to use force when threatened.
__________________
My Recordings
http://www.freewebs.com/jmscoopy
JMScoopy is offline  
Old 04-17-2006, 11:16 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:21 AM
When faced with a government where theocracy is a given, no matter who is in office, Iranians will vote on other issues.

Ahmadinejad's appeal to Iranians is actually little different than Bush's appeal to Americans.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 01:40 AM   #23
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Ok so this guy is a little loopy, i dont see the big issue in letting them have nuclear weapons. Its not as if as soon as they finish them they're going to target the US or Israel. Not even Iran is that stupid, and the fact that people automatically assume that Iran is going to do that, we'll it pisses me off, so no wonder if pisses them off. Its like people are acting like they are nothing but a barbaric nation that are stupid and bloodythirsty enough to cause a freaking world war that they will LOSE.

I think showing them some respect and letting them have nuclear weapons would be a good thing. I mean after all a hell of a lot of other countries have them, why not Iran? And don't take about responsibility, because I think the US has show they arn't mature enough to have those kinds of weapons, but i see no one trying to sanction them.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 02:30 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:21 PM
The "assumption" is based on the repeated and consistent statements of intent eminating from the Iranian leadership, the idea that these people are willing to die is based on the sect of Shiism that they adhere to..

Of all the other nuclear club members how many have a declared policy of nuclear first strike?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 04:33 AM   #25
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 04:21 PM
really, well i didn't know that... is there somewhere i can read about it? I can't believe though that Iran would be willing (considering there is a lot of oppisition in the country already) to enter into a war which they will undoubtably lose, and probably cause more damage to their country and surrounding countries then an actual threat to the us and britain. IT just seems like they want to shoot themselves in the foot.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 04:59 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
really, well i didn't know that... is there somewhere i can read about it? I can't believe though that Iran would be willing (considering there is a lot of oppisition in the country already) to enter into a war which they will undoubtably lose, and probably cause more damage to their country and surrounding countries then an actual threat to the us and britain. IT just seems like they want to shoot themselves in the foot.
Try these stories

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

The quote from Rafsanjani on December 14, 2001 at Tehran University really puts it into perspective
Quote:
If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.
As well as the articles posted on page one can give you a bit of an idea where these believers (not maniacs) are coming from, it would be a mistake to think that an Islamic nuclear power is the solution to American hubris in the world. Perhaps you should also consider what may become of internal opposition to the mullahs the day that they have the nuclear umbrella - purges may be conducted without concequence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 10:26 AM   #27
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:21 AM
Quote:
The case for negotiating with Iran

By Fred Kaplan
slate.com, April 17, 2006


The Iranians' call for more nuclear talks is probably a snare, designed to knot up the West in fruitless diplomacy while they accelerate their drive to build atomic bombs. Yet President Bush should take them up on their offer—should, in fact, come to the table with a full negotiating agenda—not as an act of appeasement but as a hard-headed security calculation.

A week has passed since Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that the White House is contemplating the use of nuclear bunker-busters to attack Iran's underground nuclear facilities—and the idea is looking less practical, to say the least, with each passing day. The obvious drawbacks are compelling enough (an attack would strengthen the mullahs, alienate most of the world, incite terrorist reprisals, and, for all that, merely set back Iran's nuclear program by a few years). Last Thursday, the military option was dealt another blow. Ahmadinejad let drop that his scientists are conducting research on the P-2 centrifuge, a device that can spin, and therefore enrich uranium, much faster than the conventional P-1 model. If the claim is true, it suggests that Iran has a second, secret nuclear program separate from its main nuclear facility at Natanz (which had also been secret until an exile group revealed its existence a few years ago). If we don't know of the existence, much less the location, of crucial nuclear facilities, even an otherwise well-executed campaign of air strikes will have little effect.

The one thing that Iran's leaders genuinely seem to fear is economic sanctions. They sprinted to the bargaining table, and opened more facilities to international inspectors, only after France, Britain, and Germany—which had always tolerated Iran's nuclear deceptions in order to protect their trade relations—joined in with the Bush administration's criticisms and pledged to support United Nations sanctions if Iran continued to enrich uranium.

Western Europe, Russia, and China may depend on Iran for oil, but Iran depends at least as much on them for capital investment. The United States isn't involved in either side of this equation—we've been boycotting Iranian imports and exports ever since Ayatollah Khomeini's "students" took our diplomats hostage—which is why our sudden engagement in face-to-face talks, after all these decades, would make quite an impact.

The other nations involved in this showdown—England, France, Germany, Russia, and China—would rather not impose sanctions. Their economic interests favor continued open trade with Iran. At the same time, they're deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Economic interests, in this case, have a natural tendency to trump security interests. The former are tangible and immediate, while the latter are hypothetical and off in the future. To turn this picture around—to elevate security interests above economic interests—requires deliberate action. To do so under the pressure of George W. Bush—in the wake of his false warnings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that subsequent disastrous war—also requires political courage. (One difference between the present confrontation and the lead-up to the war in Iraq is that virtually nobody disputes the finding that Iran really is seeking nuclear weapons.)

To get the other countries to unite around some sort of sanctions (or the threat of sanctions, which may be all that's necessary), President Bush not only has to threaten to penalize Iran for bad behavior but also has to reward Iran for good behavior. They will not go along with this pressure campaign—they will not undermine their economic interests—unless there are carrots as well as sticks. In other words, Bush should commence direct talks with Iran not because they offer a hopeful chance for peace and good will, but because they're a necessary prelude to an international campaign of economic pressure—and because more drastic military pressure would likely backfire. There are two likely outcomes from serious American efforts to negotiate, both good. First, if Iran cooperates with the talks, then it might suspend its nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits. Second, if Iran doesn't cooperate, then the Bush administration will have made its case to China, Russia, and Europe that the regime is dangerous and untrustworthy. At that point it will be much easier to impose the economic sanctions that will scare the Iranians into better behavior.

Another reason to hold talks: There was something a bit bizarre about the fanfare surrounding Ahmadinejad's boast of finally enriching uranium last week. "We are a nuclear country!" he proclaimed—although, even if his claim were true, he still needs tens of thousands of additional centrifuges to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon. There's also this statement today from First Vice President Parviz Davoudi, reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency: "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," he said, "stood up to all international pressures bravely. … With such a spirit, the Iranian youth can successfully overcome all obstacles that the country will encounter."

It's reasonable speculation that Ahmadinejad's bluster has been, at least in part, for domestic consumption—to rally the increasingly alienated "Iranian youth" around long-popular nationalist sentiments. Could it be that, having secured his putative "right" to enrich uranium, the Iranian president is now prepared to make a deal—to accept controls, for the right price?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 09:38 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 77
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I think showing them some respect and letting them have nuclear weapons would be a good thing.
Huh? So now nuclear proliferation is a good thing? As was pointed out earlier, the leadership in Iran have made no secret of their desire to "wipe Israel off the map". And even if they do not use nuclear weapons, the threat that they may use them would likely be used to bully their neighbors. How on earth could any of this be considered a good thing?

Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I think the US has show they arn't mature enough to have those kinds of weapons, but i see no one trying to sanction them.
This seems like a cheap shot, with nothing whatsoever substantiating your position.
__________________
redsox04 is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 09:47 PM   #29
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:21 AM
"Its like people are acting like they are nothing but a barbaric nation that are stupid and bloodythirsty enough to cause a freaking world war that they will LOSE."

If they die in war, they win! So, like said before, self preservation is not their motiver, self destruction is.

Where are all the other FYMers on this issue?
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 04-18-2006, 11:38 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 05:21 AM
Well, when you consider the fact that two-thirds of the Iranian population is under 30 and 50% under 21, courting "Iranian youth" would be a good thing. I read an article recently that was conducted at a ski resort north of Tehran and it basically said that Ahmadinejad was doing a very good job scoring political capital at being anti-Bush, that Iraq was "THE" issue that was succeeding in luring otherwise sober young adults to support him. Instead of being the taker away or rights he was standing up successfully to the West. (Just another reason why the invasion helps "democracy" and was a good thing.)

There's nothing much I can say that hasn't been said already, but consider the fact that China imports 17% of its oil from Iran. Think about that. While we build Crusader's castles in Iraq (which is what I'm calling the massive, Vatican-City sized U.S. Embassy that is currently being built in the Green Zone, next to Saddam's old palace, it will be the largest US Embassy in the world when completed, I saw a pic of this in my paper 3 days ago) China is building politcal and economic alliances. China's startegy is the smart one, and willpay off in the end the most. Of course, it thinks it has the luxury of being able to stay out of the fray, but that may be changing....
__________________

__________________
Teta040 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com