Why Iran? - 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 10-26-2007, 09:05 AM   #16
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Anyone living in this obvious, dynamic world of variables, who views the world through the prism of absolutes, black and white, good/evil, is simply a fundamentalist of a different stripe
U2DMFan,

Although I appreciate your comments, you're painting me as a fundamentalist of a different stripe is quite offensive.

Every argument or proof has to start somewhere, usually with the most basic known facts possible. I was simply trying to start with a basic premise. Do you think that I don't know or understand there are a billion microcosmic factors that would weigh into a foriegn policy decision?

For example the NPR report this morning on Iran's despicable infiltration into the Shiite/Sunni conflict in Iraq, where specific orders are given to Iranian mercs to pose as Sunnis, rape Shiite girls, and go to the Shiites and Americans to tell them, to incite violence against the Sunnis.

One example of a million, I'm sure.

Do you think Hilary is equally as crazy as Bush -- I've heard her hard stance against Iran's government. What's with her?
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:04 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
I don't know guys.


When I hear "Death To Israel" led by Iran's President: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in front of thousands and thousands of Iranians similar to a Nazi Rally -I get a little concerned.

__________________

__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:18 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


Besides posting these videos (I can't watch them since I'm in the library at school), care to elaborate on your position on all this?

I'm genuinely curious
Well, I'm not gung ho in "let's bomb Iran", but I am concerned.
When you get a chance, watch them.

I don't think there is a "misinterpretation or mistranslation" offered by some here. Iran's antimosity towards America and Israel-the leaders of Iran I mean, is clearly evident here, so I say watch them closely.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 05:02 PM   #19
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Seriously,

Why Iran, when you have Syria?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa35.cfm




Two satellite images made available by Digital globe show a suspected nuclear facility site before and after an Israeli airstrike
A U.S.-based research institute says new satellite images show a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site has been completely dismantled since its apparent bombing in September by Israeli aircraft.

Analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security say the images taken Wednesday show tractor marks where the facility stood before the September 6 air strike. They say the images also show what appears to be a trench that might have held buried pipelines connecting the suspected reactor facility to a water supply station.

The analysts say the cleanup will hinder a proposed investigation of the site by international nuclear inspectors. They say the dismantling of the building at such a rapid pace also suggests Syria may be trying to conceal evidence of what was there.

Damascus has denied the air strike targeted a nuclear facility. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Israel targeted an "unused military building."

Earlier this week, the Institute for Science and International Security said satellite images of the Syrian site taken about a month before the Israeli air strike showed construction that resembled the early stages of a small nuclear reactor.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, who heads the institute, and researcher Paul Brannan said the imagery showed a tall building that may have housed a reactor under construction. They said it was similar in design to a North Korean nuclear reactor.

Israel recently lifted a media blackout on news reports about the raid, confirming that its warplanes hit what it called a "military target" deep inside Syrian territory.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 05:34 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:21 AM
An Israeli air strike in which the other Arab states have remained completely silent about
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-26-2007, 06:47 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris

Do you think Hilary is equally as crazy as Bush -- I've heard her hard stance against Iran's government. What's with her?
I quoted you eariler (re:yes/no questions) to make my own premise.
If my statement about fundamentalists doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply. If it does, consider yourself an offended fundamentalist.


I think Iran is a threat, always have.
I think they should be dealt with in some manner but I'd rather see a Clinton or even Giuliani administration gets their hands on the real Intel before I'd trust the cowboy chimp Bush admin to make a single more decision of this magnitude.

They will not be able to develop a nuke by Jan 2009.
So I can wait, personally.

It's not a question of crazy, it's a question of competence.
Nobody has to cook up the bogeyman with Iran like they did with Hussein, we've got Ahmaninejad talking about wiping out Israel etc. I think it's a question of gauging the severity. And furthermore the competence of executing a plan to thwart them.

When you're a fundamentalist, say George W Bush, and you believe there is a man in the sky who adorned you the leader of the 'good fight', then maybe you make decisions that most other folk, in the same position wouldn't make. Or maybe he's just not that smart.

I think Dick Cheney and the neo-conservative brigade have done a drastic disservice to George W Bush but in turn, he's the one making the decisions.

I ask you, how can I trust a damn thing coming from this group in the White House? I simply don't.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 01:02 PM   #22
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
I ask you, how can I trust a damn thing coming from this group in the White House? I simply don't
Unfortunately, I don't think there was much to trust about the Clinton Whitehouse either, and I'm not sure about the next one.

That seems to be the fundamental problem.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 05:14 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
I'd worry once they started actually using them or there was sufficient evidence that they were plotting to do so, myself.


Angela
You'd worry only once they started using nukes?
Hopefully it won't come to that.

And isn't that what we/they are trying to avoid?

But yours is an interesting viewpoint because you question why Iran can't have nukes too.
Even Iran's neighbours don't want them to be succesful in that endeavour.
__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 05:20 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:21 AM
I think that internal politics make a nuclear Iran relatively benign to any other nation, but much like Pakistan the trading of nuclear technology raises the risks exponentially.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 06:58 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead
You'd worry only once they started using nukes?
Hopefully it won't come to that.
I hope it won't, either, believe me. But keep in mind, too, I also said there'd have to be sufficient evidence that they were plotting to use them as well. So allow me to rephrase a bit-I'll start worrying when there's sufficient proof they're going to use them. When that starts happening, then it becomes other people's business.

Quote:
Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead
And isn't that what we/they are trying to avoid?
Indeed it is. But I think we're going about doing that poorly.

Quote:
Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead
But yours is an interesting viewpoint because you question why Iran can't have nukes too.
Even Iran's neighbours don't want them to be succesful in that endeavour.
And I don't understand that. I don't understand why any countries that have weapons suddenly get all nervous when someone else wants them. They want to defend themselves just like anybody else, after all.

Like I said, if we demand Iran never get its hands on nuclear weapons, that's fine. I'd be happy with that. But then we, and any other countries that have weapons, should probably start rethinking keeping our arsenals around, too. It just seems really hypocritical otherwise.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 07:43 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 02:21 PM
Well, look at it in this context. The United States government undoubtedly considers Iran an enemy...isn't it natural that they wouldn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I rarely agree with our government, certainly not with the Bush administration...but I think trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of perceived enemies while having them ourselves isn't hypocrisy, it's strategy. I mean, the US probably has more WMD's than the rest of the world has combined, yet we made up the WMD bugaboo as an excuse to attack Iraq...talk about hypocrisy.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now  
Old 10-27-2007, 07:52 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
Well, look at it in this context. The United States government undoubtedly considers Iran an enemy...isn't it natural that they wouldn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I rarely agree with our government, certainly not with the Bush administration...but I think trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of perceived enemies while having them ourselves isn't hypocrisy, it's strategy.
Oh, yeah, you're absolutely right-I understand the reasoning behind that line of thinking, definitely. It certainly makes sense when you look at it that way.

It's just that, unfortunately for us, countries like Iran probably have that exact same line of thinking and are probably using that same strategy. We may not see it as hypocritical to not let them have weapons, but they might. And that's something I just think the U.S. might do well to realize, is all.

Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
I mean, the US probably has more WMD's than the rest of the world has combined, yet we made up the WMD bugaboo as an excuse to attack Iraq...talk about hypocrisy.
Agree wholeheartedly with this.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:17 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 01:21 PM
Probably?

I'd say the US has at least three times more WMD's than every other country put together.

At least.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:17 AM   #29
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Europe faces tough choices on Iran

By Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2007


LONDON -- With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?

European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned. "It will make things much more difficult," said Alex Bigham of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, echoing the uneasy sentiment across the continent about the go-it-alone U.S. stand. "Obviously this is about Bush trying to be tough and ratchet up the pressure on Iran, but also it's kind of trying to lock in his successor. Because it's one thing to put an organization on the terrorist list, and quite another matter to take it off."

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism. The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran.

But many European analysts said Friday that it would be difficult to hope to engage Tehran in negotiations while attempting to isolate groups such as the Revolutionary Guard, from whose ranks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his colleagues have emerged. Cornering Iran's military hard-liners could diminish the government's willingness to negotiate and is unlikely to produce the hoped-for wedge between the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian public, many Europeans fear. "The idea that there is a clear separation between the population and the Revolutionary Guard is completely false," said Thierry Colville of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris. "There has been an eight-year war with 500,000 dead in Iran," he said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "It looks like the U.S. has forgotten this war, which legitimized the Guard."

European leaders feel compelled to support those in the Bush administration who favor sanctions over military threats, yet are concerned about jeopardizing their own lucrative business ties to Iran. Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations. Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Russia's position was clear Friday: "Why aggravate the situation now, why push [Iran] into a blind alley, threaten it with sanctions or hostilities?" said President Vladimir V. Putin, who a day earlier described the new U.S. sanctions as "running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."

Britain, which has come out strongly endorsing both the unilateral U.S. steps and the idea of a third round of United Nations sanctions if Iran does not comply with international demands, is pushing for strong EU action. But the U.S. should not get impatient if the Europeans take their time in order to achieve a consensus, especially since Europe has already imposed an arms embargo on Iran, a British official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The EU haven't exactly been sitting and not delivering anything on this. Yes, it has been a slow process, but that's the way the EU works, on the basis of consensus," the official said.

Now, following French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for independent EU action on sanctions to back up President Bush, European leaders are looking at various measures. They include banning travel and restricting visas for some Iranian officials, freezing assets and levying penalties that would target key players in Iran's nuclear program. "You've got to hit them where it hurts, which is obviously what the Americans decided to do. So now is the time to bring the EU's quite significant pressure to bear on Iran, and look at practical measures," the British official said.

European leaders say an EU decision could be made within the next few weeks, with the possibility of another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council if the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, does not report full cooperation from Iran before then.

Bringing on board nations such as Germany and Italy, which together had more than $7 billion in exports to Iran last year, will be difficult. Berlin already saw Russia pick up the contracts German companies abandoned for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station; now, European companies fear that Russia and China will move in if the EU imposes sanctions outside a U.N. framework. There are signs, however, that both Germany and Italy are prepared to back whatever consensus is reached within the EU. One factor is Germany's desire to make sure sanctions have a chance to work, as a means of discouraging the alternative prospect of military action, said Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations in a phone interview from Berlin.

"If you have too weak sanctions, or if you don't agree to them, you might play into the hands of those in Washington who want to seek a military solution, the Cheney faction," Riecke said, referring to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. "So to support the supporters of a diplomatic solution, you had better support sanctions." Italy so far has taken a wait-and-see approach, preferring no increase in sanctions, but unprepared to buck a European tide.

It seems unlikely that France's Sarkozy will be successful in prevailing on his European partners to adopt tough unilateral sanctions, said Franco Pavoncello, president of John Cabot University in Rome, in a telephone interview. Many feel "that maybe this is not the proper time to push the Iranians into a corner. But should Europe go along with America," Pavoncello said, "you won't have Italy producing a lonely voice and saying no."
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-29-2007, 08:52 PM   #30
New Yorker
 
gman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Highlands of Scotland
Posts: 2,570
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Sod Iran..........lets take bets who will be after them
__________________

__________________
gman 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 01:21 PM.


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