Iran- Latest News

jbrovont · **Joined:** Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 838

Honestly, it might make me reevaluate the situation. I don't know if I'd agree with any kind of military action - it would depend on the info available to me. As it stands, US intel has come out and said basically, that to the best of their knowledge, this isn't an immediate problem. When the administration keeps harping on it, all I hear is "Iraq Iraq Iraq" again. No third party without some kind of obvious ulterior motive or prior axe to grind has produced anything substantial, so I'm left with judging the situation based on the character of the people's statements, and their past honesty.

If you look through the intel reports that have surfaced from the 90s and early 2000s, you get a pretty clear picture. US intel warned about terror attacks. Admin ignored it. Intel warned about airplanes used in terror attacks. Admin ignored it. Intel said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Admin said Iraq helped with 9/11. Intel says Iraq doesn't have any WMDs. Admin says they do. Admin invades Iraq. Iraq doesn't have any WMDs.

So far, US intel has been batting almost 1000, and Admin is batting about 0.0, so when I read an intel report jointly prepared by 17 US intel agencies that says they don't believe Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I'm far more inclined to believe it over the Admin. Especially since my knowledge of PO tells me that oil producing nations know they have to find another energy source asap or face severe internal social unrest.

mos6507 wrote:

seahorse2 wrote:

The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."

Let's say the EU is right. Does that change your opinion on the issue? What if the UN passed a security council resolution allowing the use of force? I'm just wondering whether any degree of international solidarity against Iran would change your opinion or that you'd want them to just get a free pass regardless of what they do?

seahorse2 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 2059

I don't believe them, not even the EU intelligence at this point

Taghayee · **Posted:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:23 pm

mos6507 wrote:

seahorse2 wrote:

The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."

Let's say the EU is right. Does that change your opinion on the issue? What if the UN passed a security council resolution allowing the use of force? I'm just wondering whether any degree of international solidarity against Iran would change your opinion or that you'd want them to just get a free pass regardless of what they do?

And what it is really that Iran has done to warrant use of nuclear force against them? Have they bombed their neighbors? Have they stolen lands from their neighbors? Have they made an entire nation homeless? No, Israel has done all of those.

Idiots like you should realize that any use of force would cause enormous misery to countless innocent individuals- on both sides that is. Its real and not some disney biblical animation that we are talking about.

mos6507 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:49 pm

jbrovont wrote:

Honestly, it might make me reevaluate the situation. I don't know if I'd agree with any kind of military action - it would depend on the info available to me.

Let's say Iran detonates a nuclear test like NK did. Would that change your opinion any? You're either waiting for a smoking gun, after which you will support the idea of joint military intervention, or you don't think the NPT should even be enforced.

The same would have retroactively applied to Iraq. Let's say we DID find WMDs in Iraq. Would you have supported the invasion? Or are you a pollyanna who just does not care about who has or doesn't have WMD's?

Micki · **Posted:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:52 pm

Quote:

Let's say Iran detonates a nuclear test like NK did.

And how would they do that?
They are minimum 5 years away from having a bomb if they put their effort into developing one.
You are really falling for the political damagogy MOS.

Nickel · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:46 am

mos6507 wrote:

Let's say Iran detonates a nuclear test like NK did.... Let's say we DID find WMDs in Iraq. Would you have supported the invasion? Or are you a pollyanna who just does not care about who has or doesn't have WMD's?

Let's say neither is the case... which is actually what happened. Would you admit the invasion of Iraq was criminally wrong? Would you agree that an attack on Iran is also criminally wrong? Or are you just a bloodlusting warmonger who does not care about millions of innocent people being murdered, maimed, impoverished and displaced if they aren't from your particular tribe?

seahorse2 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 2059

Perez says US has no choice but to remove the Iranian President.

If that's the case, they better shoot him today before he leaves the UN or else they may have to use a nuke to get him in Tehran.

Quote:

Last update - 13:04 25/09/2008
Peres: U.S. has no choice but to save world from Ahmadinejad
By Haaretz Service
Tags: Iran, Shimon Peres

The United States has no choice but to save the world by stopping Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Shimon Peres told Israel Radio on Thursday.

The president said Ahmadinejad was a passing phenomenon who will disappear "like a gust of wind," Israel Radio reported. Peres added that Ahmadinejad's statements against Israel and the West only serve to unite the entire world against Iran.

Peres on Wednesday told the United Nations General Assembly that Iran was responsible for undermining efforts for peace in the Middle East. He said that while Israel had made concessions in its desire to live in harmony with its neighbors, Iran's "quest for religious hegemony and regional dominance divides the Middle East and holds back chances for peace."

"Iranian support for Hezbollah divided Lebanon," Peres said. "Its support for Hamas split the Palestinians and postpones the establishment of the Palestinian State."

Peres also hit back at a speech by his Iranian counterpart to the same United Nations forum a day earlier, branding it "the darkest anti-Semitic libel."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was absent from Peres' speech, said in his own address Tuesday that "a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists" had seized control financial and political centers in Europe and the U.S. in "a deceitful, complex and furtive manner."

On Wednesday, Peres said that the Iranian leader's speech was reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract published in the early 1900s that described a Jewish and Masonic plot to take over the world.

The words of Ahmadinejad, Peres said, were "an attempt to bring to life one of the ugliest plots of history."

He also lashed out at the Iranian leader's frequent comments doubting that the genocide of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis in World War II had taken place.

"Their despicable denial of the Holocaust is a mockery of indisputable evidence, a cynical offense to survivors of the horror."

But, Peres said, Israel did not see the Iranian people themselves as an enemy. "Their fanatic leadership is their problem and the world's concern," he said.

The president also addressed the peace negotiations currently underway between Israel and the Palestinians, saying "we negotiate full peace. Both parties agreed to building a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, living in peace, security and respect."

"We tried to conclude the negotiations this year. It will take longer. But, I believe it can be accomplished within the next year," he went on to say, adding that "gaps have been narrowed through negotiations. Particularly the territorial ones. But, peace is not just a matter of territorial compromise. Rogue politics reject peace even where the territorial dispute was resolved."

"From Gaza, we withdrew completely and dismantled our settlements. Hamas responded with a bloody takeover and turned the strip into a base of rocket fire," he added.

Peres also addressed the issue of the abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who was seized by Gaza militants in June 2006, urging the General Assembly to "make his release top of its agenda. Holding a hostage in Gaza determines its isolation and further deterioration."

Haaretz

Taghayee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:21 pm

"Iranian support for Hezbollah divided Lebanon," Peres said. "Its support for Hamas split the Palestinians and postpones the establishment of the Palestinian State."

Hezbollah has been the biggest unifying entity in Lebanon since the civil war began in 70s. They have also been the most disciplined and hence more humanitarian. Yes, Hamas has postponed the establishment of the Palestinian state for 60 years. Wait a minute... Hamas is not that old :shock:

I have never seen anyone lie so humbly.

jbrovont · **Joined:** Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 838

US intel indicates Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon. If they did detonate one, well then yeah it would be pretty clear that US intel was wrong, or that they bought it from someone.

The invasion of Iraq was first sold based on Saddam providing help to terrorists. US intel said "um, can't find it." When that couldn't be proven, it was sold on the fear of WMDs. Inspectors couldn't find any, or any evidence of there being a WMD program. When that didn't pan out, they invaded anyway citing a fear that Saddam might sell WMDs to terrorists. Turns out there were no WMDs, and there wasn't a terrorist link, and they didn't just not get along - they wanted to kill eachother. That's US military intelligence: 2, BushCo: 0.

If I really thought Iran posed a threat to US interests, then yeah, I'd say do what you have to do to fix it. Fortunately, there's no credible evidence to support that. There fear and suspician from Israel (which I won't bother addressing their moral hazard here) and there's BushCo. BushCo is 0 for 2 so far going against the US intel machine, so if you're asking me who I trust with the lives of US soldiers, it's not Bush, or Fox News, or Israel. It's the guys at the NSA and the CIA looking at the real info and saying "they gave up in 2003 and haven't worked on it since." It's their job - it's what they do. What motive would the CIA, NSA and 15 other US intel agencies have to lie about this? I can't think of one. Can you? Who would have better intel?

Should the NPT be enforced? Yeah it should. It's not. Not by the US, China, Russia, or anyone else. Iran is actually a signatory, and is legally allowed to enrich. The findings that it's in violation of the NPT by the IAEA are suspiciously not unanamously supported by its board of governors. That tells me that whatever rules they may be breaking, they're close enough to compliance that it's debatable if there's actually a violation. If there was clear evidence of building a bomb, there would be concensus. There isn't.

A pollyannna is illogically optimistic. I'm logically disbelievingof an administration making an emotional plea for an act of war.
Show me facts. Show me proof positive or I'm going to say "hell no you aren't risking American soldiers on your 'gut feeling'" We've already got 3000+ dead, and 52000+ permanently disabled Americans based on [s]bad intel[/s] good intel that was ignored.

Saddam was a p.o.s., but he wasn't my p.o.s. He was Bush Sr.'s p.o.s. from the good ol' days when they were installing the Sha in Iran and giving guns, bombs and training to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. A turd that just wouldn't flush from the same crew that brought us Iran Contra.

So forgive me for not buying the BS when that same group rolls out yet another psychological warfare campaign on the American public.

mos6507 wrote:

Let's say Iran detonates a nuclear test like NK did. Would that change your opinion any? You're either waiting for a smoking gun, after which you will support the idea of joint military intervention, or you don't think the NPT should even be enforced.

The same would have retroactively applied to Iraq. Let's say we DID find WMDs in Iraq. Would you have supported the invasion? Or are you a pollyanna who just does not care about who has or doesn't have WMD's?

seahorse2 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 2059

The latest news is Iran just tested a missile that can reach Israel and Eastern Europe (arguably justifying Bush's plan to put a missile defense shield in Poland).

Iran News

Now, why can't these guys ever exercise a little common sense and at least wait until Bush leaves office? Why must they keep poking him and justifying his controversial missile defense shield in Poland. Bush couldn't asked for more.

RSFB · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 313

seahorse2 wrote:

The latest news is Iran just tested a missile that can reach Israel and Eastern Europe (arguably justifying Bush's plan to put a missile defense shield in Poland).

Iran News

Now, why can't these guys ever exercise a little common sense and at least wait until Bush leaves office? Why must they keep poking him and justifying his controversial missile defense shield in Poland. Bush couldn't asked for more.

I'm wondering the same thing. I don't know what Iran is thinking, because despite all the crap happening with the economy the Western countries are still very capable of attacking it. With oil demand going down the effect of an attack on oil prices wouldn't be as bad as before.

They're certainly making it easier and easier to justify an attack against them.

threadbear · **Joined:** Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:00 am **Posts:** 7917

Remember back in the olden days, many people said the most likely time for an aerial assault on Iran would be after the elections, just before Bush left office--between Nov 4 and January. This little bit of news, actually reinforces the idea that the Iranians take that somewhat seriously and are showing Israel what it can expect if anyone dares try.

Taghayee · **Posted:** Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:55 pm

I believe they are playing with Russia. Afterall Russians have made them wait forever for those S-300s.

Iran- Latest News

Who is online