Iran

[Aileron]

Hmm...come to think of it metal detectors in school clearly violates the Second Amendment. I'm not saying guns SHOULD be allowed in school, but if you are forcing someone to go to a school and then ban weapons from that school, you are effectively telling people that they can't bear arms for a certain period of time.

 

Obviously that isn't what the second amendment is about, but still...

 

 

 

Not likeing the IAEA is something I don't blame Iran for actually. "If you are innocent, you have nothing to hide." is the classic arguement used by tyrants to spy on their people.

 

Besides, Iran is a sovereign nation with a right to controll what goes on in their own borders.

 

The point here is that other sovereign nations are concerned what goes on. We are asking to see what's going on inside Iran and Iran is complying in a minimalist manner, as they should be doing. Those facilities answer to Tehran, not New York.

 

Especially since, IAEA has often been accussed of having spies inside its organization. The Iraqis under the Baathists did accuse the IAEA of having American spies inside of it, as a lot of facilities the IAEA looked at were clearly well known by the US. I'd conjecture that they had it backwards...the US intelligence found out those facilities first and pointed the IAEA towards that location in hopes of making it public. Still, there may be a concern by the Iranian high ups that the IAEA is gathering intelligence for a possible invasion.

 

 

Really, the only hard thing that distubs me about Iran is the funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. That doesn't really mix to safely with any step towards nuclear capability. Admittingly, Pakistan and India to some extent have had ties to terrorists and have nukes, but haven't used them yet. However, that conflict was territorial, not ideological. Overall, you can't blame the UN for wanting to tread carefully in this matter.

[NBVegita]

On a matter of nuclear capabilitiess, asking for proof that you are not advancing towards nuclear weapons is not tyranny.

[Aileron]

Now that I look at things though, there may be hope here. What's needed to combat Islamic Fanaticism is Islamic Moderationism. Iran, in an effort to gain political support from Europe, is catering to a moderationist agenda. Such actions show that being Islamic doesn't contradict living in the modern world.

 

For example, its famous in the Middle East that women have to wear burkas in public. However, Iran currently has a economic desire to promote tourism. The problem they had is that women obviously can't swim in a burka, therefore beaches and resorts could not service women. The fanaticist "solution" to this problem would be to declare beaches and resorts as an afront against Islam because it may cause a conflict. The moderationist solution was to take out their copy of the Quaran, read it over, and find our why the women must wear burkas. It turns out the reason some Islamic women have to wear burkas in public is to "cover their chests" in the presence of men that are not their husbands.

 

So, they decided about a month ago to take some beach and declare it "women only". That way, Islamic traditions are upheld, but they still get to make their money from women going to the beach for vacation.

 

As an added bonus, telescopes and binoculars are selling like hotcakes for no apparent reason. I guess birdwatching is getting popular.

 

 

The serious point to all this is that while under this political pressure, Iran has done much to garner support from the west by modernizing. Maybe by the time this is over, they will modernize enough that war need not happen.

[SeVeR]

NBV: You're right, asking for proof is not tyrannical. Threatening them if they don't give you that proof is.

 

Aileron: Everything you say seems to be based on elaborate presumptions. For instance, you say that Iran is catering to moderationist Europe through modernisation and reinterpretation of their holy book. If only that were true!

 

What they're doing is forming an absolute opposition to America by being as vocal as possible on issues such as Zionism and nuclear power. On the nuclear issue they are letting the US threaten and criminalise their country to show the extent at which American mistrust will govern their actions. On the Zionist issue Iran is teaching the world the difference between the Jews and the Zionists so that criticism of Israel is no longer confused with racism... a confusion that is desirous for supporters of Zionism within Israel and especially the US.

 

Now the purpose of this absolute opposition is to polarise the debate, to remove America from the position of "World Policeman", and to demote them to one side of a fierce mud-slinging match within public opinion. Moderationists will see the US as one extreme and Iran as the other, that is how Iran plans to remove the US as a threat. So yea, you were right, they're appealing to moderationist Europe but not by modernising and certainly not through reinterpreting Islam.

 

They're engaging the US on the two things that the US is wrong about... no matter how !@#$%^&*ed up their own Islamist dictatorship of a country is. For this reason they'll eventually knock the US of their podium.

Edited March 5, 2007 by SeVeR

[Aileron]

They are attempting to cater to the US and Europe by attracting tourism. Ahmenijad even said so himself. On of their goals is to get tourists to go to Iran so that when the tourists go back they would put in a good word for them. Its not like its a morally wrong action; when you are in the middle of a political debate, its best to try to show your good side. I certainly like it more than the North Korean approach of "threaten when you don't have the muscle to back it up and then cry for economic aid from the people you threatened last week".

 

Okay, I guess I must be presumptuous. I made the mistake of !@#$%^&*uming that when Ahmenijad said "We want American tourists" (not technically a quote...he said it in Persian) that the Iranians wanted to attract tourism. I guess I should be more like you, not make such "preconceptions", and when the words coming from their lips say that they want tourism, I should assume that they want to start a bobsled team.

 

As for the "preconceptions" I made about you personally, in a topic en!@#$%^&*led "capital punishment", you brought up the Crusades. If WWI bothered you, why did you bring up the Crusades in a topic that has nothing to do with either of them? That is behavioral evidence. I formed a conclusion based upon that evidence. The conclusion may still be wrong, but it has passed the "preconception" stage and on to the "hypothesis" stage because its attempting to describe an observation.

 

 

Again, you act like Iran is another Cuba, that they are a peacefull nation guilty of nothing more than disagreeing with the US politically. However, they have funded terrorist groups. There is a big difference between not liking Israeli political policy and paying somebody to blow up an elementary school that happens to be Israeli. There is a big difference between disagreeing with the US policy towards Iraq and funding local tribes so as to add fuel to the fire.

 

As for your view on Iranian policy, I could say you are !@#$%^&*igning your political agenda on to them because you are hoping they will try to push your political view. That isn't to say their view and yours does not intersect; it does on many points. However, there is one critical one in which they don't. The Iranians do not believe in balance of power. In the history of their country, there never was a situation where it came up, and culturally and religiously they are taught then when you have power and "know" you are right, you should use your power to force your kind of righteousness in others. That is Jihad, one of the five pillars of Shi'ite Islam.

 

Granted, US policy isn't much different. However, with the US before action there is a period of hesitation where we second guess ourselves, and after action we usually harbor lingering doubts. With Iran, given the behaviors of the various Persian empires, they will likely just impose their viewpoints on others with no hesitation or regrets whatsoever.

 

Besides, that balance of power crap is what created both World Wars and the Cold War. Having a single cosmopolitan nation dominating the others is suprisingly more stable than it sounds.

 

Besides, even if it is simply US vs. Iran as you described, I'm a US citizen...I am not a nuetral and should not have the opinion of a nuetral.

[NBVegita]

Threatening economic sanctions if they don't give you proof that they are not advancing towards nuclear weapons per the nuclear non-proliferation(sp) treaty is not tyranny either.

[AstroProdigy]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4660762.html

 

I think Sever owes me a beer.

[SeVeR]

They're showing the world that they were in fact co-operating with the IAEA from the very start. They're now taking the role of the cornered animal, justified in it's defense, driven to more extreme measures. This war is fought in public opinion. Iran will probably start co-operating again at some point in a carefully scripted and very public ploy to show they're genuine. In my mind they've gotten sympathy from anyone willing to read past the headline, and they've also gotten a big oppurtunity for further sympathy if/when they let the inspectors back in. There is afterall still no proof that Iran wants nukes and there is no proof that they are developing nukes.

[Dav]

They're showing the world that they were in fact co-operating with the IAEA from the very start. They're now taking the role of the cornered animal, justified in it's defense, driven to more extreme measures. This war is fought in public opinion. Iran will probably start co-operating again at some point in a carefully scripted and very public ploy to show they're genuine. In my mind they've gotten sympathy from anyone willing to read past the headline, and they've also gotten a big oppurtunity for further sympathy if/when they let the inspectors back in. There is afterall still no proof that Iran wants nukes and there is no proof that they are developing nukes.

 

In the modern world this seems to be the way most wars are fought. With the way technology is spread actual war is not a good idea as the military power is always sided towards the richest nation which means the west will almost always win (dont argue the iraq issue here im simply discussing 1 army vs another not the fallout afterwards)

 

The issue here is iran wants to be taken seriously as a power, all the big powers have nukes so guess who wants one too?

its not hard to work out why. The most powerful nations in the world have nukes sitting there to vaporise a country at the press of a button. If you are diffrent from these nations and dont have one of these you will be frightend and want something to bring yo to their level so you will be listend to.

 

Weather they acually build a nuke may be another thing, depends what they get out of the war of politics first but only time will tell.

[NBVegita]

No, Iran is strategically not disclosing enough information to the IAEA, as outlined in my previous posts and in the most recent report, to clear themselves 100%, and now that they've delayed long enough to get "sanctioned" they can "justify" going for nuclear weapons. In an article I read on bbc I believe, they out right stated that if the U.N. tries to sanction them they will do their !@#$%^&*dest to get nuclear weapons and use them.

 

No one ever said Iran was not smart.

Edited March 27, 2007 by NBVegita

[Aileron]

I did. They may be socially backwards and bent on reinstating a Caliphate, but they actually are going about their goal in a very intelligent manner.

 

The North Koreans are the stupid ones. They think that if they get nukes all their problems will go away, though in reality they will all get worse.

 

Iran is smart though. They are seeking to use politics to get some allies, and they are somewhat successful in that goal, as they are creating that organization of Non-Aligned nations. I am unsure if they want nukes to use as a weapon or a bargaining chip, or more likely they want to keep their options open. However, what is certain is that they know exactly what they are doing...every move they make is cold and calculated, every statement controlled.

 

One needs to understand the difficulty of their situation. On one hand, they can't piss off all the world powers at once or they will get run over. However, on the other they have to gain support from a bunch of intolerant lunitics and thus have to have some sort of hostile posture.

 

 

Hmmm....this just occurred to me. Our problem in Iraq right now is that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting each other. Iran doesn't have Sunnis. If we did invade, the only backlash would be a normal political power vacuum type fighting, not the bitter thousand year old religious fighting. It would probably be a lot easier than Iraq has been, and infact the action would make the Iraq conflict easier as the Shi'ite lunatics would lose their funding. We should probably keep the option of taking them out if they get too mouthy open.

[AstroProdigy]

Iran does have Sunnis it's just they have a smaller Sunni group mainly confined to the Kurds. That being said an invasion of Iran will almost certainly create a situation with the Kurds similar to that of Iraq and further exacerbate Turkey. There is also a large Azerbaijani population that Turkey will most likely support in an attempt to quell Iran's Kurds and increase Turkish influence. There are a number of other smaller minorities including an Arab one in the oil rich southwest that might want to join with their Shiite Arab brothers in Iraq. It wouldn't be a religious conflict; it would be an ethnic one. I'd say the only responsible way to invade Iran would be to end our long time alliance with Turkey and cut both Iran and Iraq into pieces.

 

The most major reason why we can't just cut Iraq into pieces and end the violence is Turkey so in today's post Cold War world Turkey has become an obstacle not an ally. Why not just invade Turkey too? All we need to do is take out their armed forces and then the Kurds of Turkey will hold their independence on their own. Then we could divide up Iraq and Iran along ethnic lines and create a long overdue peace in the middle east.

Edited March 27, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Dav]

you seem to be missing that turkey as a nation desperatly wishes to westernise so it can join the EU. It has applied a few times now but been considerd too eastern.

 

Anywahy i think this is a seperate debate.

 

 

What does seem good with this issue is the US isnt just running out there with the string possibility of military action, could it have possibly leant from the mess of iraq?

 

Also what makes you think iran will use a nuke as soon as it gets one? You claim they have been inteligant but seeing as they will just have 10 come their way as soon as launch is detected i think its unlikly. I beleive they want one for the same reason all the other powers so, a deterant. I also think that they want the west to consider iran as a serious military power in the world, something the nations with nukes are labled.

[Aileron]

Pakistan and India aren't. Military might comes from economic might. The nations who are considered to have strong militaries are the ones with the strong economies to support them.

 

Iran doesn't want a deterrent. They don't need a deterrent. You need an enemy before you need something to deter said enemy. Such an enemy needs to be a bitter rival. Too weak and they aren't worth worrying about, too strong and deterrance is impossible. Also, it needs to be an actual enemy. Not some force that merely disagrees with you politically or a force that will oppose you if you start making grabs for power - I mean someone who's actively trying to defeat you.

 

For instance, most nuclear power developed nukes becuase of the Cold War. India and Pakistan developed nukes to deal with each other. And North Korea has pursued nukes because of South Korea (in theory...in practice the Koreas are pawns in a much larger game between the US and China.)

 

Iran doesn't have an enemy right now. Iraq used to be their enemy, but not any more. They have multiple political opponants, but no one they couldn't strike a deal with if they really wanted to.

 

Invade Turkey? WTH? There's no reason we shouldn't screw them over at our leasure, but we have no reason to invade them.

 

I know Iran has minorities. However, civil war between cultures can only occur if they are close enough to equal in number. Iran is dominated by Shi'ites enough that it isn't a possibility.

 

 

It is true that setting borders along cultural boundary lines has worked for Europe. That doesn't seem to be efficient for the Middle East however.

[AstroProdigy]

I've heard people say Turkey has been rejected because it's too eastern. That's not even it. Turkey would be admitted if it didn't continually perform illegal actions. They're becoming an obstacle to us in Iraq. The only reason we can't just divide up Iraq between the 3 groups is because Turkey doesn't want a free Kurdish state inciting their large Kurdish minority to want their freedom too.

 

Cultural borders didn't seem efficient for Europe either. It took many, many wars for it to happen. World War 1 and 2, the breeakup of Yugoslavia, the wars that brought the German states together, and many more. I'd say most of the deaths from war in Europe in modern times was because of messed up borders in Europe. The Kurds of all groups in the Middle East fought very hard to gain independence, but unfortunately our weapons sales to their oppressors has made it impossible without our intervention. Our greatest allies in the world are the people we saved which is what people don't seem to understand.

Edited March 28, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Izor]

ROFL this is the quality entertainment I have been wanting to see...sever must be from Iran or some other middle eastern country cause theres no way to think like this without being a !@#$%^&*-up somehow

[Aileron]

He's not Middle Eastern. Given multiple comments SeVeR has said over the years in regards to his opinion on foreign policy, religion, economics, and the government role in things, he follows the pattern of a theorhetical Marxist. Whether or not he identifies himself as such I do not know. I'm basing my opinion on "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck."

 

As such he despises US foreign policy. He sees capitalism as the cause of war and views US actions as capitalistic endeavors. As such he is looking for champions of an anti-US policy. It seems Iran is "opposing" the US, though it really amounts to diplomatic arguing at this point, so SeVeR likes Iran. In reality SeVeR's political viewpoints are at extreme odds with the typical Middle Eastern governmental opinion.

 

He can't recognize this, because every source other than the ones Iran controls he dismisses as capitalistic propaganda. Right now in his mind he uses the WMD arguement, that because we did not find WMDs in Iraq that all sources of western media are lying. It involves two faulty !@#$%^&*umptions, first off that the intelligence reports were not merely faulty but actual conspiracy and !@#$%^&*uming that, that the consipiracy is widespread enough to include all private media except that from the Middle East. Without the WMD debacle he would have a similar arguement right now, though it would have even more holes than this one.

 

The most interesting thing about SeVeR is that though he may not know it, there is only a razor thin difference between his current opinion and that of the most pro-Bush zealot you can find. All the difference is that he would need to see a source that he can believe tell him how nations like Iran truly function. The problem with that is the only source he would be willing to believe would be an anti-authoratative Iranian underground source, which doesn't exist in Iran because the country doesn't have free press.

 

 

If the typical Middle Easterner were posting here, he would pretty nuetral on these matters. On one hand, they don't like the idea of far away governments telling them what to do. On the other, the nearby governments that rule them now are at best corrupted by tribal influences and at worst those tribal influences are the government. There is a lot of hatred but not a true positive cause to support. Thus the political opinion of your typical Middle Easterner is very angry. There is anger that their countries are influenced heavily by foreigners, there is anger that their own governments can't do their jobs, but most of all there is anger that there is no third option. However, all that anger has no direction, no purpose it can be put to. Thus, most Middle Easterners are stuck with no opinion.

[SeVeR]

Thanks for the analysis Aileron.

 

I'll try and clear a few things up for you:

 

1. I'm anti-religious and thus despise Islam and the extreme version of Islam taken within Iran to curtail personal freedoms.

2. I would much rather live in America than Iran for this reason.

3. I recognise Iranian tolerance for the Jewish population in their country and am therefore at odds with the western media for portraying an anti-semitic view of the Iranians

4. I recognise Iranian anti-zionism... again something portrayed within the west as anti-semitic, furthering my disdain at what passes for news in our society.

5. I understand that Iran has never been proven to want anything other than nuclear power-plants. Coupling this with America's "dishonest" report (The UN's words, not mine) about Irans nuclear capabilities i'm becoming convinced of non-sincere motives on behalf of America.

6. I'm hardly a commie... i'm as greedy as they come, i ac!@#$%^&*ulate wealth and thank our capitalist system that allows the intelligent to take advantage of the stupid.

7. I believe in democracy and socialism, but can't stand the corruption of this system in America which has found it easy to corrupt all forms of government through socialist policies. This is heartbreaking, socialism can be the greatest form of civilisation and also the most susceptible to corruption on the most extreme scale.

8. The timescale of the Iraqi war to follow 9/11 and a desensitisation to violence following the invasion of afghanistan, the incorrect intelligence, and the further attempts at publicising incorrect intelligence are what leads me to believe the WMD statement was a lie rather than stupidity. This is a belief, not a fact. Whether it was a lie or a stupid mistake the consequence should have been the same - removal from office.

 

I hope that helps.

Edited March 31, 2007 by SeVeR

[Aileron]

Hey, all I'm saying is that I've read the Communist Manifesto and that you agree with most of the points in there.

 

I'd put the line that's between anti-zionism and anti-semitism at killing Jewish civilians for no other reason than that they are Jewish. By that standard I'd say they have crossed that line by funding Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

Still that is trivial. I'm not worried about Israel. They've proven to be able to take care of themselves. I'm worried about the world. Iran is the type of country that would actually use nukes if some lunatic clerical leader said it was the will of Allah. If I'm not mistaken, those positions are heredetary, so all the world would be waiting for is for some equivolent to Phillip II (el re!@#$%^&*ito) to be born and *poof*, the world is covered with radioactive fallout.

 

Some governments just can't be trusted to handle nuclear weapons responsibly. Ideally, no government can. That's why its difficult for new nations to join the "nuclear club". However, some really can't be trusted.

 

That being, said, I know according to them they only want nuclear power. If they were to show an act of good faith, perhaps by cutting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, it would help their cause. Until that time they are a country that's engaging in hostilities with an ally of the US and not too long ago laid siege to the US emb!@#$%^&*y. Under said cir!@#$%^&*stances the US can't afford to believe them.

[NBVegita]

Sever I don't understand how you are convinced when the IAEA is not convinced. If a new report came out tomorrow, from the IAEA, and it directly proved that Iran was going for peaceful nuclear gains then I would drop my point right there. But in the last report from the IAEA Iran is eluding giving information about its explosive missile reentry program, highly enriched uranium that they have found in tubes, and for such a smart country they seem to have no do!@#$%^&*entation about the traces of contaminated plutonium, which is commonly used in the advancement of nuclear weapons, and when asked bout it they said they don't have any information on it. And to quote again: "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme."

 

I could really care less about the politics involved, I want there to be concrete proof that they are not going for high level enrichment. Which if innocent they could easily provide. But instead they are "refusing to give into the demands of the west" and how they are proclaiming that they will advance towards getting nuclear weapons if the West keeps asking for proof.

 

So let me get this straight...there is an international mandate that a country enriching uranium has to prove the IAEA, by IAEA standards, that it is not for the advancement of weapons. The IAEA is not given enough information to prove Iran's intentions. Iran then turns around and says if you keep trying to make us prove our intentions we'll start making weapons. So we either have to assume that this country, who has been an "enemy" to the west and is actively funding the war in Iraq, that is also politically dodging an international mandate, which also threatened to try its hardest to make nuclear weapons if we try to force them into making their intentions transparent, is telling the complete truth about their nuclear program?

 

I'm just not that naive.

 

I'm sorry if asking for proof, which any single country developing nuclear advancements would have to provide, is asking too much for Iran.

Edited March 31, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Aileron: Communism removes an individual's ability to acquire power, its against everything i stand for...

 

Funding Hezbollah is not anti-semitic since Hezbollah is not an anti-semitic organisation. They attack Israel in the same way Israel attacks Lebanon. Is Israel anti-islamic? You can't have one without the other. If i remember correctly the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed by both sides was higher on the Hebollah side... meaning they were more efficient at taking out soldiers with minimal civilian casualties. Israels destruction of civilian infrastructure and their use of illegal cluster bombs doesn't say alot for their good intentions.

 

You say that some lunatic cleric leader could decide its the will of Allah to use nukes. I'm personally more worried about Bush using the terrorism argument to justify another war. Not to mention Israels tendency to use disproportionate force. By the way, Israel has nukes, and i don't see them as any less vicious than Hezbollah. This entire argument is irrelevent with no proof Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We might as well discuss what America would do with antimatter weapons.

 

NBV:

But in the last report from the IAEA Iran is eluding giving information about its explosive missile reentry program, highly enriched uranium that they have found in tubes, and for such a smart country they seem to have no do!@#$%^&*entation about the traces of contaminated plutonium, which is commonly used in the advancement of nuclear weapons

The last report i saw showed that Iran was co-operating with the IAEA (this is the one you lnked me too right?). As for what you've said... why the !@#$%^&* should Iran give the IAEA information about its missile programs?!?! That has nothing to do with developing nuclear power and is the equivalent of America giving the UN access to its top secret military bases. As for the highly enriched uranium, i don't know what you're getting at. Firstly they have declared their enriched uranium to the IAEA

 

(" Iran has continued to operate single machines, as well as the 10-, 24-and 164-machine cascades, at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), and to feed UF6 intermittently into these machines. Between 2 November 2006 and 17 February 2007, a total of approximately 66 kg of UF6 was declared by Iran as having been fed into the process and enriched to levels below 5% U-235. The environmental sample results thus far indicate a maximum enrichment of 4.2% U-235 in the first 164-machine cascade (GOV/2006/64, para. 4).")

 

Secondly, they have to enrich uranium to reactor grade quality... that's the whole point of building a nuclear reactor!

 

IAEA report:

5. The Agency has completed its evaluation of the physical inventory verification (PIV) of nuclear

material at PFEP carried out between 16 and 18 September 2006 (GOV/2006/64, para. 3), and has

concluded that the inventory of nuclear material, as declared by Iran, was consistent with the results of

the PIV.

 

As for "traces" of plutonium, i'd be wondering where they came from too. Could be anywhere..

Iran have admitted to the IAEA that they have plutonium. Additionally: "The IAEA report, widely quoted by news agencies, says there is no sign that Tehran has secretly been developing weapons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3259035.stm

 

"Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme."

This means Iran has not agreed to the use of remote sensing equipment. You can't just ask a country to allow the use of spy-cameras in their highly secure facilities... i'm sure the US would tell the IAEA to get stuffed aswell!

 

I'm sorry if asking for proof, which any single country developing nuclear advancements would have to provide, is asking too much for Iran.

i'm sorry but Iran has given proof, the IAEA has said there is no evidence of weapons development, and the only thing Iran refuses to do is to have spy-cameras put in their secure government lab.

 

The United States has produced a dishonest report about Iran's capabilities. This means they have lied to incriminate Iran... does that point seem to slip from your minds? Do you remember how Iraq suddenly hit the news out of nowhere... WMDs this, evil dictator that. Then all of a sudden we invade and it turns out there were no WMDs. Lets remember that the US defied the UN to go into Iraq. So they make faulty intelligence, bombard the public to get support in the wake of 9/11 anger, defy the UN, and invade a country that is of no threat to America. Does that strike you as wrong? Now look at Iran, we are being bombarded with anti-Iranian news, there has been faulty intelligence (thankfully brought to light before an invasion could take place, its interesting to note that this came up around the time military force was being suggested), its happening all over again and the !@#$%^&*ing idiots who listen to the bull!@#$%^&* spewed out by agencies like Fox News are lapping it up and letting it happen.

Edited April 1, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

Of course there is no proof that Iran is creating the weapons. They aren't showing them their missile technology and now they're keeping secrets about their nuclear material supposedly because of sanctions!

 

It's much easier to create the system for the nuclear material to be put into than the nuclear material. All they need to do is keep secret a few kew parts of their nuclear enrichment that NBVegita has clearly proven from the fact that they don't.

 

So let's summarize the events.

1) Iran is developing the nuclear material and now using sanctions as an excuse to keep secrets to say develop the nuclear material further to the point that it can be used for nuclear weapons.

2) Iran is keeping secret its missile systems that could be used to send said nuclear material and saying why should they tell the world about their missile programs?

3) As soon as both the nuclear material and missile systems are developed all Iran has to do is put them together and then they have nuclear weapons. Oops they actually would have nuclear weapons then, but it's ok because it's their right since the United States and Israel have nuclear weapons.

 

Sounds to me like Iran is stalling while it has time to make nukes, but hey they oppose Israel and have a tiny minority of Jews in the country that are discriminated against, but give a single token and completely worthless representation to in their completely worthless parliament so it's ok. Sounds logical.

 

I know some Persian Jews and I bet they would laugh at what you think they believe. Of course they're proud of their Persian heritage. It doesn't mean doodly squat about the extreme oppressive dictatorship in Iran. You cite a single article as absolute proof of some extreme view of how Jews are treated in Iran and assume that it means the psychopaths who rule Iran with an iron fist love the Jews! You're grasping at some tiny straws there.

[Aileron]

I'd like to respond to your comments on Hezbollah. First off, for a very long time, Israel was doing absolutely nothing to Lebanon, and Hezbollah decided out of the blue to start rocketing Israel.

 

More importantly, let's discuss those civilian casualties. To my knowledge, Hezbollah has approximately 1000 full-time soldiers and about 10000 persons "on-call". Those "on-call" people are volunteers who normally have regular jobs Point being 99% of Hezbollah members have day jobs.

 

Secondly, you have to understand the tactics they use. These tactics are the same for Hamas, Hezbollah, and half the insurgents in Iraq, because Iran is training all of them. They like to set up fixed positions at which they store weapons and ammunition. They use the weapons at that direct location. If that location is about to be overrun, the terrorist leaves the weapons there, and will advance to the next position unarmed. This is done so that the terrorist can travel quickly without having to carry weapons and ammunition. Hezbollah's large scale strategy is similar. They have strongholds which they fight from, and when they lose a stronghold, they send their people to the next one using unarmed light vehicles.

 

The side effect of this tactic is that it blurs the line between soldier and civilian. The same Hezbollah member could one minute be a soldier fighting at one cache, then drop his weapons and move to the fallback position, at which point he will pick up another weapon and continue fighting. The thing is, while he is travelling he is considered in the eyes of international law to be a civilian, because he is unarmed and fleeing the fighting.

 

Similarly, there could be a Hezbollah stronghold that was about to fall to the Israelis, so the soldiers evacuate to a rally point by truck. Israeli intelligence tracks the trucks, which are bombed en route. The UN shows up and observes the damage to find civilian vehicles travelling north away from the fighting, with a bunch of unarmed men inside who are wearing civilian clothes. A background check reveals that 99% of them have day jobs and familys and all that. Thus, they come to the conclusion that Israel screwed up the intel and bombed a civilian target when in reality they were correct and bombed a military target.

 

War isn't nice and clear-cut...its usually confusing, especially when one side wants to add to the confusion by pretending to be a civilian. Under Geneva a soldier dressed as a civilian is considered a spy and the opposing side is not bound to give a spy any mercy. Thus, I wouldn't blame Israel for that civilian death toll to be high....Hezbollah engineered it that way.

[NBVegita]

Sever I'm too tired tonight to go through that whole post, but maybe you and I have different ideas of what the English language means.

 

"Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme."

 

Not:

1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.

 

Agreed:

2. to give consent; !@#$%^&*ent (often fol. by to): He agreed to accompany the amb!@#$%^&*ador. Do you agree to the conditions?

 

Required:

1. to have need of; need: He requires medical care.

2. to call on authoritatively; order or enjoin to do something: to require an agent to account for money spent.

3. to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand.

4. to impose need or occasion for; make necessary or indispensable: The work required infinite patience.

5. to call for or exact as obligatory; ordain: The law requires annual income-tax returns.

6. to place under an obligation or necessity: The situation requires me to take immediate action.

 

Transparent:

4. easily seen through, recognized, or detected: transparent excuses.

5. manifest; obvious: a story with a transparent plot.

6. open; frank; candid: the man's transparent earnestness.

 

Essential:

1. absolutely necessary; indispensable: Discipline is essential in an army.

2. pertaining to or cons!@#$%^&*uting the essence of a thing.

 

Clarification:

1. to make (an idea, statement, etc.) clear or intelligible; to free from ambiguity.

4. to become clear, pure, or intelligible: The political situation clarified.

 

Aspect:

1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country.

2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation.

3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision.

 

Scope:

1. extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.: an investigation of wide scope.

5. aim or purpose.

 

Nature:

8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or cons!@#$%^&*ution; native or inherent character: human nature.

10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.

11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.

 

Which coming from the most recent official published IAEA report concerning Iran and its Nuclear Program, it doesn't quite sound to me, unless I am just misinterpreting the English language as a whole, that Iran has given them the "proof" they need.

 

Also a quote out of your article:

"However," it added, "given Iran's past pattern of concealment, it will take some time before the agency is able to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

 

And Sever...lol did you happen to notice the date on that article?

 

" Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 November, 2003, 10:48 GMT "

 

"Iranian state radio described remarks by US Secretary of State Colin Powell as "extremely offensive"."

 

That Colin Powell was still the Secretary of State should have been a good indication that your article is a bit out dated.

[SeVeR]

AstroProdigy: For the last time i'm going to ask you to prove this statement:

have a tiny minority of Jews in the country that are discriminated against

You cite a single article as absolute proof of some extreme view of how Jews are treated in Iran and assume that it means the psychopaths who rule Iran with an iron fist love the Jews! You're grasping at some tiny straws there.

Ok Astro, i'll tell you why Iranians respect Jews... it's because the supreme religious leader responsible for the Iranian revolution told them too!

 

"...the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected. As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament. "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says Mr Hammami."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm

 

Some psychopath...

Iranians are not anti-semitic, they're anti-zionist, which means they hate Israel. I too hate Israel but have nothing against someone for being a Jew. The problem is Zionists want the public to confuse anti-zionists with racists for obvious reasons. Iran bears the brunt of this. The fact is Jews are treated equally and Iran has the largest population in the Middle East other than Israel.

 

Oh and here's why they can't make nukes... although you probably think the supreme leader of Iran would lie... since Muslims are deceptive and don't have any integrity... since Allah allows that sort of thing. [/sarcasm] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

1) Iran is developing the nuclear material and now using sanctions as an excuse to keep secrets to say develop the nuclear material further to the point that it can be used for nuclear weapons.

2) Iran is keeping secret its missile systems that could be used to send said nuclear material and saying why should they tell the world about their missile programs?

3) As soon as both the nuclear material and missile systems are developed all Iran has to do is put them together and then they have nuclear weapons. Oops they actually would have nuclear weapons then, but it's ok because it's their right since the United States and Israel have nuclear weapons.

 

1. Iran were co-operating but have been punished due to the UN appeasing the American's anti-Iranian policy. This has pushed Iran further away from the negotiating table.

2. Why on Earth should Iran give their military secrets to the UN? This has nothing to do with generating nuclear power. No country would give away their military secrets.. especially not the US.

3. The way i see it, Iran would still be co-operating with the IAEA had the US not imposed sanctions, so exactly what do they have to hide? As for missile technology you're crazy to think any country would open up its military to the UN... this is an open door for America to gain military intelligence for their next potential war.

Edited April 2, 2007 by SeVeR