Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Or perhaps the U.S. government is lying to make it appear that way......

Frankly, at this point, if they got on the news right now and told us that Chinese nuclear missiles were headed our way I wouldn't believe a word they say. The government has lost credibility with most of the world (including most Americans now).

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Anyhow, them weapons are getting in from Iran which is the main point here no matter how you want to deny. It's all coming out...

I am only referring you back to the words of the article you selected. It doesn't support what you claim.
This isn't the first time you fail to substantiate your 'opinion'.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's all coming out..

yes it is....and the sooner the better.

in an attempt to distract from the failure in iraq, an anonymous, civilian pentagon employee held a briefing in baghdad claiming iranian govt. involvement. i'd love to know who that civilian is, and whether or not he is connected to cheney's office.

even if the 170 figure is accurate, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of US military killed by sunnis.

the neo-cons and their hapless flunkies are hell bent on attacking iran....just like they were regarding iraq in 2002. the only question is whether or not they can be stopped this time.

A week ago, anonymous U.S. briefers in Baghdad gave reporters a PowerPoint show that included photos of what were alleged to be high-tech Iranian munitions supplied by the Quds Force, including the so-called explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) that are blasting through U.S. armor and killing American troops. One briefer, an analyst identified only by his first name, argued that the Quds Force “really report directly to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” As a result, the analyst concluded, “the activities that the IRGC Quds Force are conducting in Iraq, we assess, are coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government.” That line was echoed by White House spokesman Tony Snow, who said: “The Quds Force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government and, as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions.”But the White House began to shrink from directly implicating Tehran early this week, after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace seemed to disavow the Baghdad briefer’s comments. “It is clear that materials from Iran are involved,” Pace told reporters. “But I would not say, based on what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.” In his news conference Wednesday, the president appeared to side with Pace’s view.
U.S. officials now say the anonymous Baghdad analyst may have made one inference too many. It is true that the Quds Force is supposed to be under the supervision of Khamenei, who approves their overall strategy together with Rahim Safavi, the commander of the IRGC. But because Khamenei is not a military official, he’s not thought to be apprised of every operation.

But the documentation remains scant. And considerable doubts continue to surface about the intelligence presented at the Baghdad slide show, including the fact that the writing on the conventional weapons displayed was in English, not Farsi. U.N. Ambassador Zarif also says that the date markings are American-style—that is, the month comes first. “There is every reason to believe that this evidence is fabricated,” he said. U.S. officials say the weapons were apparently built for the international market. Asked why the writing on the weapons allegedly made in Iran was in English, one U.S. intelligence official responded: “That’s a very good question.” It is one of many questions about the Quds Force that has yet to be answered.

Inside the Quds Force: America's New Enemy? - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

It's clear whackjob wants to be the regional puppetmaster; he has the money, oil for leverage, location and terrain as insurmountable obstacles to invasion, let's not forget regional fanaticism, and is surrounded by illiterate nobodies many of whom are holding the fort against the infidel onslaught.

Best if he's culled before his rhetoric is allowed to evolve into a live threat, and better still if his own people do the honours.

The destruction of Iraq has dealt the trump cards to Iran, and Iran will benefit from whatever 'solution' will manifest itself, simply because of the Shiite majority who support and follow the Ajatollahs.
I doubt any outside force can turn the tide. There seems to be growing opposition to the present regime in Iran, but I wouldn't put my bets on anything changing soon.

Fwiw, my view all along has been that despite the huffing and puffing ultimately only the Islamic nations themselves can do anything about the spread of Islamic terror/fundamentalism, with the West (US) out of the main picture but in support with intel, technology, logistics, political weight and whatever else is deemed necessary; these are details which can be worked on only after the unlikely principle is instituted. One reason for this, as seen, is that the West has neither the stomach nor the means within it's self-imposed value constraints to succeed against a relentless religious fanaticism the likes of which has not been witnessed in known history, and which is real rather than wild ramblings that some prefer to discount, and it is clearly not going to be overcome by reason or conventional negotiation. Whilst we balk at Abu Ghraib, far greater crimes are routinely discharged against their own people by Islamic leaders themselves; the clue here is intransigent ignorance that allows the masses to be deluded into suffering at Islamic hands rather than accept the risk of freedoms by the infidel.

Naturally, as with most solutions of our day, this involves the realistic impossibility of installing the right type of people on both sides (West and troublesome nations), and with a mindset more attuned to what is needed rather than money and power and votes. The resources are available, as is the will, just a bit loose in the ministry of ideas, though it helps none, as an example, for a leader like Musharraf to state that he wouldn't envy any Islamic leader who captures or kills ObL.

So yes it can be done, and no it cannot within the framework of current global political/religious beliefs. One thing for sure, something needs to crack if we are to preserve and hopefully learn from to further improve the finer qualities of democracy.

Abandoning Western 'self-imposed' values would mean to step down to the level of what 'we' are fighting against and the West would lose the only moral justification for meddling over there in the first place.

I don't think the fanaticism is unique in history, what is unique, perhaps, is that it's addressed at Western mainstream culture and this is arguably a result of interference in the region, brought to a peak by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the aftermath.
Point: when and how did the Taliban's and Al Quaeda's attention turn to the West?

And frankly, invading Iraq was like poking a stick in a hornet's nest, not a wise thing to do...weren't the history of the region and the sectarian animosities known beforehand?

Is the U.S. now taking the place of the U.S.S.R. as the most hated, feared empire on the planet? All because a few skyscrapers fell down?

If we don't want them coming here to terrorize us perhaps we ought to keep out of their areas. Non-intervention worked well for all the conservatives before 9-11. It was always the left that got us into the big messes.

What message are we really sending?

Originally Posted by surasak

If we don't want them coming here to terrorize us perhaps we ought to keep out of their areas. What message are we really sending?

We're not self-sufficient in oil...yet.

We could be....but we refuse to be self-sufficient. There was a time that we were able to meet our own demand.

Originally Posted by raycarey

And considerable doubts continue to surface about the intelligence presented at the Baghdad slide show, including the fact that the writing on the conventional weapons displayed was in English, not Farsi. U.N. Ambassador Zarif also says that the date markings are American-style—that is, the month comes first. “There is every reason to believe that this evidence is fabricated,” he said. U.S. officials say the weapons were apparently built for the international market. Asked why the writing on the weapons allegedly made in Iran was in English, one U.S. intelligence official responded: “That’s a very good question.”

Inside the Quds Force: America's New Enemy? - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

well, do any of our cyber warriors have a reponse?

thought not.

Wonder what are the chances Israelis have gone into Iraq to fabricate this mess in order to get us to attack Iran?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by surasak

If we don't want them coming here to terrorize us perhaps we ought to keep out of their areas. What message are we really sending?

We're not self-sufficient in oil...yet.

Since we now agree about the reason why US is invading ME countries , maybe we could then bring up the discussion to the next level..
Do you have any opinion about morality of US behavior ?

The morality of consume, consume, consume; like a cancer of the planet?

Originally Posted by surasak

Wonder what are the chances Israelis have gone into Iraq to fabricate this mess in order to get us to attack Iran?

I doubt very much that Israel needed to fuel any flames in Iraq of all places, but either way they're guilty of some involvement that we don't know about so let's fock them off anyway.

Also, can't see 'us' attacking Iran; Israel will, at hopefully the right time and with the best available intel, hardware, logistics, political support and whatever else is required, just as they did at Osirak and elsewhere.

Then they will be roundly condemned, though it may be that being despised by most of the world desensitises one to the certainty of condemnation, regardless.

I was referring to the possibility of Mossad planting weapons caches to make the Iranians look guilty so that the U.S. would use it as justification to attack Iran.

I wonder what the Middle East would be like if Israel were not a state.

^^
Another way of saying this is: Israel hasn't given a hoot about UN resolutions or world opinion before, why would one expect this to change now?

Originally Posted by surasak

I wonder what the Middle East would be like if Israel were not a state.

Wonder what the ME would be like if Carter had some balls and gone into Iran and rescued the hostages before making America look like a fool...

Originally Posted by surasak

I was referring to the possibility of Mossad planting weapons caches to make the Iranians look guilty so that the U.S. would use it as justification to attack Iran.

I think it's fairly safe to say the US won't attack Iran, though they'll certainly be in the shadows when Israel does. But who knows, it may be put on the back burner when the Iranians themselves decide to off the whackjob; stranger things have happened.

I wonder what the Middle East would be like if Israel were not a state.

Me too, but only on bad hair days.

Originally Posted by stroller

^^
Another way of saying this is: Israel hasn't given a hoot about UN resolutions or world opinion before, why would one expect this to change now?

Why indeed? As some South American generalisimo said when asked why his people keep disappearing, "if they don't disappear, I will disappear."

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Wonder what the ME would be like if Carter had some balls and gone into Iran and rescued the hostages

he did send in the military, but they failed.

i wonder what the ME would look like if reagan had some balls and retaliated for the beirut bombing that killed over 200 marines.

but hey, that's water (or blood) under the bridge.

why isn't anyone talking about those alleged iranian weapons that they were so breathlessly referring to last week?