Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

**keda** · 12-11-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Mr Carey, that's what the military is for -- in every nation.

Military is diplomacy by other means. Aren't you aware of this?

We live in a violent age. Newspapers and the Internet are full of reports from all regions of the world. Every week thousands perish in wars of national liberation and other confilicts.

I've never experienced true war. Have you? Nations that the US have fought are now part of alliances that are recognized worldwide.

Put it in perspective ... it's a blip on the world "war scene." It happens to occur during your lifetime, so you claim catastrophe. Take all the critera of major wars in the past five centuries, this is a no more than a middleschool bitchfight. It's not the end of the world. It's not the end of a nation. Lighten up. Heads of state will move on. Bush is gone . Who cares. Maybe Iraq will advance to what the west considers normalcy. Maybe they wont. Just don't get why you seem to make a career of predicting the worst.

But much more fun for the nutters to run around yelling, "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING, AND ALL BECAUSE OF THE NASTY AMERICANS..."

**raycarey** · 12-11-2007, 02:39 PM

many on this thread are repeatedly calling for an attack on iran, yet no one has cited any evidence that they are building nuclear weapons. hasn't anything been learned from the fiasco in iraq?

furthermore, some might cite the fact that high ranking members of the iranian govt have repeatedly made provocative statements about its nuclear program. however, if these same posters were to take a moment and look at a map of the ME, they'd see that the US military is occupying two of its borders. one of the few cards iran has to play is the nuclear one. are conventional weapons going the stop the US military from crossing the border into iran? or any border for that matter? iran is exaggerating its nuclear program because its scared like anyone/thing backed into a corner.

and as far as the 'intelligence' regarding the nuclear program in iran is concerned, i'd for one would like to know where the US is getting this intelligence. is it from the likes of 'curveball', the character who COMPLETELY lied about iraq's WMD program so that he could get a 'green card' in germany?

hasn't the GWB administration proved itself unreliable and incompetent in the skill of analyzing intelligence? at the very least, shouldn't they be barred from launching any sort of military operation that is based on intelligence? shouldn't they have the humility to admit that they really arent up to the job? particularly considering that no one credible (that's right, NO ONE) says that iran will have nuclear weapons before jan '09 when GWB leaves office.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Military is diplomacy by other means.

this is precisely the type of 'cowboy', devil may care nonsense that got the US stuck in iraq.

there hasn't been any diplomacy between the US and iran in nearly 30 years. setting up preconditions for talks is not diplomacy. sure, put everything on the table...including iran's nuclear program....but to say that iran has to abandon its program before talks can take place is not diplomacy....quite the opposite in fact.

Originally Posted by A Traveller

The most recent NIE re Iran, has been delayed by almost a year, with the conclusion that the administration is unhappy with the NIE. In other words it is not supportive of the policy re Iran on both nuclear weapons nor that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

great point!

it would be interesting to hear the hawks on this thread offer up an explaination for why the white house (i.e. cheney's office) won't release the NIE with regard to iran....but i'm not holding my breath.

and with regard to iran smuggling weapons into iraq, this may very well be true...and if so, it's unfortunate and it should have been expected.
but i'd like to know which bombs are killing more US soldiers and innocent iraqis....the ones smuggled in from iran, or the ones made from the munitions dumps that weren't guarded or destroyed back in 2003-4?

**keda** · 13-11-2007, 10:19 AM

Speak up...!

**raycarey** · 13-11-2007, 10:52 AM

poor keda.
unable to make a substantive reply to anything that doesn't align with his rabid islamophobia.

**keda** · 13-11-2007, 11:54 AM

Try again...!

**Boon Mee** · 15-11-2007, 11:12 PM

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows."

Well, those B2 bombers in Missouri are just sittin’ there – let’s roll, eh?

**barbaro** · 16-11-2007, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows."

Well, those B2 bombers in Missouri are just sittin’ there – let’s roll, eh?

And as we know....the majority of Americans are uniformed (according to valid studies). Ignorant politically, geographically, econonically, culturally, militarily, etc.

If the US want to attack (which they will NOT) it will be a big mistake.

There will be 4 players involved.

The US has already shelved its plans for an air strike, which is all it could have ever done.

It's over bud. Iran will not be attacked.

**Boon Mee** · 16-11-2007, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's over bud. Iran will not be attacked.

I wouldn't bet my next visa on that. If not by the US, Israel will for sure and they don't fok around. Recall the nuke plant that just went down the shitter in Syria? The one we don't hear too much about?

**barbaro** · 16-11-2007, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's over bud. Iran will not be attacked.

I wouldn't bet my next visa on that. If not by the US, Israel will for sure and they don't fok around. Recall the nuke plant that just went down the shitter in Syria? The one we don't hear too much about?

I agree with you on this, Boon.

IMO, Israel will sit NOT back and chill out. - They cannot afford to.

Here is an article. Good or not, I don't know. You and the others decide:

Israel is preparing for the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the Reuters news agency reported Thursday.

According to the report, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has instructed his ministers to draft proposals on how to cope with a nuclear Iran.
The report was later denied by a senior Prime Minister's Office official, Israel Radio reported.

The agency quoted a source close to Olmert as saying there were "long-term ramifications to be addressed, like how to maintain our deterrent and military response capabilities, or how to off-set the attrition on Israeli society that would be generated by fear of Iranian nukes.

Link: Israel preparing for nuclear Teheran | Jerusalem Post

**sabang** · 16-11-2007, 05:46 AM

A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world, neither anything like it.
Neither is a nuclear Pakistan, India, N Korea or for that matter Israel.

**Boon Mee** · 16-11-2007, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

A nuclear Iran is not the end of the world, neither anything like it.
Neither is a nuclear Pakistan, India, N Korea or for that matter Israel.

A nuclear Iran will be the end of Israel's world and once some of those mad mullahs sell off a few suitcase nukes to terrorists...bye, bye western Europe...

**sabang** · 16-11-2007, 06:26 AM

^ Wrong again, but we're going round in circles.
Israels long term security is best assured by a positive outcome at the Annapolis summit.
Iran, if it actually goes nuclear armed which is highly questionable anyway, will be such a puny nuclear power that they will only of deterrent value- I doubt the nation has a suicide wish.
The end of the world is not nigh booner and the 'politics of fear' are sold only to the weak.

**Clockwork Orange** · 16-11-2007, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

The end of the world is not nigh booner and the 'politics of fear' are sold only to the weak

I hope you are right, Sabang.

I don't fancy any country's leader - with a belief that suicide murders lead to heaven - having the ability to fire a nuke.

It only takes one country to launch & they all will.

**sabang** · 16-11-2007, 07:22 AM

^ Sure, right back at the country that fired the first one!

And, contrary to popular opinion, Terrorists cannot carry nuclear devices in suitcases.

**keda** · 16-11-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Wrong again, but we're going round in circles.
Israels long term security is best assured by a positive outcome at the Annapolis summit.
Iran, if it actually goes nuclear armed which is highly questionable anyway, will be such a puny nuclear power that they will only of deterrent value- I doubt the nation has a suicide wish.
The end of the world is not nigh booner and the 'politics of fear' are sold only to the weak.

Have not been following the Annapolis scam but that's smoke and mirrors anyway, by two camps that each know the value of a promise by one.

As to Iran being a 'puny' nuclear power, I'm surprised at that coming from a normally controversial but intelligent poster. What is a 'puny' nuclear weapon...is it one that when set off in Picadilly Circus will go by unnoticed, does it kill only midgets, or is it so puny that the global Jihad wouldn't bother setting it off in capital cities of the world?

Do explain, because Google could do with an education.

The end of the world is not nigh booner and the 'politics of fear' are sold only to the weak.

That's true because the deletion of even something like London and or New York would not signal the end of the world, but it helps does it not, if we take collective steps to prevent WMD from falling into hands commanded by puny minds filled with delusions of religious grandeur?

Or has complacency so numbed you into believing all is fine at the farm because the world can survive without London, that you are prepared to chance it as a reality? Reminds me in a roundabout fashion of proof that an insect's ears are attached to it's legs, because if you train it to jump on command then pull its legs off and command it to jump, it won't.

**keda** · 16-11-2007, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Sure, right back at the country that fired the first one!

And, contrary to popular opinion, Terrorists cannot carry nuclear devices in suitcases.

Crikey, so when Iran fires off its available nukes, hopefully to destroy Israel and then wherever else in the free world in line with Allah the Brightest and most Merciful and Compassionate's command, the event triggers a Western response which fulfills the same rabid god's will to rewind Iran a few centuries....talk about killing two birds with one stone....gosh he must be a real clever god, one for the brainless to follow and others to run the fvck away from.

**sabang** · 16-11-2007, 10:37 AM

Well lets just make a few bullet points, 'cus like a lot of Issues this one just carries on in circles-

1- Iran has no territorial ambitions, and does not occupy other countries. Truth be told, the US should've let them depose Saddam when they had the chance, but that was then.

2-Iran is offering to work with the IAEA under full scrutiny. This means all fissile material accounted for, down to and including duct filters.

3-Assuming they still developed nukes unnoticed (an almost fantastic supposition) they are many years away yet, and there would be very few of them. That plutonium does not exactly grow in the desert, neither can you mix it up with a big blender.

4-Iran has the largest Jewish population of any ME country save Israel. They are unpersecuted, happy there, and even have a seat in Parliament- as do the Zoroastrians. It is not the nest of fierce jihadists you are being sold. In fact, as Shiites, they hate Jihadists.

5-Iran has extremely sound economic reasons to develop nuclear energy, extremely. They also had a research reactor in the Shahs time- it is not a primitive country.

6- Israel has one of the most sophisticated missile defence systems in the world, and it is getting better. Assisted no doubt by the fact it is a small country. No conventionally fired nuke would make it to its borders, and the response would be swift and united. Just a reminder- you can't carry a nuke in a suitcase.

7- The widely touted quote of Whackjob about the destruction of Israel was so mistranslated it rather gave away the agenda of the translating agencies. He was bollocked in Parliament for it anyway, not least by the Jewish MP, and backtracked. Predictably, this was hardly reported in the West- as the same Jewish Iranian MP pointed out.

8- Whackjob is overhyped anyway. He does not have real power, and will be out of office before Iran even gets nuclear power, nevermind nukes.

9- I'll not even bother repeating the reasons why a missile strike would be ineffective and economically and politically catastrophic. Nothing to be gained, unless you sell weapons, short the Dow or buy oil futures.

So I'll just sit here and smell the roses. There are enough insecure and paranoid people in the West- they don't need my help. To them I would just say 'Hey, we got the Bombs'.

**blackgang** · 16-11-2007, 02:02 PM

Have you seen this??

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISISIssueBriefIran15Nov2007.pdf

**AntRobertson** · 16-11-2007, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

8- Whackjob is overhyped anyway. He does not have real power, and will be out of office before Iran even gets nuclear power, nevermind nukes.

This point, seemingly no matter how often it is highlighted, is always lost on some people for reasons that I can only guess at.

But as sure as night follows day someone will misrepresent/mistate his importance and influence in the grand scheme of things.

**sabang** · 16-11-2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Have you seen this??

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISISIssueBriefIran15Nov2007.pdf

Good reference actually bg. They refer though to the fact that Iran needs to observe an 'additional protocol' which is not spelled out in the document. I'll try and check what this is.
Other than that, the IAEA reports that Iran's centrifuges continue to produce about 22 kg of low grade enriched uranium per month (no panic there), in spite of UN Security council demands they stop. Well no news there, and we all know who the Security Council is.

Because of the stand off, the IAEA's knowledge is actually becoming less, they say. I think that this is where this brinkmanship game is not really serving our purpose- to me it's best to be in there observing proceedings.

**blackgang** · 16-11-2007, 08:00 PM

Fuk yes you have to watch the fukers,, damn, like turning a bunch of miners loose at the sluice boxes when you are running hi-grade muck

You never know what they are packing off..

**raycarey** · 04-12-2007, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Ahmadinejad Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

ummmm.......no he doesn't. because he doesn't have them....and his country stopped trying to get them back in 2003...three years before you started this thread.

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work - New York Times

this is a clear slap down of the neo-cons by US intelligence agencies.

cheney's office must be livid....they had such big plans for starting another war.

**Boon Mee** · 04-12-2007, 06:16 PM

^
Well, let's look at what exactly happened in '03 to persuade Iran from their nuke program shall we? And, the events that have followed.
Saddam getting topped seems to have been a powerful incentive to postpone their WMD program but anyone care to bet that little nuke bomb factory getting snuffed in the Syrian desert isn't a portent of things to come?

**Sir Burr** · 04-12-2007, 06:30 PM

Hmmmm......seems the US Intelligence agencies have now done an about face. They say that Iran gave up it's military nuclear program in 2003.

Seems the US was wrong again through faulty intelligence.

**chinthee** · 04-12-2007, 07:43 PM

^This seems to me to be perhaps a big propaganda move. The premise of invading Iran has lost its legs, and this is a way to back out saving face maybe.

Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions