Will "change" come to Iran? Not likely. The leaders want to effect "change" in the entire world, beginning with the anniliation of Israel.

Iran's Winds of Change
By Iason Athanasiadis, Boston Globe
February 14, 2008

Ten months after moving to Boston from Iran, I returned in January to a snow-blanketed Tehran. After a nine-month crackdown on what Iran's moral guardians call un-Islamic dressing, the city had gone back to looking remarkably like its representations in the just-released film "Persepolis," a movie set in the repressive post-Revolutionary years of the early '80s.

The moral crackdown sweeping through Iran's largest cities denuded public spaces of eye-catchingly dressed people and created cityscapes that evoke the drab, alienated figures populating Tehran's streets in Marjane Satrapi's film.

for full article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nds_of_change/

__________________
"In war, there is no alternative but to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. There is no substitute for victory. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." General Douglas MacArthur

“Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.” Jean-Francois Revel

Well, trying to scare the american people with exaggerated and false stories about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and a non-existant alliance between Iran and Bin Ladin didn't work, so I suppose fear mongering about dress codes is what were left with.

Iran's leaders are nutty theocrats. And they need to be confronted and pressured on a range of issues. But, until you can demonstrate some grave threat to america - other than stupid dress codes - I'm afraid I'm not going to piss my pants in fear. The dress codes and treatment of women in our good "ally" Saudi Arabia is more conservative and theocratic, than in Iran.

You would be defending Iran even after they detonated a nuke I suspect. Well at least until a Liberal is in Office, then what ever THEY say will be good enough for you.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Learn to read:

Until you give me some evidence that we need to bomb iran, or be pissing our pants in fear, I refuse to be afraid like a little girl, like you are about iran.

None of us are pissing in our pants retard. AND we want action taken, you claim you want it and then want to remove a set of options from play that may be needed.

We have heard now for 3 years how Bush was gonna invade Iran, Bush was gonna bomb Iran..... he is running out of time and I doubt Congress would give him permission so your ignorant fear mongering that an invasion is just around the corner would be funny if not so stupid.

In fact , correct me if I am wrong, but ALL Bush has done is try diplomatic solutions to the problem. And as I recall he was roundly attacked by Liberal Democrats for being soft on Iran and North Korea. While decrying our invasion of Iraq the same people were demanding military options on North Korea and Iran just a few years ago. Demanding to know why Bush was only using diplomacy on those two nations.

In fact as I recall Bush allowed Europe the lead in dealing with Iran. And was roundly attacked by those same liberals for THAT as well.

Get back to me when we invade.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran. And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.

You yourself have made false claims, for many months, that iran has a nuclear weapons program and questioned the sanity of anyone who asked you for proof. You turned out to be wrong, and never admitted you were wrong.

I'm glad you've come over to my side of the aisle: that the way to go is inspections and diplomacy, in the absence of any evidence of an imminent threat.

There is no evidence that Iran has stopped its quest for Nuclear weapons. In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing. And my proof has always been intelligence from other sources since I have no first hand knowledge.

But do again get back to me when we INVADE Iran.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Allowed Europe the lead?? Allowed? lol... He had no choice because he totally ruined his ability to conduct diplomacy because of his past rhetoric and actions. As you recall, Ahmadinejad also blew him off and humiliated him.

But we've blocked that out, eh?

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing.


Link me up with an official unclassified French intelligence service document, that says Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program; not some stump speech statement from a french politician.

I've given you the unclassified report link from sixteen american intelligence agencies plus the report from the world's foremost international nuclear weapons authorities - the IEAE - that says Iraq does not have an active nuclear weapons program, and there's no evidence of one.

I am with RGS on this one. Iran could acquire a deliverable nuke in the next 2-3 years. There is also a strong unconfirmed link that Pyongyang gave Iran the design of the Nodong missile. Iran also recently tested a space rocket. Hell..They have reached this far..How long will it take to fix a warhead onto that rocket?

Frankly , I don't see any other option of Washington dealing with the Iranian threat other then invading/taking down their reactor and setting them back by a decade. It sounds ugly but that's the truth.

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy,the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon.
--Comedian Chris Rock

Crickets chirpping......

I have no problem using diplomacy and sanctions on Iran. But I'm also convinced that they are going to do something that will make an attack and forced regime change absolutely necessary at some time within the next five years or so. While there are many terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, there are only two nation-states providing support for them, Iran and Syria. Both are going to have to go at some time. Either via revolution from within or them doing something stupid to bring on attack from outside.

Here is the facts you make your own conclusions.

12/13/2002
CNN Splashes 5 commercial satellite photo of Iranian nuclear facility and cites U.S. spy satellite photos that reveal the site is more than it seems. IAEA demands Iran reveal the purpose of their nuclear facilities, Iran denies existence.

2/9/2003
Iran finally reveals the existence of their nuclear sites and invites in IAEA, and the follow up report from the IAEA demands more details, clearly indicating the IAEA has found the evidence that traces of weapons grade material has beeJune 2004
All media outlets report on the ElBadarai (IAEA chairman) report 10 that cites Iran may already have all the ingredients to test a nuclear weapon. Traces of weapons grade material continue to be found and the possible sites for weapons grade material manufacture continue to be overly busy. n found. Iran refuses.

July 2004
Iranian scientists attempting to buy deuterium gas
AP reports U.N. diplomats have reported that Iran is attempting to buy deuterium gas, a substance that is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons.

March 2005
Iran Admits Nuclear Facility is Underground
The admission concerns the Natanz facilities and includes centrifures which are used to process uranium byNovember 2006
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will have "completed its fuel cycle" by February-March of 2007, and brags about bringing thousands of centrifuges online. And then goes on to say the world accepts an nuclear Iran. 29 .
The IAEA report lists several issues with the Iranian program, specificallyo the enrichment facilities at Natanz:

no response to request for more information on its enrichment program
no access to suspicious equipment/military personnel possibly involved in nuclear activities;

February-March 2007
The IAEA reported that the Iranian Centrifuge facitlity at Natanz has completed the 164 unit cascade, adding to the 10 and 24 unit cascades in the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant that already existed. The 164 unit cascade is at the production EFP and in which the first 18 will be tested shortly. The current enrichment quality is at 4.2% U-235 proving the design efficiency of the facility. Iran continues to deny remote monitoring of the 3000 machine hall but pledges to allow frequent inspector visits. Iran also stated that once the hall reaches 500 machines, all monitoring will cease. 34, 35

April 2007
The IAEA reports that Iran's publicly visible (as inspected by the IAEA) uranium enrichment capacity has doubled since their last look in March, now operating some 164 separation centrifuges in the gallery they hope to have 3000 such devices in operation. 39
And with incredible naivite, the IAEA also says that this is not enough capacity to create a bomb in the near term. As usual, the IAEA, because they are shown any bomb program discount the ability for the Iranians to hide or operate centrifuges. Incredibly, they also claim that just because the enrichment process to date is low in enrichment quality (4% or thereabouts), that this also means it could still be a decade before bomb material is produced. This is EXACTLY the logic used with North Korea, yet they surprised everyone by developing a weapons some five years before the most aggressive estimates. Clearly the IAEA has learned nothing from their own dismal track record.



http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Nuclear-Chronology.htm

sorry when pasting the timelines they got cut into each other just check the website.

I'm a conservative who DOESN'T want to attack Iran, because number 1, I realize the backlash that would ensue from other nations capable of seriously and immediately doing us harm, and number 2, I realize that the rhetoric towards Iran is for drumming up support of potential military action against them based on protecting the hegemony of the US empire and the Dollar.

It's not about a nuke program, and it never was. It's about US Dollar hegemony.

Iran's a rogue nation that isn't currently playing ball on the status-quo, and we're going to sanction the ever loving shit out of them for it until they're economically incapable of resisting. If that doesn't work, we'll bomb them. If that doesn't work, we'll invade and change regimes. We've been doing this shit for DECADES. Why don't people realize it yet?

__________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

-Ronald Reagan