Iran and the Nuclear Bomb

[sambino510]

The Iranian Regime can not and will not get nuclear weapons, have no doubt about it!

As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this, one of these reasons being Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to Israel the United States and the West.

I feel sorry for for Iran’s long-suffering, oppressed people.... but I certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.

"Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.

Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.

What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself. .

One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.

It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..

 

[Billo_Really]

Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?

The first thing I'd do, is determine why he's threatening me in the first place. And if I found out that he was doing that in response to me taking his home, killing his relatives and shooting at him while he was fishing, then I'd stop that activity and see if the threats went away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.

We are no safer after nearly breaking the treasury and ruining the economy since 2001 fighting wars that change nothing.

Please don't ever suggest the terrorism angle again: it does not make sense.

You neo-cons do not have the answer.

 

[Auteur]

You cannot negotiate with those who intend on eliminating you!

Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.




Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.

The fact remains that Israel will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons.

Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?

Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.

What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.

Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.

And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".

In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.

 

[skye]

"Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.

Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.

What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself. .

One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.

It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..

I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting nuclear weapons but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.

 

[Auteur]

One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.

It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..

I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

For the uneducated and the easily swayed, religion is philosophy that must be obeyed. For the more canny and aggressive, who tend to rise to the top in the more tumultuous regions of the world, religion is a tool to keep the masses in check. So too with Iran. Many of the so-called religious leaders drive around in mercedes, live in extravagant villas, and wear expensive watches and designer jewelery. They're not nuts, they just know how to slant their speeches so they will be accepted.

This is not a whole lot different from the US really. The Tea Party prances about spouting magical and mystical Christian beliefs, and even elevates the US constitution to a quasi-mystical object. These folks likely believe what they are saying, but they are shamelessly manipulated by those with real economic and political power, for their own ends. If the order was given to bomb Iran, who many of those young men with Tea Party, or similar sets of beliefs, would be quite ready to go on a killing rampage? You bet.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting nuclear weapons but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.

The main reason they wouldn't is that this act may be traced back to them, and then their lives would face a quick and uncomfortable end. But you are correct, this is a possibility, if not a strong one. All the more reason to start talking in good faith now, rather than simply ratcheting up the animosity and violence even further. All the more reason to put pressure on Israel to make a settlement.

 

[sambino510]

One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.

It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..

I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting nuclear weapons but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.

I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.

The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.

Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.

You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.

Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.

The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).

 

[MisterBeale]

To really understand Iran? Watch this. It lost best animated film to Ratatouille (2007). It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it. The two books it is based on are probably better. This is a true story.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNx4Pa2Gqfk]Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[sambino510]

To really understand Iran? Watch this. It lost best animated film to Ratatouille (2007). It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it. The two books it is based on are probably better. This is a true story.

Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube

Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.

 

[Duped]

Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.




Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.



Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?

Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.

What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.

Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.

And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".

In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.

First: Obamaturd has no credibility!

Second: The Arab league is erroneous to Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map.

I support Israel, because she is a democracy, Jews are the brightest people on earth, and have contribued enormously to it. I am a Christian.

You are trying to analyze a probable strike; military potentials. I am simple saying that Israel expects that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it, and Israel will eliminate that threat first; they feel that it's a balls out event.

Israel's attack would be decisive; it would never be a war of attrition.

Lastly: I believe every muslim is a zealot, jihadist at heart. I believe they love death more than life. I believe their messiah mohammad ( pig shit be upon him ) was born out of the ass of a pig named allah, and that the koran is only good for ass wipes.

Any religion ( koran ) that teaches that you either convert, or die brutally - needs to be destroyed; it is evil.

 

[skye]

It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..

I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting nuclear weapons but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.

I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.

The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.

Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.

You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.

Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.

The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).

My opinion is that you are deluded in your viewpoints and I disagree with every single thing you say.

The EU has just designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, so how can you possibly trust Iran,a country who sponsors terror, you may remember that the terrorist group Hamas was also sponsored by Iran.


If Iran ever became a rational, democratic secular country without being obsessed with Islam ,the Sunni Shiite split, stop sponsoring terrorists groups and stop being so aggressive and deceitful in its relations to the rest of the world......then we can have this discussion again but not before..... otherwise it is completely pointless arguing with you on this matter.

 

[sambino510]

I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting nuclear weapons but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.

I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.

The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.

Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.

You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.

Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.

The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).

My opinion is that you are deluded in your viewpoints and I disagree with every single thing you say.

The EU has just designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, so how can you possibly trust Iran,a country who sponsors terror, you may remember that the terrorist group Hamas was also sponsored by Iran.


If Iran ever became a rational, democratic secular country without being obsessed with Islam ,the Sunni Shiite split, stop sponsoring terrorists groups and stop being so aggressive and deceitful in its relations to the rest of the world......then we can have this discussion again but not before..... otherwise it is completely pointless arguing with you on this matter.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me; that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion.

Frankly, I don't care that the EU has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization. That is their opinion, as my opinion is mine. The EU does not have the final say on such matters, nor does the United Nations Security Council, or whoever. It's all so, so subjective.

A country doesn't have to be secular and democratic in order to be worth negotiating with. Even if they did, how do you make a country become democratic and secular? By killing the leaders or bombing their cities? What should our strategy be if we do choose to strike Iran?

Iran is not the only country "obsessed" with Islam. Our Sunni Arab allies you mentioned earlier also base their government in Islam. We are such close allies with Saudi Arabia, yet women can't drive, can't vote, and are restricted to wearing the Hijab just like Iran. Why do we not challenge them?

Iran is no more aggressive in their foreign policy than we are. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find two countries more meddlesome in other country's affairs. The "good" or "evil" of the two countries actions, once again, depends on perspective. We as Americans think we always fight for good, and that Iran fights for evil, but that may not always be the case.

Anyways, I do not see how such intellectual debate is pointless. I'm also not so sure how I'm deluded in my views, but that's fine to think that of me. I think the main problem here is that America seems to be plagued by fear. It's this itching terror that nags at the back of peoples' brains, and makes them turn friends into enemies and enemies into friends. It's paranoia that will drive our country, and our country's government, to irrational, deadly behavior.

The battle that we are currently waging with terrorists and extremists is a battle of the minds, not one with rockets and bullets. A terrorist can't harm you if you don't let him effect you emotionally, psychologically. Their goal isn't to kill you, it's to scar you and leave an impression on you; to send a message. This is because they're too weak to win a conventional war. My advice is to not give in to these fearful urges, including the widespread fear of a nuclear Iran. These countries or organizations mostly just want attention and recognition; and we are giving it to them.

 

[sambino510]

Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.

What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.

Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.

And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".

In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.

First: Obamaturd has no credibility!

Second: The Arab league is erroneous to Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map.

I support Israel, because she is a democracy, Jews are the brightest people on earth, and have contribued enormously to it. I am a Christian.

You are trying to analyze a probable strike; military potentials. I am simple saying that Israel expects that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it, and Israel will eliminate that threat first; they feel that it's a balls out event.

Israel's attack would be decisive; it would never be a war of attrition.

Lastly: I believe every muslim is a zealot, jihadist at heart. I believe they love death more than life. I believe their messiah mohammad ( pig shit be upon him ) was born out of the ass of a pig named allah, and that the koran is only good for ass wipes.

Any religion ( koran ) that teaches that you either convert, or die brutally - needs to be destroyed; it is evil.

Speaking of no credibility, you harm your own when you refer to someone as "Obamaturd". You certainly are not lying about Israel's feelings, as I too believe Israel will strike first; whether they will succeed or not is debatable.

Once again, please read the Qur'an and tell me exactly where it SAYS that all must convert or die. Pull the average Muslim off the street and see if he or she gives you the option between a Qur'an or a knife to the gut; or if they just say hello.

Historically, "convert or die brutally" has also been the Christian and Catholic mantra, whether it was the Native Americans in North America, the Aztecs and Incas in South America, or the island people of the Caribbean. Christianity has not always been used for such peaceful ventures, just like Islam.

If you are a Christian, you'd be interested to know that many of the people from your Bible are in the Qur'an. Jesus, Adam, Luke....they're all there somewhere. It's so, so sad to me that someone can find such hatred towards a religion that really is so similar to Christianity and Judaism. In fact, radical Judaism is not so far off from radical Islam, especially in the way it treats women. In Israel religious sites are segregated by gender, for instance.

All religions must find common ground in the fact that they all want the same thing; a better world. All religions reward good deeds, and have the same basic moral scale. I'm no religious man, or I at least am not affiliated with no particular religion, but I don't see how Muslims OR Christians can advocate violence towards others. Thou shall not kill.

 

[MisterBeale]

To really understand Iran? Watch this. It lost best animated film to Ratatouille (2007). It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it. The two books it is based on are probably better. This is a true story.

Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube

Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.

They are really terrific. In the movie you understand the Marji is an intellectual with a firm ethical and moral background. What you don't really get from it, is the "why" of it. How come her family is the way it is. How come they aren't overtly Islamic. Sure, they are Islamic, but not a fundamentalist type way. They are Islamic in the same way the Thomas Jefferson was "Christian," meaning, only culturally.

What you don't get from the movie is that they are FREEMASONS, and have the exact same Freemason values that this nation was founded on. Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. There is a whole social class segment of upper and middle class Iran dating back to pre-19th century that hold the same identical values of the Freemasons and the order of Scion. She was familiar with all of it. In the books, her dad give her a book to read about it. The same tradition that many fathers hand down to their sons here in America. The British and American fascists betrayed that tradition all for oil. And that is the disgusting truth of it. Now? In order to keep the clandestine operators out, and keep their population dumb, their elites have turned to theocracy.

We would like to think our elites are better, but they aren't. Ours has turned to a compulsory education system which has forgone the principles of the constitution in favor of dependance on authoritarianism. The state knows best, not the sovereign people. The PEOPLE in this country are living under the same type of abuses as the people in Iran. The sooner we face up to that, the sooner we will have fraternity.

Some here just don't get it. They believe what ever our media elites tell us in service to the establishment, well, hell, that has to be the truth. People in this thread keep talking like Iran is some state sponsor of "terrorism," but the truth is the United States and Israel promote far more terrorism a month successfully than Iran could ever hope to pull off. Sickening.

 

[sambino510]

To really understand Iran? Watch this. It lost best animated film to Ratatouille (2007). It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it. The two books it is based on are probably better. This is a true story.

Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube

Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.

They are really terrific. In the movie you understand the Marji is an intellectual with a firm ethical and moral background. What you don't really get from it, is the "why" of it. How come her family is the way it is. How come they aren't overtly Islamic. Sure, they are Islamic, but not a fundamentalist type way. They are Islamic in the same way the Thomas Jefferson was "Christian," meaning, only culturally.

What you don't get from the movie is that they are FREEMASONS, and have the exact same Freemason values that this nation was founded on. Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. There is a whole social class segment of upper and middle class Iran dating back to pre-19th century that hold the same identical values of the Freemasons and the order of Scion. She was familiar with all of it. In the books, her dad give her a book to read about it. The same tradition that many fathers hand down to their sons here in America. The British and American fascists betrayed that tradition all for oil. And that is the disgusting truth of it. Now? In order to keep the clandestine operators out, and keep their population dumb, their elites have turned to theocracy.

We would like to think our elites are better, but they aren't. Ours has turned to a compulsory education system which has forgone the principles of the constitution in favor of dependance on authoritarianism. The state knows best, not the sovereign people. The PEOPLE in this country are living under the same type of abuses as the people in Iran. The sooner we face up to that, the sooner we will have fraternity.

Some here just don't get it. They believe what ever our media elites tell us in service to the establishment, well, hell, that has to be the truth. People in this thread keep talking like Iran is some state sponsor of "terrorism," but the truth is the United States and Israel promote far more terrorism a month successfully than Iran could ever hope to pull off. Sickening.

I've almost finished watching it, and it's a very good story. In terms of state-sponsored "terrorism" though, I've said it before and I'll say it again that all of that depends on perspective. America has no right to judge Iran's allies as terrorists, and Iran has no right to judge America's allies as terrorists. Or, we all have the right to judge each other in such a manner. Terrorism, to me, is simply a technique, like guerrilla warfare. It is not some evil, dirty word that must be shunned from this Earth.

A drone missile dropping into a Pakistani village is terrorism, as it is meant to discourage extremists from joining the various militia groups. Going into a movie theater and yelling "fire" is terrorism, as it scares people into doing something irrational. The police are terrorists, as the "terror" of being arrested or imprisoned is meant to prevent crime.Terrorism to me is such a broad thing, and I think people use the word far too narrowly.

 

[irosie91]

The USA is engaged in a war in Afghanistan which includes
HOSTILE pakistanis. Dropping a bomb on a village
in Pakistan is legal if the target of the bomb is a legal
military target-----such as a military operative hostile
to the USA ----or a weapons cache used by Afghani
operatives against the USA or USA soldiers. Sambino---
your writings are silly. For those who do not know----
THE TALIBAN is a pakistani invention----peopled by
pakistanis (largely---not exclusively----lately----but
virtually exclusively at its outset----more than 30 years
ago) I support complete USA withdrawal from both
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Any crap coming OUT of there
should be handled with missiles<<<a bloody option-----
but probably the best of the available options

 

[sambino510]

The USA is engaged in a war in Afghanistan which includes
HOSTILE pakistanis. Dropping a bomb on a village
in Pakistan is legal if the target of the bomb is a legal
military target-----such as a military operative hostile
to the USA ----or a weapons cache used by Afghani
operatives against the USA or USA soldiers. Sambino---
your writings are silly. For those who do not know----
THE TALIBAN is a pakistani invention----peopled by
pakistanis (largely---not exclusively----lately----but
virtually exclusively at its outset----more than 30 years
ago) I support complete USA withdrawal from both
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Any crap coming OUT of there
should be handled with missiles<<<a bloody option-----
but probably the best of the available options

Well, your feelings that my postings are silly is your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to that. I'm well aware of the legality of drone strikes. Our government would not commit these strikes if they didn't know they could weasel their way out of any legal battles. If you were replying to my previous post that missile strikes on villages is "terrorism", I was simply taking a very broad definition of the term "terrorism". Do you not think the U.S. military is trying to scare the Taliban leaders? We use emotions like fear and terror just as much as they do.

Let me say this. Missiles are indeed a better option than a full invasion, but they are a band-aid to an open wound; not the cure. Who is to say that these missiles landing in these villages are not creating just as many terrorists as they destroy? Do you realistically think any Pakistanis are happy that missiles are reigning down from the sky, blowing up their neighbors (even if they are supposedly "bad people")? If the American government today decided that they would send missiles out throughout the United States to take out the biggest gang syndicates and crime figures, I don't think we would be cheering in the streets.

The ONLY way to stop terrorism is to cure the problems of this world that create terrorists, i.e. economic situations, social issues, etc. The various groups may say they are fighting to rid the world of the infidels, or something of that nature. In reality, they would have a hard time recruiting the young, impressionable citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan if these people weren't already in tough economic situations. Or if their neighbors weren't being blown to bits by Predator strikes. It's not ALL religious motivation. In fact, I'd argue most of it isn't motivated by that at all. The self-radicalized terrorists like the Boston bombers said they were taking revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyways, we agree in perhaps one way, which is that we want complete American withdrawal from the area. However, I'd go one step further and say I want a stop to the drone strikes as well.

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW Billo

Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.

But that's just me. Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.

Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD. Letting them get the bomb is STUPID. They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.

Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built. They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.

I'm sorry, but there are only 2 legal ways one country can attack another country:
1. if you, yourself are attacked and are doing it in self defense
2. you have UNSC authorization to do so

And you be glad I'm not President, because this is what I would do to bring peace to the ME within 90 days:

• I would tell my UN ambassador that we will no longer be protecting Israel from being held accountable for war crimes, with our veto
• I would put a moratorium on all weapons shipments to Israel
• I would freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• I would outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
• I would tell Big Ben, that he has 90 days to get his fuckin' ass out of the OPT. That includes the IOF and all their lunatic settler insurgents

On the 91st day, I would send in the marines to drive those god-damn Israeli's back to Israel. Then I would create a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker entering it from either side.

Have a nice day!

Of course you would. You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism. You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.

It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed. So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.

I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office. Too bad buddy.

I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST. You don't. So be it.

 

[Auteur]

My plan for the peace:

1) Inform US senators and congressmen that an investigation is afoot, and those found accepting favours from AIPAC will face criminal charges.

2) Begin progressively cutting the ten billion or so in annual aid to Israel, until it agrees to negociate a settlement.

3) Accept the 2002 Saudi peace proposal as a principle framework.

4) Agree to a reasonable division of land between Israel and Palestine, given the size of the two populations, starting with the '67 border, and making changes in order to make a realistic Palestinian state.

5) Agree to a formula for either return of displaced Palestinians, or their financial compensation. The US, and to some extent the world community, would be required to contribute to this financing.

 

[sambino510]

BTW Billo

Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.

But that's just me. Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.

Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD. Letting them get the bomb is STUPID. They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.

Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built. They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.

I'm sorry, but there are only 2 legal ways one country can attack another country:
1. if you, yourself are attacked and are doing it in self defense
2. you have UNSC authorization to do so

And you be glad I'm not President, because this is what I would do to bring peace to the ME within 90 days:

• I would tell my UN ambassador that we will no longer be protecting Israel from being held accountable for war crimes, with our veto
• I would put a moratorium on all weapons shipments to Israel
• I would freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
• I would outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
• I would tell Big Ben, that he has 90 days to get his fuckin' ass out of the OPT. That includes the IOF and all their lunatic settler insurgents

On the 91st day, I would send in the marines to drive those god-damn Israeli's back to Israel. Then I would create a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker entering it from either side.

Have a nice day!

Of course you would. You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism. You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.

It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed. So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.

I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office. Too bad buddy.

I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST. You don't. So be it.

For one, why do you think Israel has been attacked since its formation? Because the British completely mishandled the Palestine region following World War II. Just because the Jewish people deserved their own country after their strife during the Holocaust doesn't mean it had to be in one of the most controversial Holy Lands there are on this planet. Pushing the Palestinians out of their land would obviously step on a few toes.

Obama has just as much love for Israel as did Bush or any of his predecessors. He still sends them a check for three billion dollars every year, no questions asked. Tell me what Obama has done to make Israel less safe.

Do you think Israel will ever be safe if it keeps trying to solve its security problem with further violence? The more they make unilateral strikes on their sovereign nations' LEGAL nuclear facilities and other targets, the more enemies they will make. They simply don't know how to solve a conflict diplomatically; they know nothing but force. I do not particularly support Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, but some of their criticism of Israel is legitimate.