Jump to content

I_R_A_N


Larry Pubes

Recommended Posts

Thanks to the staring into the sun efect of the new 12oz I refuse to read this shit so sue me if this was already stated. But I read in the paper today that if Iran doesn't bow down to emporer bush then they're gonna get nuked.

I can't beleive what the fuck is up with America that we put up with these fucking idiots in the Whitehouse???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dunno' date=' I see the situation as pretty much the same. Agressive neighbor developing nukes (allegedly) = security threat...[/quote']

 

yes, but did osirak incite a generation of jihadi's? i would think a unilateral move by israel would increase the security threat in a very different and dangerous way, not quite like the threat of a nuke from a iranian nutjob, but still. the thing is, if israel did something the american's are by default not only blame(given regional perceptions), but would be tasked with taking care of the mess of an israeli bombing operation. and the israeli's would be counting on this to begin with. doesn't make alot of sense any way you cut it, but i guess a start would be some actual diplomacy instead of the old north korea treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahmadinejad: Iran will join nuclear club

Comments came amid news Iran has enriched uranium

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Posted: 1555 GMT (2355 HKT)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

 

 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran will "soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

 

His comments came as new agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday that Iran has enriched uranium for the first time using 164 centrifuges, a major development in its fuel cycle technology.

 

The announcement was the first disclosure that Iran had successfully enriched uranium since February, when it began research at its enrichment facility in the town of Natanz.

 

"Iran has put into operation the first unit of 164 centrifuges, has injected (uranium) gas and has reached industrial production," the Kuwait News Agency quoted Rafsanjani as saying.

 

"We should expand the work of these machines to achieve a full industrial line. We need dozens of these units (sets of 164 centrifuges) to achieve a uranium enrichment facility," he said.

 

Enriching uranium to a low level produces fuel for nuclear reactors. To a higher level, it produces the material for a nuclear bomb.

 

Iran would need thousands of operating centrifuges to produce enough uranium for either purpose.

 

Ahmadinejad had promised Monday to announce "good nuclear news" soon.

 

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran end uranium enrichment.

 

Tehran insists its nuclear program aims to develop energy, denying U.S. and Western accusations that it intends to build weapons.

 

Nuclear watchdog chief seeking concessions

 

A top European Union official, meanwhile, rejected any use of force against Iran in the confrontation over its nuclear program.

 

But Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, recommended the 25-nation bloc consider sanctions against Tehran -- raising the possibility of international punishment even if the U.S. and Europe cannot persuade the United Nations to impose such measures.

 

The statements came as the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, was due to visit Iran at mid-week for talks on the standoff. Officials with his International Atomic Energy Agency have said he is hoping to win at least partial concessions from Iran. IAEA inspectors are currently in Iran visiting two key facilities.

 

Several American media reports over the weekend said the Bush administration was studying options for military strikes against Iran to stop its nuclear program. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using atomic bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

 

President Bush said Monday the reports were "wild speculation." He said his vow to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons "doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy." (Full story)

 

But the White House was not ruling out a military response and said "normal defense and intelligence planning" was under way.

 

Iran ignores U.S. military report

 

Iran repeatedly has said it does not believe the U.S. will attempt military action even as it vows the threat of U.N. sanctions will not force it to give up enrichment completely. But with tensions rising, it held military maneuvers in the Gulf last week, displaying a series of what it called high-tech missiles and torpedoes it said could fend off any American attack.

 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi dismissed the reports of U.S. military planning as "as psychological warfare, resulting from the Americans' anger and despair."

 

Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's supreme National Security Council, also played down the reports.

 

"If the U.S. commits such a mistake, it would receive a suitable response," Larijani was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

 

Ahmadinejad said Iran would not be dissuaded from its nuclear goals.

 

"Our enemies know that they can't cause a minute's pause in our nation's motion forward," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people gathered in Mashad, capital of Razavi Khorasan province in northeastern Iran. "Unfortunately today some bullying powers are unable to give up their bullying nature.

 

"There are some weak people who intend to frighten our nation, he said in the speech, parts of which were aired on state television. "I do advise people not to be afraid when some international power frowns."

 

U.N. Security Council imposes deadline

 

The U.N. Security Council gave Tehran until April 28 to give up enrichment before the International Atomic Energy Agency reports back to the council on its progress. The United States and Europe are pressing for the U.N. to impose sanctions on Iran, but Russia and China have opposed such a step.

 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, addressing the new reports, said "we believe the military or the tough measures will not yield good results. It's not helpful."

 

Solana ruled out the use of force, saying "any military action is definitely out of the question for us."

 

But the EU should consider imposing its own sanctions if Iran does not bend -- including visa bans on some political leaders, nuclear officials and scientists as well as formally suspending negotiations on a free trade pact -- Solana said in a report presented to EU foreign ministers.

 

"Iran has to respond to the Security Council. We have to be prepared in case they fail," said Solana.

 

Iran has called for negotiations, hinting that it could compromise on large-scale enrichment of uranium. Its scientists resumed small-scale enrichment research in February, prompting the IAEA to report it to the U.N. Security Council.

 

Five inspectors from the IAEA visited Iran's Uranium Conversion Facility in Isfahan on Sunday, which reprocesses raw uranium into hexafluoride gas, the feedstock for enrichment.

 

The team was next due to visit the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. The five inspectors are in Iran until Tuesday or Wednesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran

 

The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, while Blair's jihadist rhetoric is inciting a fourth crusade

 

Simon Jenkins

Wednesday April 12, 2006

The Guardian

 

This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and "inconceivable" means certain.

 

A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is that such words from the foreign secretary are anything but reassuring. Straw says of Iran that "there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli". There was no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons conjured from the fevered imagination of Downing Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a racing certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even now cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that Iran is "far closer" to a bomb than anyone thinks.

 

As for a casus belli, there was also none in Iraq. Tony Blair had to beat one out of the hapless attorney general before his generals would agree to fight. But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to pre-emptive attack.

 

Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their salvation lies our own security".

 

The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran's view of Israel. But we know that when he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest by a British leader in modern times and was the clearest imaginable statement of a casus belli. He mentioned Iran three times. It was gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism.

 

To such a world view, Iran is a far more plausible target than Iraq. It is a nation approaching 80 million people, whose values would be a real catch for "beacon democracy". Elements within its regime want nuclear weapons. The country is rich and capable of buying the relevant components. The mullahs have sponsored terrorist groups abroad and fiddled elections. In February, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad restarted uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant, in defiance of the UN, and yesterday Iran's nuclear energy chief announced that it had proved successful. What does Straw mean, "no casus belli"?

 

Tehran has two more weeks to stop enrichment, after which sanctions seem inevitable. Some ostracism of Iran's ruling elite might lead the parliamentary moderates and clerical oligarchs to force Ahmadinejad to back off for a time. But sanctions will split the world coalition against nuclear proliferation, since Russia and China have close trading links with Iran. The US and Britain would then be back to the same "slide to war" as in Iraq. They would have to decide whether to fight on alone or endure humiliating retreat.

 

A land force attack on Iran is, for forces that cannot even hold Iraq, out of the question. But sowing mayhem through bombing military targets (always causing civilian deaths) might instigate enough anarchy to stir a putsch, a regional uprising or more subtle changes within the regime. There are reports of US special forces operating inside Iran and funds being channelled to opposition groups. The US is said to be aiding Sunni Baluchi insurgents in the south, as they once did the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Bush's description on Monday of leaks about nuclear bunker-busters as "wild speculation" was part machismo, part tautology. Every weapon is an option to a soldier. It would be unlikely even for the Bush government (even with Blair's support) to put the west's status as world policeman back in the stone age. But such talk indicates the brain-scrambling effect of the Iraq war.

 

Iran is the first test of Blair's interventionism, and the auguries are not good. Every sabre rattle in Washington must be music to Ahmadinejad's ear. Whether or not a bombing attack might damage his factories, it is unlikely to destabilise his government, rather the reverse. It would heighten nationalist fervour and increase hatred of the west.

 

Sanctions that stop Iranians going to conferences or shopping in Knightsbridge are hardly of concern to mullahs. Any nation supposedly forced to "choose between weapons and the economy" chooses weapons (look at the US). The more the west threatens, the stronger is the case of Tehran's hawks for a nuclear arsenal. Iran is within range of five nuclear powers, including the US. What army would not want a deterrent when the world is awash with crazies?

 

Confrontation without a willingness to use total force is bluff. Many Iranian hardliners must be itching to cause more trouble in Iraq, threaten tanker lanes in the Straits of Hormuz and set Asian opinion further against the west. As for backing the Baluchi insurgents, this is madness. The most lawless group in the region are, through the Taliban, the chief enemy of British forces in Afghanistan. Is Blair aware that the US is funding his enemies? This whole venture is degenerating into a fourth crusade.

 

The much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and liberal democracy in Asia is in retreat. It is ailing in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What might have been gained through security and friendship has been wrecked by the war in Iraq. War puts a premium on paranoia and encourages existing regimes to crack down on dissent. These may be rogue states, but it is time for the west to decide again which are "our rogues".

 

One country in the region that has retained some political pluralism is Iran. It has shown bursts of democratic activity and, importantly, has experienced internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing. It is completely nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind Games Over Iran

Jim Lobe

April 11, 2006

Jim Lobe is Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service. Reprinted with permission.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/11/mind_games_over_iran.php

 

 

 

Three years after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, Washington is abuzz about new reports that the administration of President George W. Bush is preparing to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.

 

In just the past few days, lengthy articles detailing planning for aerial attacks on as many as 400 nuclear and military targets have appeared in The Washington Post, the London Sunday Times, The Forward (the main weekly of the U.S. Jewish community) and The New Yorker.

 

The New Yorker account, written by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who two years ago was the first to disclose U.S. abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was the most spectacular, although it relied heavily on unnamed sources outside the administration.

 

Among other assertions, Hersh's 6,300-word article, ”The Iran Plans”, alleged that U.S. combat forces have already entered Iran to collect target data and make contact with ”anti-government ethnic-minority groups”—assertions that the Post said it was unable to confirm. It also claimed that efforts by senior military officials to get the administration to eliminate contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against specific hardened targets had been ”shouted down” by the Pentagon's civilian leadership.

 

Unlike other accounts that have argued that any U.S. attack was unlikely to take place until after the November mid-term elections at the earliest, Hersh also suggested that a U.S. attack could come at any time.

 

”The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium,” Hersh wrote, citing official sources. In an interview on CNN April 10, the journalist insisted that planning for an attack had moved into an ”operational” phase, ”beyond contingency planning”.

 

Without denying any of Hersh's assertions, Bush himself insisted the same day that the latest reports constituted ”wild speculation” and that his administration remained committed to ”diplomacy”. At the same time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that military force remained an option.

 

The sudden spate of detailed stories has raised the question of whether the administration really intends such an attack—if not imminently, then before it leaves office, as contended by the Sunday Times—or if it is carrying out a psychological warfare campaign designed to persuade the Iranians and Washington's less warlike friends, especially in Europe, that it will indeed take action unless Tehran agrees to U.S. demands to abandon its enrichment program.

 

There is no consensus on this question.

 

To some experts, the potential costs of such an attack—from an Iranian-inspired Shiite uprising in Iraq to missile attacks on Saudi oil fields and skyrocketing energy prices (not to mention a rise in anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe and the Islamic world)—so clearly outweigh the possible benefits that Bush's top political aides would recognize them as exorbitant.

 

”Although they may be reckless with the security of the United States, I think they are utterly cold-blooded realists when it comes to political power,” noted Gary Sick, an Iran policy expert at Columbia University, who sees the latest reports and threats by senior administration officials as an effort to intimidate Tehran.

 

”(O)ne of their strongest negotiating tools is the widespread belief that they are irrational and capable of the most irresponsible actions. That is their record, so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran—and everybody else—off balance, so much the better,” he added, noting, however, that if that analysis is correct, ”there is always the huge danger of miscalculation and accident”.

 

Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer and Middle East specialist at the RAND Corporation, echoed this view. He toldThe Forward that the recent spate of articles ”shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran ...(that) may now be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not, in fact, on the table any more.”

 

Other analysts, however, do not see the administration as bluffing.

 

”For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran,” wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last week.

 

”In the last few weeks, I have changed my view,” he went on. ”In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.”

 

”In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramification of such action,” Wayne White, the State Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward.

 

Whether psychological warfare or serious premeditation, leading the charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel elements within and outside the administration that were behind the drive to war in Iraq.

 

Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton—two of the administration's most hawkish figures—has been particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing ”meaningful consequences” and Bolton ”tangible and painful consequences” in speeches last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.

 

Similarly, neo-conservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.

 

Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for war, if covert action, including “industrial accidents,” is not sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle as asserting that destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.

 

”The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened,” said Perle who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.

 

His colleague at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has also stressed that “the administration is deadly serious... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse.”

 

Indeed, as in Iraq, hardliners in and outside the administration may be embarked on their own psy-war campaign against more moderate forces within the administration, either to counter European pressure on Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations, to provoke Iran into an overreaction that would offer a pretext for an attack, or to rhetorically box the administration into a position where it would look unacceptably weak if it did not take action.

 

”A sudden unexplained explosion at a U.S. embassy, a clash with militias in Basra, or a thousand other things could call the administration's bluff,” according to Sick. “(T)here are certainly individuals in and around the administration who would not hesitate for a second to recommend a bombing attack on Iran.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

actually, my old man is good friends with Rumsfeld (they were college rommates at Princeton) and after talking to him he thinks there's a really good chance that we're gonna be going to war. since the military personnel is too low at this point they're thinking about recruiting ewoks and sending a bunch of special forces into the Degoba system for Jedi training. but due to the economic implications, they're gonna be disintegrating the use of light sabers and opt for more traditional swords. awww jeah. what's really good Tehran?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Iran is the good guy... why can't they have a good economy? nuclear weapons?

 

the traditional border of Iran, going back to the greeks has been the euprhates river. the other side belonged to the syrians and other semetic peoples... the kurds lived in the foothills...

 

the arabs, also semites, lived as nomads south in the desert...

 

 

I not even talking about sunni/shiite shit.. this shit goes back further than that...

 

 

iraq right now is a buffer state between 3 diffrent cultures and ethnic groups (islam being the only "uniting" factor, lol)...

 

 

 

shit syria and iraq were one country until only a few decades ago...

 

 

lets call a spade a spade...

 

give shiite iraq to Iran, sunni arab iraq to saudi arabia and let the kurds have their soveriegnty, with turkish kurdistan carved out too for good measure...

 

 

 

big picture this would solve the most long term

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1give shiite iraq to Iran, sunni arab iraq to saudi arabia and let the kurds have their soveriegnty, with turkish kurdistan carved out too for good measure...

 

2big picture this would solve the most long term

 

 

1. The war within Islam is not that involves territory, giving sunni's and shite's land and expecting everything to work out is just adding fuel to a fire. The Syrian state will not allow for the creation of a Kurdistan, They will use force. For everything to go better in the middle east land can't be "carved out". That would create another Africa with tribal and country lines crosssecting and creating more problems. The Islamic world needs time to evolve, it's been out of the spotlight for a couple of centuries. It's been along time since it had power and now to rule the world you need more than horses and sheer force to rule the world, you need multinational corporations.

 

2. The answers aren't going to standardized test style, no choosing C. The solutions won't be created by the people you see on TV or in the News. They will be made by small officials you've never heard of. Anyone that tells you they know the solution...doesn't. Even Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear War

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SED20070210&articleId=4729

 

by Dmitriy Sedov

 

Global Research, February 10, 2007

Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia)

 

In my paper entitled “2007: Opening a New Page in the World’s History”, published in September, 2006, I examined the possibility that a US strike on Iran using small-scale nuclear munitions [mini-nukes] would be launched, and that the strike would become the beginning of an epoch of nuclear wars. There were various responses to the paper. Some authors, including recognized experts, doubted the possibility of such a development. At present, few people doubt that there will be a strike on Iran. Rather, the question is whether nuclear or conventional weapons will be used in the offensive.

In this context, I would like to present the following considerations.

 

1. An attack on Iran is motivated by nothing but the US domestic political expediency and the unlimited appetites of the country’s military-industrial complex. President G. Bush has no choice – his only option is a breakthrough. The problem does not originate from the total failure of his doctrine of the “war on international terrorism”. If the US political elite represented by Bush based its decisions solely on the estimates of the damage to its public image that might be caused by the fiasco of the global anti-terrorist campaign, it would have extremely serious reservations about starting a new regional war. However, they are motivated by something else – they need to continue Bush’s politics backed by a conglomerate of weapons suppliers, who established control over the country’s oversized military spending. Should Bush recognize being defeated and withdraw the US military forces from the Middle East, the Democrat’s elite would overtake the financial leverage, and a major redistribution of the military commissioning would follow. When such enormous funds are at stake, people’s lives and those of entire nations become tokens in the game. For these operations, the destiny of the Middle East and its nations means absolutely nothing, just as the lives of the Vietnamese and the Cambodians showered with napalm and defoliants meant nothing either. One must be naïve to suppose that the Pentagon machine will stop and miss the new incredibly high profits.

 

2. The coming war between the US and Iran has to conform to certain parameters defined a priori. The US is tired of Iraq, and the public opinion in the country is turning increasingly anti-war. Therefore, the offensive against Iran has to be swift and victorious. This will save Bush’s political group and give it a higher rating in the country. There can be no doubt that a successful aggression will make Bush extremely popular in the US – in this anti-Christian society the pagan god of victory has long taken the place of the Savior. A triumph will make the US public blind and deaf – it will remain unaware of the price of the US victory for the nations of the Middle East. The crucial circumstance is that only nuclear weapons can guarantee the US victory in this war. Knowing that the US failed to win even in Iraq, a country plagued by religious and ethnic strife, one cannot expect it to prevail in the united and spiritually strong Iran. Only the use of nuclear weapons can make it possible to cause severe damage to the Iranian control system hidden in bunkers and, importantly, to behead its leadership no matter how deep underground it might be hiding. Iran without its leaders and with a paralyzed system of control, with an army devastated by “baby nukes”, is the only option which suits the US - it agrees to talk about peace only to a totally subdued offender. Such talks would let the US leaders’ old dream of a Middle Eastern Disneyland, mastered by the US and Israel, come true.

 

Here are the facts which illustrate the process of preparation for the devastation of Iran:

 

- The UN Security Council Resolution envisions that a further tightening of the sanctions imposed on Iran must take place after February 21, 2006. From the standpoint of international law, this is a pretext (essentially, a poor one, but one that does exist) to legalize an aggression against the country.

 

- Two US aircraft carrier groups armed with nukes are moving into the region. The US aircraft carrier groups have been on missions 5 times over the past 15 years. In 4 cases out of the 5, they launched military offensives. In March, 2007 both groups are to take their combat positions.

 

- Additional ground forces have been shifted to the border between Iraq and Iran. Preparations for a new phase of hostilities are underway.

 

- In February, Patriot missile defense systems will be ready to defend Israel and the aircraft carrier groups from enemy airstrikes.

 

- British combat engineers are entering the regions of the future fighting, clearly in order to operate in the Strait of Ormuz, where Iranians are most likely to lay mines.

 

- The US and Israel launched a powerful information and propaganda campaign preparing the global public opinion for the aggression.

 

- CENTCOM’s Commander John Abizaid, an opponent of the war with Iran, resigned. His position was taken over by Admiral W. Fallon, a veteran of the 1991 Iraq and 1995 Bosnia campaigns.

 

- John Negroponte has been removed from his position as the Director of National Intelligence for persistently resisting the use of force against Iran.

 

- Tony. Blair, the “staff peacemaker” for the Middle East, never mentions a peaceful settlement of the Iran dossier. He makes no attempts to find a way to resolve the crisis in a peaceful way, and this is highly indicative.

 

All of the above constitute evidence of Iran being prepared for sacrifice. Will a major provocation be orchestrated for this purpose?

 

A number of observers opine that Washington needs one. We believe that what we will see is going to be a plain cowboy-style scenario like the one which materialized in Iraq. The media has never stop debating the issue of the “Iranian atomic bomb” – just as they focused on “Saddam. Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction”. It is time for them to start. It absolutely does not matter that eventually nothing of the kind will be found in Iran. Those who disagree will be silenced by force.

 

The question is – will such a “breakthrough” do George Bush any good? The idea of attacking Iran was born in the primitive minds of those who, just for the sake of their profits, can sell the rope on which they will be hanged. This time it will be neither they nor their children who will perish in the nuclear Holocaust, and they’d rather not worry that by this they will take the whole of mankind a step closer to total catastrophe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey dude, i was pretty sure you were villainous..

man, shit is going to be fucking unbelievably tasty cakes if they attack iran hard. a couple of years ago i was riding my bike on a sidewalk and wasn't paying attn. i turned my head foward and right then i smashed face first into the trunk of a hard ass leaning tree and got totally close lined. it was pretty insane...got a concussion and basically writhed around on the ground for 5 minutes trying to control the of feeling wanting to simultaneously puke, shit and piss myself. i imagine attacking iran will be a simliar exercise in stupidity and illness. obviously the big question is are they really crazy enough to actually do it?....personally i think it's on..but it's hard to imagine they could really be so frighteningly reckless..

..it's freaky how they wield the image of their power: remorseless, arrogant, totally shameless, unpredictable and prone to all sorts of incredible acts of depravity and they not only not care that they are perceived this way, they're totally into it and perpetuate it! i mean, fuck! i love recycled reaganites!

 

i know absolutely nothing about china underwriting american debt dude...hook it up, i'd be interested in some links if you have any...

 

dig the sig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

fact is that the iranian nuclear program can't technically be a civilian oriented one... what they are doing is fast nuclear bombs building...

i think we can make a parallel between Iran 2007 and Japan 1930-45 in the fact that both countries leaders are complete fanatics ready to destroy everything in order to reach their expansionists goals... iran want to spread his islamic revolution by any means necessary (for ex when they say that they will wipe off Israel they really don't care about their palestinians "brothers"), but there is a lot of differences between the two situations, most of iranians like the american way of life (really!) and they don't care about islamic revolution etc...

i think that now the USA want to show to the world ( more specifically China Russia etc...)that they can still military rule the world after the disasters of Irak and Afghanistan and they will not do the same errors than in irak, so they will use nuclear weapons against iran...

 

megadeth_arsenalofmegadethdvd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
fact is that the iranian nuclear program can't technically be a civilian oriented one... what they are doing is fast nuclear bombs building...

Is there any evidence for your claim? And please don't refer to US gov or US gov controlled sources (CIA, DOD, Fox news etc.)! They are not trustworthy.

 

iran want to spread his islamic revolution by any means necessary (for ex when they say that they will wipe off Israel they really don't care about their palestinians "brothers"),

Iran will not attack anyone. They know that the US and Israel would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in return. I don't think Amadinejad is that dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...