Iran ready for standoff

In this article, Ahmadinejad has stated that his nation is ready for the upcoming standoff with the west. Against all other western speculation of a nuclear arms program, Iran stands stanch in it's perspective to a peaceful nuclear energy program.



Yet another "bring it on" statement from Ahmadinejad. He has made it clear that his nation has taken steps to prepare itself for a war with the west on many occasions. This is just another drop in the bucket for the alleged war in Iran.

Ahmadinejad continues to spout off about his peaceful energy program, but continues to provoke a standoff, which I imagine will become a "showdown" very shortly.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Report: Iran Shoots Down U.S. Spy Drone
Israel warns Russia on Iran arms sale
Iran is ready- but says strike on nuclear sites unlikely
Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April

Rumors being tossed around and denied at the same time in the financial world of incident involving US and Iranian vessels in the Gulf.

looks like the standoff won't last long at this pace. Rumors alone can pull the trigger.

I would be very careful in this aspect and hope that all involved, be it the Iranians or the US keep cool heads about this. If this goes the way it is headed, it will mean that fuel prices will skyrocket as Iran has stated it will use oil as a weapon. The main problem is that Russia and China are not so inclined to put sanctions against Iran, rather still seeking a diplomatic solution. I hope that they succeede.

This is worrysome, but not unexpected. I can't say as I blame Ahmadinejad for preparing for war. It's been clear since 9/11 that the US has Iran in its crosshairs. We immediately named them as one of the Axis of Evil. That has a way of putting one on guard.

We all know where statements (or attitudes) like "Bring it on" hurled by boastful, arrogant leaders can take a country. Iran is no different. It will be involved in war very soon, as will the US.

If (when) this next phase of the war (the Iran leg) gets into motion, I'm afraid gas prices are going to be the least of our worries. There are no cool heads in leadership positions to prevail. All the leaders involved are not only hot-headed and fairly out of touch with civilized reality, they are driven by the most fundamental of motivations... religious righteousness.

I see everyday that people are VERY tired of Iraq, against a meaningless troops surge, and now the Iran war is a WHEN, not IF.... Will people accept it? I suspect also that the number of US casualties in Iraq is MUCH MUCH higher than the official number of 3000. When this will come public, what will happen? Nothing again?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I see everyday that people are VERY tired of Iraq, against a meaningless troops surge, and now the Iran war is a WHEN, not IF.... Will people accept it? I suspect also that the number of US casualties in Iraq is MUCH MUCH higher than the official number of 3000. When this will come public, what will happen? Nothing again?

Nothing will happen unless the American populous stands up to Bush and his administration. Congress has voiced their concerns. They have gone as far as to "threaten withholding the purse", or not to finance continued efforts in Iraq.

Bush has continued on with flagrant arrogance that he is above the law.

He is not!

If Bush and his administration are so apt to not pay attention to "our" representatives, then maybe he needs to hear it directly from "us". We must all tell him, "Enough is enough". People need to put aside the fear that if we were to stand up to him (Bush and admin.) he would declare Martial Law. Maybe that's what needs to happen. As was said by our Founding Fathers...

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

source

Are we to be "oppressed"?

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

source

Are we to keep our own liberties and safety?

Here sir, the people govern.
Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

source

Are we not still in charge of our own government?

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

source

Are we not being preyed upon by our own government with fear?

It is yet to be decided whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn millions be involved.
George Washington, Circular to the States, 1783

source

Are we not still involved in this "American Revolution"?

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
James Madison, letter to William Hunter, March 11, 1790

source

Are we not still a Republic that works on "representation"?

Give me liberty or give me death.
Patrick Henry

source

Are we not still a free people?

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

source

Are we not going to do something about Bush, his Administration, and the flagrant arrogance to the fact that "we" are the voice of this land?


Take action, people. Enough is enough. Lest you forget, there are steps to take before inciting a full blow revolution. But the key for those things to work, is for you to work them.


It's up to you.

[edit on 1/18/2007 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I see everyday that people are VERY tired of Iraq, against a meaningless troops surge, and now the Iran war is a WHEN, not IF.... Will people accept it? I suspect also that the number of US casualties in Iraq is MUCH MUCH higher than the official number of 3000. When this will come public, what will happen? Nothing again?

Remember that the 3000 figure is for deaths only. Actual casualties are far higher. Many survive thanks to body armour but are usually cripppled with the loss of limbs or worse.

Remember that the 3000 figure is for deaths only. Actual casualties are far higher. Many survive thanks to body armour but are usually cripppled with the loss of limbs or worse.

Yeah but I think the death number is much higher, the soldiers in Iraq are attacked 100 times EVERYDAY! It's impossible, (or they have great, great armor, but that's not what I saw from the complains from soldiers in Iraq about the lack of protection) that the american army just lose about 1-2 soldiers everyday over 100 attacks against them 960 attacks every week... Some analysis says that the US army lost about 10.000 to 30.000 soldiers in Iraq... I think it's between 5.000 and 12.000...

I think every country lie about the real total death number until a few years after the conflict... So IMO, it's a lie...

Infoholic, again, GREAT POST.

Modern milotaries are usually rather good at Medivac and battlefield treatment, so much so that a high portion of casualties WILL survive (I might add here that the survival rate for modern soldiers is actually somewhat less than in the Napoleonic period..but thats another story).

Total US casualties probably are in the region of 20,000. Most are amputees now, some with brain damage etc. Whilst the Body armour is great against small arms fire, it offers little protection against explosives, at least to the extremities.

The United States sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf this week — the second to deploy in the region — a buildup that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.

In an apparent reaction to the deployment, Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.

"Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path," state-run television quoted the Iranian leader as saying.

The
U.N. Security Council recently imposed limited sanctions to punish Iran for defying a resolution demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce material to fuel nuclear reactors or, at purer concentrations, the core of nuclear weapons.

In Paris, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said he was concerned the sanctions could escalate Iran's standoff with Western powers.

"I don't think sanctions will resolve the issue ... Sanctions in my view could lead to escalation on both sides," he warned.
source

It just keeps building and building and building and........

One side - "we'll show you how bad we are..."

the other side - "oh, no, we'll show you how bad we are!"



[edit on 1/18/2007 by Infoholic]

I don't understand what the problem with our psychotic president is. He took the problem to the UN, they agreed to sanctions and they applied them. Iran not needing outisde help said they didn't care about the sanctions because they could do it themselves. Iran also just recently said they open ALL sites to IAEA inspectors to freely look around.

Why is it that each time the USA has vetoed any security resolution, no other country has taken it upon themselves out of every country that has brought up something before the Security Council to act upon the decision on their own after having no sanctions or actions taking place? Why does this guy have to try to take matters into his own hands even at the risk of war?

This guy is just looking to stir up trouble just because of one paranoid little country's accusations.

What's your take on this:

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
source

and....

AEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei today released his report Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report was prepared at the request of the United Nation´s Security Council. Its circulation is restricted, and unless the IAEA Board of Governors and Security Council decide otherwise, the Agency can not authorise its release to the public.

On 29 March 2006 the Security Council requested "in 30 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the IAEA Board, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."

The report was simultaneously circulated to the Agency´s Member States and to the Security Council in New York this afternoon.

See Story Resources for more information.
source

Supporting links to the above External Source (2nd)...

IAEA Board Report
Security Council Presidential Statement
News Media Reports
IAEA & Iran Full Coverage

[edit on 1/18/2007 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by Infoholic
What's your take on this:

Again we are going by another country's word that they in fact are attempting to make the bomb. That same country has been saying for over 12 years that Iran has the bomb and they believe they will be the first target upon completion.

I think after China's recent launch of a Sattelite killer that we can safely say that our Intelligence is pretty cruddy at this point. If it was any good they would have said something before it even got to launch.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Again we are going by another country's word that they in fact are attempting to make the bomb. That same country has been saying for over 12 years that Iran has the bomb and they believe they will be the first target upon completion.

I think after China's recent launch of a Sattelite killer that we can safely say that our Intelligence is pretty cruddy at this point. If it was any good they would have said something before it even got to launch.

I think everyone knows, understands, and agrees that the IAEA actually takes root up in another country... however, the IAEA is an entity like the UN that resides in one place, but represents all nations. The IAEA is not another country voicing their opinion, it is a representation of many countries, which means the US is part of.

I have read reports from Mohamed ElBaradei, of which it has not been made clear, under his representation for all countries, that Iran is seeking, nor possesses nuclear weapons.


Saying that the US's intelligence is pretty cruddy, after the information put out about China's blowing up a satellite... I don't think it's the Intelligence field that is cruddy... it's the fact that people buy this crap that is cruddy. Do you honestly believe with the technology the the US possesses alone, would allow something like that to happen without our knowledge? I seriously doubt it.


That's just what they want you to believe.

Just to add to that fine little hole Ahmadinejad is digging... here's this article...

Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives

Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.


The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."

Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.

Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."

Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
source

OHHHHH!!!!!!! When will the rhetoric end?

:shk:

[edit on 1/24/2007 by Infoholic]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Some analysis says that the US army lost about 10.000 to 30.000 soldiers in Iraq... I think it's between 5.000 and 12.000...

I think every country lie about the real total death number until a few years after the conflict... So IMO, it's a lie...

Thought this was a joke at first, but I see it's coming from vit so unfortunately it's not a joke.
It's not that high vit. If it was, the anti war groups would be all over it.
(the total combat deaths isn't even 3000 yet...)

Unfortunately for you we live in the 21st century, trying to hide that many deaths is impossible, so your dreams of the US losing tens of thousands of troops is, alas, but a dream.
You'd be extremely hard pressed to hide that many deaths in a war in whcih 3rd word countries were fighting each other in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no media coverage.