Iran threatens Gulf blitz if US hits nuclear plants

Originally posted by sy.gunson
There were years of negotiations with iran to offer them reactors which could use low or even non enriched reactors. They refused point blank and said it was none of anyone else's business.

You have some facts to back that up?

Well when they are clearly using this program to build nuclear weapons, then it is the world's business.

It's ok for Pakistan and India to do it right? How many countries besides USA/Israel/UK/etc actually care about what they're up to?

These people will use nukes once they have them and in their threats have obliquely said as much.

Thinking their nations goal is to reach the technological apex just so they can commit suicide immediately afterwards is absurd. People in the most powerful nation in the world going into pandemonium over what some of the smallest natons are doing is obscene. And people call conspiracy theorists paranoid... conspiracy theorists.

Innocent until proven guilty requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. That burden of proof has already been met because there is no other reasonable rational explanation for nuclear power stations which Iran does not need and only has uranium fuel to feed for 6 months per reactor.

Could they be doing it their ay just to be defiant and more proud afterwards? NAH! Could it be they want weapons so thewy don't have to worry about being bullied by the worlds only Super-Empire no more? No way! Get outta town!

[edit on 12-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

So if Iran is attacked for ignoring the international community, the UN and the like, they are going to respond by attacking their innocent neighbors?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by sy.gunson
...and if we wait until those missiles have nuclear tipped warheads he will use them anyway, so I say bite the bullet and do it now.

Thank you Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for removing all doubt what a threat Iran is.

So Iran is a "threat" because they will retaliate if attacked? They're an even greater "threat" if they can use nukes to strike back, or is it they're a threat if "we" cannot simply attack them without fear of nuclear counter measures, meaning "we" can't simply attack them whenever "we" want?

The hypocrisy in this country is obscene.

In the cold war we would call the arms race "the prisoners dilemma"
as you may know with the positive-and negative equilibrium.
The positive is both parties dont have nukes, the negative both have..
For some reason people/countries always reach the negative equilibrium for rational[game] reasons. Because it would be dangerous not having nukes with the risk the others do have. Ok now we have more "knowledge" then during a prisoners dilemma, Iran is implicitly acting they're achieving nukes and spreading unsubtle words like"wiping Israel off the map".
So actually we come to another form of prisoners dilemma: what if we strike them first? and what if they do if we dont? This is whats going on in the games Iran and Israel are playing..
We all want a nuclear free ME and world, but thats not the reality, the reality is mankind will usually come to the negative equilibrium. And Iran going harakiri as soon as they get the nukes? well as i said before, the clerics with their idiotic dogma's dont think rational, just as they send their children into the minefields, they think in martyrdom.
As my fellow political scientist from leiden Hirsi Ali said " I feel in danger by those individuals who think they go to heaven if they kill me, the apostate", what might they think will happen to them if they destroy Israel?
Also i dont think Pandemonium will happen if the us attacks or fry those sites with emp or anything, someone explain what exactly will happen as we can read in the revelation of Johannes..cause lots of people talk like that..


[edit on 12-6-2007 by Foppezao]

Well IgnoranceIsntBlisss if you know so little about the nuclear crises in Iran, why should we listen to any of your opinions about it ?

You have some facts to back that up?

From Wikipedia:

In early August 2005, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan[15], which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"[16] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment [17]. Several days later, the EU-3 offered Iran a package in return for permanent cessation of enrichment. Reportedly, it included benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields, as well as long-term supplies of nuclear materials and assurances of non-aggression by the EU (and not the US),[18]. Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization rejected the offer, terming it "very insulting and humiliating"

en.wikipedia.org...-_August_2006[/ url]


try some more...

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article719715.ece]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article719715.ece


www.bilaterals.org...

www.washingtonpost.com... /13/AR2006071301659.html

Clearly you just don't understand the situation there.

It's ok for Pakistan and India to do it right? How many countries besides USA/Israel/UK/etc actually care about what they're up to?

Quite a lot of other countries actually... How do you think UN resolutions 1696, 1737 or 1747 were passed condemning Iran's nuclear program without widespread support?

My turn to ask you a question Ignoranceisntbliss ?
How old are you ?

Pakistan and India are not threatening to destroy any other countries. They are not even threatening to destroy each other. Each knows the the other has the capability for self defence, but Iran is the only country threatening to destroy other nations, including Isreal, USA and all of USA's allies. Well that is a big list of countries to threaten.

Thinking their nations goal is to reach the technological apex just so they can commit suicide immediately afterwards is absurd. People in the most powerful nation in the world going into pandemonium over what some of the smallest natons are doing is obscene. And people call conspiracy theorists paranoid... conspiracy theorists.

So when Hitler rebuilt Germany after the depression to a technological apex are you saying they didn't commit suicide by invading Poland, attacking France and later Russia ?

What is absurd Ignoranceisn'tbliss is your faith in Ahmedinejad's capacity for rational thought.

I live in a country (New Zealand) which decided to do it our way and break off military relations with USA in the 1980s. In fact I was one of the leading campaigners in several protest movements here which pushed for that.

New Zealand went it's own way without creating a nuclear arsenal and threatening war against other countries.






[edit on 12-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

[edit on 12-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So if Iran is attacked for ignoring the international community, the UN and the like, they are going to respond by attacking their innocent neighbors?

But if Iran is attacked, will it be because they ignored everyone, or will that be the excuse to attack them?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So if Iran is attacked for ignoring the international community, the UN and the like, they are going to respond by attacking their innocent neighbors?

But if Iran is attacked, will it be because they ignored everyone, or will that be the excuse to attack them?

Doesnt matter if, when or why Iran is attacked -i could care less. Im saying they are going to attack their innocent neighbors??

Originally posted by Foppezao
So Iran is a "threat" because they will retaliate if attacked? They're an even greater "threat" if they can use nukes to strike back, or is it they're a threat if "we" cannot simply attack them without fear of nuclear counter measures, meaning "we" can't simply attack them whenever "we" want?

Iran is implicitly acting they're achieving nukes and spreading unsubtle words like"wiping Israel off the map".

Good language, and perspective I almost sense some Sociology education with a dash of "The Trap".

Anyways, Be sure to look very closely at these "statements" of his. That "wipe Israel off the map"

www.prisonplanet.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

He was talking about history and empires. He didn't even use the word map. He was talking about the current regime being 'wiped' "from the pages of time". For context he mentioned how even the great Soviet Empire fell to explain how all empires fall.


Can you blame them for hating Israel? I'm not asking you to assess the angles just anyone could list. The angle I'm talking about is the seldom heard concept of how Israel is the U.S. Imperial Establishments imperial beachead fortress to dominate the Middle East. Ask yourself why we'd ever care so much about that place? If one looks at the history of the US staunchly supporting virtually every foul thing the Israeli Zionist Regime (Zionism is an imperialist ideology political group, not religious) has done, it doesn't make sense, until you look at the "interests" dynamic.

An imperial beachead is what it's all about. For perspective look at our history of policy towards enemy beacheads. Take Guatemala in 1954 for example... Arbenz changed some policies (taking de facto power away from US Fruit Corp to feed his poverty sticken nation) the US Establishment fabricated the claim that it was a going to become a Soviet imperial beachead, when that was a lie. 200,000 citizens died in the aftermath of the slaughter of the US-installed harsh military dictatorships totalitarian roundup of political dissidents.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now considering the repressive imperialist policies of terror and force, and how the American Empire completely dominates the region, "how dare those towel heads wish Israel and the US gone"

So actually we come to another form of prisoners dilemma: what if we strike them first? and what if they do if we dont?

Before reaching that dilemma it's crucial to have a clear understanding of the total nature of the situation and his true rhetoric.

Before reaching that dilemma it's crucial to have a clear understanding of the total nature of the situation and his true rhetoric.

Well I gave you all the links. Maybe you should go and do some reading ?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Well IgnoranceIsntBlisss if you know so little about the nuclear crises in Iran, why should we listen to any of your opinions about it ?

Allow me to give you a little U.S.-Iran history lesson:
You Be The Judge: Iran Fascist Superpower

In my view, spending much time on the most recent rhetoric and disputes is a waste of time. When you know your history you know that any U.S. interest in Iran (Media, etc) is specifially about U.S. imperialist "Interests".

If you spend time scouring the sorts of American Imperialism things that aren't often reported you'll know be aware of some certain things such as global US Military bases (763) and where they're situated around the Middle East in particular.

www.lewrockwell.com...
When you apply "our" history of overthrowing their government for colonial control, US having troops and bases in every nation surrounding Iran, US having them 2nd on the axis of evil list and #1 is already scratched off, and the attackdog propaganda machine being pushed by the establishment I expect basically everything I hear about their defiant moves. I even expect them to help the insurgents over there, I'd be suprised if I didn't hear that.

It not even that I like the idea of them helping our guys die, I don't, it's that we have them surrounded and on the 'hit list'. People in this country would be ripping their hair out if some other imperial power had invaded and/or built bases on all sides of US and had 12-16 aircraft carriers (for perspective) surrounding our shores. What actions would you take if this was happening to you wherever you live? It's absolute hypocrisy to expect them to not be reactionary and defiant. What would you do and say in their shoes? Answer that please anyone who supports the Attack Iran view.

Clearly you just don't understand the situation there.

Thanks for the links. But are you still sure about that statement? When you understand the big picture, and you're not a hypocrite, those sort of rhetorical grade issues aren't all that worth spending time finding and memorizing, in my view.

How old are you ?

28

Pakistan and India are not threatening to destroy any other countries. They are not even threatening to destroy each other.

They have a long visious history of ongoing border wars. The MAD ended that problem for the most part. The US has a history of overthrowing the government of Iran. I see the Establishments concern being a major issue of fear of losing that hope of control. ("We" don't attack the strong nations.) Then there's Dollar Hegemony and American Imperialism in general to spice that up.

Each knows the the other has the capability for self defence, but Iran is the only country threatening to destroy other nations, including Isreal, USA and all of USA's allies.

Show me the irrefutable statements. I haven't seen those. I've seen soem duesey's, but never have they been imperialist in context.

So when Hitler rebuilt Germany after the depression to a technological apex are you saying they didn't commit suicide by invading Poland, attacking France and later Russia ?

They were on an imperial warpath, and thought they could do that. Iran is surrounded by an empire that made the Nazi Empire look like little girls. If they get nukes they could assure their survival, but if they use said nukes they will be literally wiped off the map.


Your nations breakaway from American Imperialism has absolutely no parallel to the US hegemony over Iran situation. Considerign your background, it amazes me that you don't see through all of the Estabishment propaganda.

Ignoranceisntbliss...

Your link is a pathetic attempt to change the subject, but I am not intimidated by your BS. I will respond to you BS distraction first and then address the Original Post which you are trying to divert us from.

To answer your BS distraction, bases in Turkey are long standing NATO bases. Bases in Afghanistan are UN bases. The bases in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan are temporary staging posts mainly for logistics aircraft and are at the invitation of their governments. The bases in Kuwait are part of UN mandate for Iraq.

Oman Saudi Arabia and UAE etc have all invited the US presence there. These countries are free to ask US forces to leave their soil and as I understand it Saudi Arabia did ask the US to quit bases there after the first Gulf war. I don’t believe your map is current, but rather has listed abandoned bases from the First Gulf War.

You selectively forget that US forces are also based around the Gulf by UN mandate following the 1987 Iran/Iraq war when Iran attacked dozens of tankers from non combatant nations in the Straits of Hormuz. Perhaps you’re too young to remember that war or else you selectively let that slip ?

I am perfectly aware of CIA activity in the region from the 1950s to the 1980s.

Show me the irrefutable statements. I haven't seen those. I've seen soem duesey's, but never have they been imperialist in context.

In 2004 Iran threatened to exterminate “anglo-saxon civilisation” and also threatened to cut off the world’s oil supplies. That was long before the current nuclear tensions.


www.memri.org...

Here’s a threat to attack other Gulf states

qatarjournal.com...

www.infolive.tv... atens-regional-war


How about some threats in 2005 ?

www.newsmax.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk... ce

www.newsmax.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/06/05/wiran 05.xml

I repeat:

IIB said:
Show me the irrefutable statements. I haven't seen those. I've seen some duesey's, but never have they been imperialist in context.

Nice list of disinfo. The first one, when you actually read each statement, warns about what they'll do if attacked. They warn against threats to them, not threaten others.

I refuted most of the rest, besides the recent one you slipped in the 2005 list, in a post above yours. This isn't just you and I in here.

Ignorance isn't bliss.

Thanks for the links. But are you still sure about that statement? When you understand the big picture, and you're not a hypocrite, those sort of rhetorical grade issues aren't all that worth spending time finding and memorizing, in my view.

I don't know. You seem to be enjoying it.

Pakistan and India:

They have a long visious history of ongoing border wars. The MAD ended that problem for the most part.

You clearly haven't read the news for the last three years ?

www.pbs.org...

www.pbs.org...

By the way vicious is spelled with a "c"

This is just looney talk:

Iran is surrounded by an empire that made the Nazi Empire look like little girls. If they get nukes they could assure their survival, but if they use said nukes they will be literally wiped off the map.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the 1979 hostage crises and the 1987 attacks on shipping in the Gulf how many opportunities has USA had to flatten Iran and with justification ?

...and did it attack Iran ? ... No. Your talk is frankly paranoid. Nothing has happened in all these years when Iran has antagonised middle east relations and without the benefit of nuclear weapons.

I also draw attention to the fact that at first you said Iran only wanted to enrich Uranium for nuclear power.

Now by arguing that Iran should have nuclear weapons you are revealing that your previous posts denying that Iran wants nuclear weapons were disingenuous.

Your nations breakaway from American Imperialism has absolutely no parallel to the US hegemony over Iran situation Considerign your background, it amazes me that you don't see through all of the Estabishment propaganda.

New Zealand does not rely on American news networks and we like Europeans have a far broader appreciation of world events than many Americans.

Maybe if you pondered that for a moment you might realise that the Iran situation is not merely a construct of america's right wing press ?


[edit on 13-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Your link is a pathetic attempt to change the subject, but I am not intimidated by your BS. I will respond to you BS distraction first and then address the Original Post which you are trying to divert us from.

To answer your BS distraction,

What's BS about telling everyone the truth about what is fueling the entire ordeal and the true nature of these statements?

Don't even answer until you answer my questions about what you would do and say if you were in their position, please.



Would you like to throw up some citations for that staunch dismissal of every base in the entire region? You forgot Bahrain on the 'voluntary' list. Does that take away from their anger? Be sure to ignore my other posts in here about the imperial beachead and domination of the region. Nevermind if the US supports harsh regimes and dictatorships, and if they like to keep imperial US bases around to keep them in power... not important here... they don't obey and they react.

"How dare they make reactionary threats about dominating them!"

You selectively forget that US forces are also based around the Gulf by UN mandate following the 1987 Iran/Iraq war when Iran attacked dozens of tankers from non combatant nations in the Straits of Hormuz.

You selectively dismiss how that war got started... who put Hussein into power... how the Iranian situation came about... who supported Hussein during the war... how convenient it was that he attacked Iran as soon ass they became an independent nation... and so on... etc.

I am perfectly aware of CIA activity in the region from the 1950s to the 1980s.

So you know up until the 80's?

Oh, wait, since the US lost control of Iran CIA activities no longer matter? If they conduct another overthrow, which it's safe to assume they're foaming at the mouth to do, then we'll talk about it?


[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Pakistan and India:
You clearly haven't read the news for the last three years ?

I said they're still at each others throats??? Settle-down and breathe. Oh, boy, lets get nitpicky on lazy/busy spelling to elevate our ego!!!

This is just looney talk:

Iran is surrounded by an empire that made the Nazi Empire look like little girls. If they get nukes they could assure their survival, but if they use said nukes they will be literally wiped off the map.

O? If you would like to have a direct discussion about American Imperialsm specifically I have several choice threads I can link you to. Here isn't the place. Say the word.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice straw man, allow me to flick a matchbook at it...

Why would they even be mad enough to do that? Could it have anything to do the absolute fact the US overthrew their government in 1953 to control the oil? Nah? Their Revolution was overthrow the U.S. de facto puppet regime. They took the embassy because it was the CIA's subversion outpost. O, WAIT, nevermind what caused the hostage crisis, we're hypocrite society and they have no right or reason to do that in protest for the thousands tortured and murdered by the SAVAK secret police after decades of repression. And nevermind they let the hostages free.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Since the 1979 hostage crises and the 1987 attacks on shipping in the Gulf how many opportunities has USA had to flatten Iran and with justification ?

I'd imagine that if we seen the details on those ships we could find some justifiable motivation for it from their view. If so, we must be sure to not comprehend their views.


[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by hippichick
Devilwasp,

the UK/Great Britain does not possess any nuclear weapons. All the weapons nominally "owned" by the UK/GB are located in the Norfolk Naval Yards in Virginia USA. The UK/GB has to ask permission of the septics for access.

Thats the biggest load of BS I have seen on here for a while and I've seen some crackers!

What YOU are thinking of is the missiles, which are "leased" off America because we do not have an indigenous ICBM/SLBM industry. We used to and we used to make some wonderful rockets, but in the 60's things started to get pricey, so we canned our programme. We have then leased rockets off the US.

There is a misconception here that:

1. We need US permission to launch our missiles
   
2. And that missiles=Warheads.
   

Firstly, no we do NOT need US permission to launch the rockets. They are independently controlled by the UK. Now, considering the rockets are designed and built in the US, it is conceivable that the US could put a spanner in the works and screw up the guidance remotely, but that would purely be for the outgoing SLBM.

The MIRV's with the warheads and targeting info would still be very much British and aside from the "much loved" ABM system, nothing the Yanks could do could stop them hitting.

Granted, if the outgoing SLBM had it's guidance tampered with, the warheads may be off the mark somewhat, but when your talking weapons in the megaton range, does that matter?

Secondly, all our nuclear warheads are designed and built at AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield. Both of which are a stone's throw from my home town, Reading. Just because we lease rockets off you, that does not in any way mean that you are in control of our warheads.

Each of the Tridents can carry up to 16 warheads. All of which are designed and built in Berkshire, England. Any notion that you make our warheads is complete joke and I am "denying your ignorance" here, chap.

Now, your more than welcome to come back with a retort and, if we are really lucky, some actual evidence to back up your claim, but I don't think you will.

As for the topic at hand...

If Iran is attacked without provocation, then they have every right to strike back at any target they deem to be strategically important. Hitting US-Allied nations infrastructure, including oil production facilities, is entirely liegitimate, considering the US will be using those very same countries to launch the attack in the first place.

Let me ask this, if the US was in Iran's position and was surrounded by enemies who threatened them action if they did not comply, would you withhold your right to self-defence, or would you strike back at the countries that either launched the attack or provided logictical support to such an attack?

This isn't a case of "Iranian Bravado" or "Crazy Mullah's", this is run of the mill geopolitics. To be expected of any country facing the possibility of outside aggression.

The only reason certain members are all gleeful at the prospect of a War in Iran is because they are being conditioned to think that Iran is a threat.

I watch US News networks, from CNN to FOX and no matter what side of the political spectrum they apprently sit on, one thing remains constant in all their reporting.

It's sensationalist drivel with little actual content, but plenty of talking heads with opinions and flashy graphics. I made the mistake of watching some FOX News during the Labanon crisis last year and it made me laugh some of the utter garbage they were spouting as news. The same can be said for CNN, ABC and the rest. Bugger all actual meat to a story and alot of, essentially, made up opinion backed by little or no facts.

Unfortunately, it would appear that this shallow as a kids paddling pool approach works on the majority.

Oh don't worry... My breathing is just fine. You might get hysterical rushes of blood to the head, but not me.

Ignoranceisntbliss you are a little trickster scurrying around trying to start bushfires like a childish vandal to divert the argument from it's OP.

So if India and Pakistan are not at each other's throats and haven't been for some years now then why raise it as a point. This is your typical BS. When you can't argue the point change it to another point on a different topic.

You challenged me to prove that Iran had been offered reactors which did not require highly enriched uranium. I gave you the answer.

You had no knowledge of it prior to my telling you and as soon as I told you you dismissed it as propaganda. That is serious psychosis.

Originally you argued that Iran did not want uranium enrichment for nuclear power. Then after blowing all sorts of off topic smokescreens about US Imperialism you swiftly changed stance from denying that Iran wanted nuclear weapons to trying to justify why they should have them.

If you can't argue the issue honestly then really this is just a futile ego stoking debate for you. Ahmedinejad and you have a similar approach to reason and logic.

You had no grasp of the facts when you waded into this debate. You made all sorts of wild BS claims which crumbled as soon as you challenged me to provide proof.

You couldn't handle that emotionally and now have resorted to introducing all sorts of off topic hyperbola. If you would stop still for a moment and actually stick to the topic, it would be apparent that you have not made the points you think you've made.

I stick to my comments about your distractions being pathetic.

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
One of the big things that people are overlooking is that Israel is a nuclear nation, and I dont think that they would hesitate for one second to bobm Iran back to the stone age of they attacked them.

Iran is working towards nuclear capabilities, Israel is already there...and Israel is the U.S. friend.

have you looked the world map lately?... if israel nuke iran it will bomb itself to stone age too...

dont see why people here deem it inexpetible for countries to defend them selves from attack from enemey forces.

like its only expectible if you are one country to defend your self but must expect and allow attacks if your another taking it without saying anything.

hopefully Iran will use all the weapons it has to cause as much casulties to anyone that attacks it, and not go down like its arab neigbours