You are wrong about Iran.

Originally posted by nightbringr


The leaders of Iran constantly refer to the USA as "the great Satan" and use other such inflammatory language. Is it any wonder that the US might fear an Iranian bomb? Aside from Israel, they obviously consider the US their biggest enemy.

If someone constantly tells you that you are an enemy of theirs, you might worry when they buy a gun.

If you stop threatening to blow up their house , and kill them, they wont need to buy a gun,

Inflammatory Language ... Have you heard what the GOP candidates call each other during these debates,

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by DJMSN

 

I just don't quite understand why there are sanctions against a country trying to develop this type of power. What do they have to fear from Iran?.

The leaders of Iran constantly refer to the USA as "the great Satan" and use other such inflammatory language. Is it any wonder that the US might fear an Iranian bomb? Aside from Israel, they obviously consider the US their biggest enemy.

If someone constantly tells you that you are an enemy of theirs, you might worry when they buy a gun.

If someone constantly told me that I was an enemy of theirs, I would wonder why and look to see what I could change about myself. It's a wonder that the US hasn't done this, especially after 9/11.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by nightbringr


The leaders of Iran constantly refer to the USA as "the great Satan" and use other such inflammatory language. Is it any wonder that the US might fear an Iranian bomb? Aside from Israel, they obviously consider the US their biggest enemy.

If someone constantly tells you that you are an enemy of theirs, you might worry when they buy a gun.

If you stop threatening to blow up their house , and kill them, they wont need to buy a gun,

Inflammatory Language ... Have you heard what the GOP candidates call each other during these debates,

Oh i see. So the best thing to do if you are theatened is to threaten back.

Newsflash, they hated the USA since the fall of the Shah and making their own inflamatory comments ever since. Its takes two to tango, buddy.

And as far as the "inflamatory" GOP rhetoric goes, the Democrats are no better. Ive seen the race card pulled so many times when someone criticizes Obama its stupid.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by nightbringr


The leaders of Iran constantly refer to the USA as "the great Satan" and use other such inflammatory language. Is it any wonder that the US might fear an Iranian bomb? Aside from Israel, they obviously consider the US their biggest enemy.

If someone constantly tells you that you are an enemy of theirs, you might worry when they buy a gun.

If you stop threatening to blow up their house , and kill them, they wont need to buy a gun,

Inflammatory Language ... Have you heard what the GOP candidates call each other during these debates,

Oh i see. So the best thing to do if you are theatened is to threaten back.

Newsflash, they hated the USA since the fall of the Shah and making their own inflamatory comments ever since. Its takes two to tango, buddy.

I am lost. What point are you trying to make? You say this:

Oh i see. So the best thing to do if you are theatened is to threaten back.

But you also ask this:

Is it any wonder that the US might fear an Iranian bomb?

It does work both ways.

reply to post by superman2012


Not sure what point your trying to make with that last post. Do you suggest answering threat with threat, violence with violence?

The US may not have made great attempts at peace with Iran, but certainly the Iranians have been no better in this regard.

reply to post by nightbringr


The only point that I was trying to make was:

Although we do agree on a lot of points about Iran, you seem to be fixated on their human rights record and it seems to me at least, that this is the reason why you believe the sanctions are justified.

The only point I was making with my previous post was to point out that you feel the US is justified in sanctions against Iran because of their fear of Iran (threaten because they are threatened), but Iran cannot do the same.

On your last point I do agree, but, they are trying to at least appease the IAEA. From here. Plus, the US secretary of defense saying their are no nukes and they aren't building them in Iran. Link.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Frira

 

I'm only going to reply to a portion of your post as I don't necessarily disagree with the rest.

Iran, because of its natural resources, is in a position to finance great things, but what the world sees (not just the USA) is a leadership appealing to its people at the tribal level-- not the global neighbor level.

Wanting nuclear power plants for sustainable energy for its people and economy is laudable.

But playing, "Hide the centrifuges" with the rest of the world when combined with saber rattling is EXACTLY what got Saddam Hussein overthrown-- and dead.

You realize (right?) that nations which provide nuclear technology also have a responsibility for insuring the technology is not for the purpose of destroying one's foes. France, Germany and Russia?

You realize (right?) that centrifuges can be used for creating fuel for power generation (in which case, Why would you hide them?), or for weapons (in which case, we KNOW why they are hidden).

I agree that it is great that Iran wants to have nuclear power plants for sustainable energy. (We all know oil isn't going to last forever.)
As for Saddam being overthrown for "hiding centrifuges"...well, read this: Evidence on Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes Misrepresented.

In the months leading up to the invasion, the UN investigators were blocked, and limited-- shown recently abandoned sites and such-- by Iraqi leadership.

But my words (specifically in the quote following what you presented above) were "playing hide the centrifuge" in the context of Iran not of Iraq-- similar to Saddam's hiding research facilities and weapons storage-- putting off International inspectors, etc.

That is to say, I referred to Saddam not having the WMDs, but blocking investigators from verifying. He wanted his enemies (and probably his friends) to believe he did have them. A dangerous game-- as he learned.

Iran, knowing this, is following a similar path with its centrifuges. Why?

I do not have an answer. My GUESS is that the mere HINT of nuclear weaponry in the Iranian nuclear power project translates into prestige, funding, security and clout with radical Islamic nations and factions-- essentially quieting those and minimizing the threat of being demonized by them and their becoming an enemy to the Iranian state.

In short-- placating regional politics.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was over oil, ...

I have no doubt that if the chief export of Iraq had been woven baskets, Iraq would not have had the resources to be a threat to its neighbors. It depends upon your focus. Power, money, oil, technology, military might, policies, intentions, past behavior, integrity-- all of those are interrelated because the oil allowed for them to be-- and allowed for the scale of the threat.

But the American political polarization has made the "all about oil" to suggest, falsely, that the US claimed Iraq oil as its own. It didn't happen and was never an option-- so I stay away from that term.

I do realize that nations that provide nuclear technology has a responsiblity to make sure they don't use them for weapons. However, Russia also helped them build their nuclear technology, why would they Slam new sanctions against Iran? Shouldn't the US, and every other country that ALSO helped Iran get their nuclear program up and running be slapping sanctions on Russia for not following suit?

Tangled. Let's untangle.

The US, nor any US based companies had anything to do with Iran's nuclear program.

There is report containing a list of nations known to have been supplying technology and material for the Iranian nuclear program. I cannot find it (thought I had a copy on my computer-- but do not seem to), but will post when I do find it. No real surprises in it -- to me anyway.

Russia's contribution was primarily (I think, solely) in brain power. And, Yes, those countries who contributed ought to be penalized. If I recall, one executive of a German company was given a few years in prison.-- but that was it.

You get into a legal problem with where the line is drawn, complicated by treaties, diplomacy, and strategic interests. If a German or French company does something which violates its own nation's law (by treaty), then the host nation is responsible for applying its own law and penalties. When that fails, the international community may take steps. Sometimes, gentle persuasion at a conference table is enough to coerce-- sometimes military might is used. In between, are many options.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Frira

 

...

I do realize that centrifuges can be used for creating fuel for power generation or for weapons. If Iran didn't want to have big bullseyes on their NPP's why wouldn't they hide them?

Easy to answer: Because an up and running power generating plant that can be identified as NOT being a breeder reactor is not a military target-- not to the US and not anyone else.

Centrifuges, as I understand it, are not so easy to identify as to purpose. The end product is easy to identify as to purpose.

If you do not have access to the end product to test, and the centrifuges are buried deep under ground and hidden from international investigators, for example, then one MUST suspect the worst.

The scenario is easy enough to imagine. A nuclear device detonates in some port city and the nations of the world demand to know the origination of the device. And while being shown videos of celebrating radical Muslims throughout the Middle East, the ENTIRE non-Muslim world is appalled, angry and frightened. It becomes open season on mosques across the globe.

With no ability to verify Iran's innocence, Iran's guilt is assumed.

Harkening back to the Reagan-Carter election of 1980 during the "Iranian Hostage Crisis"
* "Bomb Iran" (sung to the tune of "Barbara Ann") played on the radio; and
* the joke "What is flat and glows in the dark the day after Regan takes office?" was on the lips of every American.

That Iranian leadership is willing to be a prime suspect in such a scenario is foolishness.

Consider Libya and the Pan Am flight. Libya made threats, and when something bad happened-- who got blamed? The Oklahoma City Federal Building. Muslim Radicals made threats-- had even tried (and failed) to take down the Twin Towers by that time-- and who was the first to be suspected?

Consider the IRA (Irish Republican Army) prior to 9/11 and then after: Money, weapons and other support from US Irish radicals dried up overnight. It was that or be hunted-- the American people would demand it and if the US government did not act, the people would take matters into their own firearm filled hands.

I had grown up in a neighborhood with a good number of Jewish friends. The local synagogue which many attended was occasionally fired upon (at night) so that the windows were destroyed. The night of 9/11; I saw scenes on TV from that same neighborhood where a mosque now exists, The police were there to prevent any drive by shootings at the empty mosque. And there were not any-- but I guarantee it was on the minds of many.

Can you imagine what would happen if they had a plant up and running and it took a direct missile hit? Wouldn't that cause a lot of damage for years!?

I can imagine-- and so can US military leaders who would therefore reject that option-- but instead make use of other options. Perhaps such options have already been employed?

Iran's military could not resist a determined invasion force of US Marines, much less of an International force. so the extreme of a missile strike of an operating nuclear power plant would never come up. By appearances, the Iranian nuclear program is already sufficiently infiltrated by foreign interests.

For that matter (and I am not accusing-- only speculating)...

What if a German company has figure out a way to make billions of dollars and also make giant technological leaps over its competitors by contracting with the Iranian government to assist in building nuclear research facilities-- BUT, in league with the German government's own strategic interests, never intends the project to become operational? It would not be difficult to do. An computer virus here, a few unexplained explosions there-- and the Germans have the money and the Iranians have bupkis.

I say they should drop out of the NPT, North Korea did it and they aren't at risk of getting attacked.

Are you sure North Korea is not in danger of getting attacked? I am not at all sure of that.

Edit: I posted this on page 7 and I think it applies as well here.

It is their way of life, their religion, their mores, their morals, their values. I don't agree with it either, but, if we don't let nations act in the way that they feel is best for their citizens, then we are giving all western nations free reign to go into any country that doesn't believe exactly what they believe. So why not have a one world government then? That seems to be what you are advocating. I don't agree with that either.

edit on 10-1-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

It is a problem-- and the urgency, lacking an easy solution, creates danger.

Meanwhile...

The options remains in the sanctions: Stop hinting at nuclear weapons research and so let Iran prosper-- or don't.

reply to post by Frira


Both posts were perfectly stated, in my mind anyways. I have no idea why Iran is playing such a dangerous game. I wish both sides would take a big dose of common sense.

Edit: I am going to make you a rival, not because I disagree with everything you say, you made me think about other items that I hadn't thought about before. Thanks for making me learn something new!

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Frira

 

Both posts were perfectly stated, in my mind anyways. I have no idea why Iran is playing such a dangerous game. I wish both sides would take a big dose of common sense.

Edit: I am going to make you a rival, not because I disagree with everything you say, you made me think about other items that I hadn't thought about before.

Thanks for making me learn something new!

edit on 11-1-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

I am honored. I have enjoyed "thinking out loud" through the keyboard on this thread.

I just read a great post and I thought anyone that is still watching this might like to read it.

Here is the link.

I know it is a link to my copy of peck420's post, but, the original is linked there as well.

Take care.

reply to post by nightbringr

While I do not advocate the bombing of Iran, I am certainly aware of their brutal human rights record.

And that's because we don't let gays marry in our own type of church , huh ?

Or

Because we say prostitution should be banned ?

What do you exactly believe in ?

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by superman2012

 

Not sure what point your trying to make with that last post. Do you suggest answering threat with threat, violence with violence?

The US may not have made great attempts at peace with Iran, but certainly the Iranians have been no better in this regard.

You mean the peace plan to make Iran surrounded by American military bases ?

That is called peace plan

""""Two days ago, I heard the American President has said that they are not thinking of going to war with Iran. This is very good. This is a good and wise statement. This is an exit from illusion. He has also said that they will bring the people of Iran to their knees with sanctions. This is an illusion. The exit from illusion in the case of not going to war is good, but remaining under an illusion regarding the sanctions will harm them. When a person builds his calculations on illusions rather than realities, it is obvious that he will fail in his plans that are based on these calculations. And this is what they are doing.""""

english.khamenei.ir...

reply to post by maes9


Yes, I'm sure USA didn't want to start another war, but, Israel sure wants a nuclear Iran to be stopped. The US would have no choice if Israel struck first.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Your point is?

I'm quite aware the US is corrupt in the extreme. Does that mean I cannot say the same about Iran? At least we don't publicly hang homosexuals with the governments permission.

So it's ok to discriminate against gays and deny them basic rights, as long as we dont kill them?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by maes9

 

Yes, I'm sure USA didn't want to start another war, but, Israel sure wants a nuclear Iran to be stopped. The US would have no choice if Israel struck first.

without USA, Israel is nothing. they are sunk in economical, strategic, legitimacy, neighbor ... problems. economical problems in Israel does not mean the same as in other countries. those that have left their homelands and immigrated to the occupied lands in pursuit of fictitious promise of zhionism will not tolerate such situations.

Seriously ? a thread about Iran gets turned into an argument and everyone just plays along ? and you wonder why we call you SHEEPLE ? get a grip , you`re just like THEM , throwing words around like they mean nothing , talking about war like it`s some kind of game.

you make me sick , you bunch of turd burglers, i`m officially giving up trying to talk sense into you clowns , go watch tv and play with your gadgets , wearing designer clothes and eating pre-packed food full of lithium .... i`m gonna live in a tree

Iran is a bunch of towel heads that think they are tougher and more relevant than they are. They are not a world power, they will be smashed in a couple of months, if not weeks. The sad thing here is....we need to stop spreading"democracy" like we do...some people don't like it or want it....weird as that sounds.

I'm not a big fan of humans telling other humans how to live...I am Libertarian and how I choose to live is my choice so F*ck off....but...by going in, smashing a country and then saying 'well you are free now" is not a great thing to do.

Yes...we have become the most powerful military in the world...we have within our capacity to kill the entire world a couple of times over....does that in itself not bother people? Why would you ever want to rise to that position? I really don't want to kill people...nor do I want to be killed...I just want to live my life and provide a good future for my kids and grand-kids...and I would prefer no one had to die to accomplish that.

reply to post by RockLobster


Still haven't learned have we?
Provide something relevant to the discussion or feel free to not engage in any discussion.