How To Sabotage Ahmadinejad When He Arrives In Ny

[The Avon Lady]

What's needed is a major lack of coverage (http://instapundit.com/archives2/009694.php).

Sorry, but I cannot do this. :roll:

[Letum]

......some what childish.

[The Avon Lady]

......some what childish.
Pardon my immature tastes.

Actually, there's one or two precedents, specifically involving Ahmadinejad, that might accomplish this, if only it could be done.

[August]

......some what childish.

Maybe but i bet it would do some damage.

[The WosMan]

I suggest somebody on top of a building with a high powered rifle and a scope. Is that too harsh?

[Tchocky]

It's certainly dignified.

[bradclark1]

What's needed is a major lack of coverage (http://instapundit.com/archives2/009694.php).

Sorry, but I cannot do this. :roll:
I think it would be better if it was a scantily clad man.:D

[sunvalleyslim]

don't know if he's really worth a bullet. How about a neutron bomb for the whole damn country..............:fff:

[Skybird]

He also threatened to come to Germany during the football world championship 2006 if the Iranian team would make it beyond the first round. But we were lucky, their team was shot out of the tournament just in time. So... :hmm:

I just remembered that he threatened to want to meet with families who lost someone during 9/11. Maybe that is a good plan B. Just make sure they meet alone, in a quiet, intimate place.

[The WosMan]

Seeing that the guy was one of the hostage takers back in 79 I don't understand why they arrest him as soon as he gets off the plane. Screw this BS that he is the head of a country or he is going to be here under the UN rules. To me this is just one more reason to kick the UN out of our country as it costs way to much money, accomplishes absolutely no purpose, has been involved in dozens of scandals, and simply gives 3rd world terrorist thugs a platform to oppose western governments. The guy is a terrorist, took part personally in terrorist acts, and his forces are killing our soldiers in Iraq right now. He should be arrested, put on trial, and then hung for war crimes.

[AntEater]

First of all, this guy still is a head of state of a UN member nation.
The bad guys disrespect protocol, the good guys play along.
But how about a pie attack??
Or better, a Pig attack??
Slapping him with a huge chunk of bavarian "Leberkäse" (made of pork) would do just fine
:rotfl:

[fatty]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

But, y'know, the old standby of actually sitting a leader down at a table and asking him what exactly his beef is has worked once or twice in the past.

[bradclark1]

But, y'know, the old standby of actually sitting a leader down at a table and asking him what exactly his beef is has worked once or twice in the past.
Somehow I don't think that would accomplish much with this guy.

[Letum]

But, y'know, the old standby of actually sitting a leader down at a table and asking him what exactly his beef is has worked once or twice in the past. Somehow I don't think that would accomplish much with this guy.

Everyone has their price.

[Foxtrot]

I am interested to watch his interview live. Too much of media circus these days.
How come we always jump to violence as a way to solve our problems? Assassinating a leader of a sovereign nation is not a good idea, ever.

[Ishmael]

Well, you can let him rant and give the neo-cons more ammo for war and sabre-rattling, or you could try my favorite idea.

Have all the gays stage pro-Ahmedinijad marches and rallies and beam the TV coverage directly to Iran. Can you see the average Iranian seeing images of Sister Boom-Boom and the other Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence holding up big pics of your boy and signs saying, "Convert Me you savage."

[Friedmann]

I have an idea, perhaps all you Americans could act like children, throw hissy fits treat him disprespectfully and provide him with exactly what he wants. An opportunity to go back to Iran and tell his domestic audience that he went to America, tried to talk and the Americans acted like a bunch of toothless barbarians.

All this wringing of hands, impotent fist shaking, puerile stunts etc is exactly what he wants.

Ahmadinejad is a far shrewder politician than anyone you will find in Washington.

[bradclark1]

I think a scantily clad guy in leather giving him a wet one is the best way to go.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

But, y'know, the old standby of actually sitting a leader down at a table and asking him what exactly his beef is has worked once or twice in the past. Somehow I don't think that would accomplish much with this guy.
Everyone has their price.

http://www.lacoctelera.com/myfiles/quefuede/Ted%20DiBiase01.jpg

:D

[Skybird]

I am interested to watch his interview live. Too much of media circus these days.
How come we always jump to violence as a way to solve our problems? Assassinating a leader of a sovereign nation is not a good idea, ever.
Shooting Hitler when there still was time would have saved our ancestors a lot of suffering. Same could be said about so many: Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Tamerlan, political leaders here, religious icons there... Millions and millions would have been saved from experiencing the worst of what man is capable of. Ahmadinejad does not hide his intentions,a nd speak them out loud and clearly, so why giving him the the benefit of doubt? He puts himself beyond the rules of humanitarianism and tolerant coexistence, so why allowing him to pick the freedoms and escape the duties from this? A not small, but significant amount of Iranians deliberately choose to follow him, and brought him to power. Why not holding them responsible for the choice they made? Isn't the latter a key part of democracy - that you are free to choose, but must accept to bear the responsibility for the consequences?

[fatty]

Shooting Hitler when there still was time would have saved our ancestors a lot of suffering. Same could be said about so many: Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Tamerlan, political leaders here, religious icons there... Millions and millions would have been saved from experiencing the worst of what man is capable of. Ahmadinejad does not hide his intentions,a nd speak them out loud and clearly, so why giving him the the benefit of doubt? He puts himself beyond the rules of humanitarianism and tolerant coexistence, so why allowing him to pick the freedoms and escape the duties from this? A not small, but significant amount of Iranians deliberately choose to follow him, and brought him to power. Why not holding them responsible for the choice they made? Isn't the latter a key part of democracy - that you are free to choose, but must accept to bear the responsibility for the consequences?

But as you say, Ahmadinejad has a significant following back in Iran - and probably in other Arab countries, as well. If he was killed on American soil or even with implication of American involvement, do you suppose the discontent of his type towards the West would get better or worse? Pressing further U.S. hegemonic doctrine (which I think many in Ahmadinejad's camp would be quite happy to use as fuel for their fire) is not going to make many angry people change their minds about war with the West.

If you believe Ahmadinejad is an erratic and dangerous leader, then maybe it's better to have him in power. Plans to assassinate Hitler were ultimately scrapped because it was decided by British intelligence that it was better for the Allies to have Hitler alive and in charge - he was such a terrible strategist that if he was killed, not only would the Nazi party have more propaganda to throw at the Allies, but someone better and more competent in the affairs of war would take his place. I assume that if Ahmadinejad were assassinated, more invigorated and aggressive leadership would replace him.

I still favour dialogue to expose him for the rest of the [Arabic] world as the menace that we are confident he is. Then perhaps the Iranian public, and maybe even the Ayatollah, will rethink the direction they are headed in. If it fails, at least we can say that we tried, and that we did not repeat the same expedited mistakes as in Iraq.

[Skybird]

But as you say, Ahmadinejad has a significant following back in Iran - and probably in other Arab countries, as well. If he was killed on American soil or even with implication of American involvement, do you suppose the discontent of his type towards the West would get better or worse?

I was talking on a general, non-specific level because Foxtrot indicated that getting rid of such a leader is a wrong option in principle, and unimportant what the conditions are. I did not mention to kill Ahmadinejad on US soil, did I. that would be contraproductive, since then the principle of diplommatic immunity would be put at question, and this cannot be in the interest of anybody. We need to be able to send our enemy a message without getting the messengers shot. It's about most elemental communication, no matter what it is worth.

Concerning Hitler, if he would have been killed let's say one or two years before 1933, with the war still years away, it all would have become a different story. No other united the political powers around him, like he did - at that time he was not to be replaced.


Pressing further U.S. hegemonic doctrine (which I think many in Ahmadinejad's camp would be quite happy to use as fuel for their fire) is not going to make many angry people change their minds about war with the West.

Their fires get fueld no matter what you do. Islam is not driven in the first by hate on America and the West, but by wanting to push it's own agenda, no matter if there is a West or America (which will always being hated simply for being not Islamic). I have come that far in my conclusions that I don't give a damn if they are getting further infuriated at us or not - Cheers to all Muslims out there! If they want to yell and burn flags and demonstrate, okay, let them. I don't care. Get them into a psychiatry, and throw away the keys.

Some of the reasons for my desinterest on wether like me/us or not:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4966/higginsog0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8561/022406blogyc1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2336/outragepi2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/17/untitledpj5.png (http://imageshack.us)

If you believe Ahmadinejad is an erratic and dangerous leader, then maybe it's better to have him in power. Plans to assassinate Hitler were ultimately scrapped because it was decided by British intelligence that it was better for the Allies to have Hitler alive and in charge - he was such a terrible strategist that if he was killed, not only would the Nazi party have more propaganda to throw at the Allies, but someone better and more competent in the affairs of war would take his place. I assume that if Ahmadinejad were assassinated, more invigorated and aggressive leadership would replace him.

So what? Can't get worse than it is now. they continue with their nuclear program - now. They continue with confrontation and provocation - now. They continue with intolerance and opressing foreign cultures and religions in Iran - now. EU negotiates and in the end achieves nothing but failed illusions, and starting with new ones over and over again - now. So what would be new with a radical leader different to Ahmadinejadh? Nothing. He maybe only would be more clever to try to lull europe with sweet, sweet lies, and try to be less provocative. European politicians love to hear what they want to hear. Tell them the words they want to hear, and you already have them bought.

I still favour dialogue to expose him for the rest of the [Arabic] world as the menace that we are confident he is.

What dialogue...? There is only a european monologue, while Iran carries on with what it wants to acchieve - getting the nuclear bomb. The UN - forget it. Syria has just been made the vice-president of the UN's nuclear watchdog. That really raises my trust. :up: Like Lybia was made head of the human rights committee some months ago. :lol: Expose him by dialogue to the Arabic world, you said. You assume yourself to be in powers you do not have, and to be of a convincing example many people are not convinced of a bit. as a matter of fact, only the wealth of the west is attractive for islam - the rest of what makes up the West needs to be "cleaned" and turned Islamic.

Then perhaps the Iranian public, and maybe even the Ayatollah, will rethink the direction they are headed in. If it fails, at least we can say that we tried, and that we did not repeat the same expedited mistakes as in Iraq.

Amongst other nations in that region, I have been for months in Iran, you can safely assume that I am absolutely aware of the many different facettes of the Iranian public. I do not judge them by stereotypes, and if there would not be islam, i would even hold their old history and culture in high respect - all in all I would say I have seen more civilization and education in iran than in any other muslim country and often have been treated with great hospitality - but there are also the uneducated, the "extremist", the barbars and ignorants. I also see that public orientation has massively shifted it's sympathies from the careful reforms that were hoped for ten years ago or so, and were left in the rain by the West and the US, since they never wanted a democracy in American understanding, and still do not wish for that by great majority. The US played by the rule of all or nothing at all. That strategy has completely failed, turning many reformist into nationalists, disillusioned many of the young, and drove many into the arms of the clerics.

Ahmadinejadh, by the way, is by far not loved by the clerics - quite the opposite. Most of the clerics want the same thing thing - driving Islam into the west, drive the sunni influence in the ME back, and go for Israel. It's just that his stupdiity makes him seek appearances in front of the media that he is a heavy mortgage for these ambitions. Silent secrecy and superficial false friendliness would be much more serving their needs, instead of silly provocation. A lot of people in the West are naive enough that they would buy it.

I would not compare Iran to Iraq, btw. corporations' (especially oil companies') interests would not play such a huge role in a war with Iran (except that of defense contractors, obviously), like they did in Iraq. Also, Iraq had no nuclear weapons, or was close to getting them. There is even no convincing proof that it was enaged in trying to get nukes after the mid-90s. All "reports" indicating the opposite so far I have not found convincing. With Iran, this is very different. I long was in an undecided balance over wether to allow them a nuclear program or not, for I look at the numbers and see very well that economically they do need civilian nuclear powerplants indeed, although that sounds paradox for an oilö-rich country, but they are loosing to much potential income fro m oil they do not sell, but consumme themselves. but over the past year I came to the conclusion that the immense danger of an iran with access to nulcear technology is too great a risk as that it could be accepted. Concerning the military program of theirs, I further conclude that it has to be prveented at all cost. Even if this would mean the total destruction of Iran. That is quite a leap from my opions three or four years ago, but I am sure of my reasons. since I also exprrienced some good things in Iran, I say that withoiut necessarily liking it. for me it is a tragedy in the first, but maybe a tragedy that cannot be avoided. Keeping iran functional and alive is not a necessity - but preventing more Islamic nations from becoming nuclear powers is a necessity. If we allow it happening, we will not only pay in loss of our culture, laying ourselves open to blackmail, and being defenseless to ever growing ammounts of Islamic terror, but we will also pay in many, many lives sooner or later. And when it comes that far, I leave my reasoning and arguments and I am clearly choosing my side and say: better them getting killed, than us.

[LtCmdrRat]

Sorry for repeating this endless times but ISLAM cant be peaceful- it is written in KORAN, some muslims, even majority(60%-70%) perhaps, but ISLAM idiology is VIOLENT and now it is in medieval stage like christianity(XI-XVcentury ) or jewdaism (II BC -IAD ) were many centuries ago. The only difference is that now we have WMD . Can you imagine what may happend if they decided to use it against West Civilization??? It is war between civilizations.
How peaceful Islam??? Watch "What West needs to know "(about Islam).

[Dunedain82]

Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran (perhaps not elected in democratic elections as you might like it, but still a head of state) and so international rules of diplomacy require certain ammount of dignity to his status. Now, I know some of his ideas are silly and unacceptable (doesn't believe holocaust, want's to wipe out Israel). But President of USA takes commands form imaginary figure so what you can do... This forums anti-islam atmosphere is really starting to be problem IMHO...

sincerely, J

[P_Funk]

What everyone always seems to neglect to mention is that Ahmadinejad isn't the ultimate authority over Iran. He has to answer to someone else too. And from what I've read this person isn't nearly as inflammatory as Ahmadinejad.

As for Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions I have a few thoughts on it.

Firstly Iran's nuclear ambitions date back to the 1950s when they were given help the US to begin a nuclear program though it was suspended at one point. Then in the early 70s the Shah began his program again with US support. Immediately after the 79' revolution however all existing agreements for the development of nuclear technology were terminated, despite Iran being owed significant resources. Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology.

In terms of the development of Nuclear arms, already Israel and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon. Both of these states are freindly to the US, for now anyway and hostile to Iran. Iran, should it truly desire a nuclear weapon, are most likely merely evening the playing field. If your traditional opponents, the US, and Israel and Pakistan, and they all have weapons and foreign policies which seek to weaken your state in the region, then would not any intelligent government seek such a deterrent? The US gave a nuke to Israel 40 years ago, and only now Iran is possibly getting one. You introduce a nuclear capability into the region and you have to expect oppositional powers to want to equalize the situation. The US wouldn't allow Russia to make any nuclear advances without opposition or reciprocal development. Iran if anything is late in getting its nuclear program up, and even then theres no guarentee it will be a completed nuclear capability. Gwynne Dyer supposes that its mostly likely a threshold capability they seek, one that will give them the ability to become armed in a nuclear capacity within a year should the appropriate political circumstances demand it; ie. foreign threat of invasion or attack.

Lastly, why are we so scared of Iran? History has shown that even muslims, when in a position of power and wealth, do not suppose to be so foolish as to throw it all away on idiotic behavior such as an unwinnable war. Has anyone noticed Pakistan lately? That nation is if anything a greater threat to non-proliferation in the region than Iran since it is a hot bed of Islamic Extremism, which reaches deep into the upper echelons of the military, and which is only held at bay by a single man in power who is not likely to be able to sustain his own position indefinitely. Should a violent extremist revolt place extremists in charge of the military then we would have an Islamic militant power with nuclear capability, and this is a US ally.

The demonization of Iran is so irrational and emotional. The middle east is a far more complex entity than just this. Seriously, has nobody learned history? Half our allies today are our former enemies or at least work with our former enemies. The Taliban has roots in Pakistan. Iran's revolution is opposed by the US because it overthrew the Shah who was a vassal lord of the US's.

I think the real sinister threat to peace in the region or the world isn't Iran so much as the Western need to demonize Iran more than it is in reality. And what we may do as a result of these delusions may leave our children in worse stead than we know, and it won't be Achmedinejad's fault either.

[The Avon Lady]

What a farce of a post that was, P-Funk. Let's start with your usual moral equivalence:
In terms of the development of Nuclear arms, already Israel and Pakistan have a nuclear weapon. Both of these states are freindly to the US, for now anyway and hostile to Iran.
The only reason Israel is hostile to Iran is because Iran wishes to destroy Israel. If Iran were happy in their oil pond and would simplly not declare their desire to practice another Jewish genocide, Israel couldn't care what Iran does with itself.

So far, it's been Iranian terrorist proxies and Iranian provided weapons that have been terrorizing Israel and Jews around the world, in addition to civilians and military personnel of countries around the world.

Who are you trying to fool?! :down:

Here's a little factual refreshing, absent of the usual "oh, I don't know", "yes, but" and "maybe or perhaps" of the left:

Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/who_is_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_1.html).

What a sad pathetic world we live in where the dregs of human brutality and thuggery are given respectable podiums from which to snake talk their opinions and so many people bend over backwards to give such filth some form of legitimacy.

[Skybird]

P_Funk,

Pakistan is NOT friendly to the US, or any other western nation. It is betraying the US, and very massively so, since at least the late 70s, probably earlier. Pakistans decisions until today have costed the lives of Western soldiers, they are supporting the Taleban, and presently their secret service has turned probably more Taleban than the Taleban are themselves. since they take benefit from the drug income in Afghanistan, they are not interested to keep the flow of drugs low. In the 80s they even accepted that a large proportion of their own population became addicted, to get the finances they needed to serve their foreign financial duties due to weapons deals. It'S a long story. what I mean is simply: they are not friendly to the US, in no way. If I would have been the americans, there would have been no war against Iraq, but after the war in Afghanistan a massive military display of combat power at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, to make them stay out and make it clear to them if they continue to interferte and play with cheats and marked cards, they would have to pay the price. It would have been no gesture, but a major great-scale deployment: all what had been sent to Iraq, and then very much more. That friendly to us I see them.

You also said "everyone is neglecting that Ahmadinejadh..." Well, I mentioned that the clerics are not happy with him, did I. Also, the former president Rafsandschani in the West was seen as pragmatic, West-oriented, less dogmatic - the prime exmaple of this strnage constuction of a "moderate Muslim". Short: the West bought the story this man wanted it to believe. While he certainly was pragmatic, he nevertheless influenced some very orthodox decisions and develeopements in Iran, and smiled and was kind to the West (in a way), knowing that this would appease western opposition to Iran, and it did. - If you think that the clerics are less determined to get the bomb, then you are fooling yourself. they are, but are willing to take longer time if that helps to hide the project, and would be willing to give the impression of being less confronting to the West, if that helps to go on with the work, maybe at a slower pace, but with greater safety and smaller risks to get engaged in war. So, they know very well that the revolution is no longer capable to fascinate the young, many of them are more pragmatic in the meaning of being clever enough not to provoke the west like this idiot in office now does, and almost commanding Western attention onto the program time and again. Seen that way, Ahmadinejadh has done real damage to the Iranian cause, and thus he is not very popular with the clerics. their program never will go on as peacefully and unnoticed again as before him. It's just that he is not cleric and thus apparently sees the need to raise public support for him by giving the people what his clients like: provoking the west, and getting away with hit: "see how tough I am! Vote for me, again!" In the end, he is just a big-mouthed, arrogant uneducated prole; maybe having instincts, but certainly lacking brain; crafty (=gerissen), but intellectually extremely stupid.

[Von Tonner]

What a sad pathetic world we live in where the dregs of human brutality and thuggery are given respectable podiums from which to snake talk their opinions and so many people bend over backwards to give such filth some form of legitimacy.
Well said.

P-Funk
"Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology."

Wrong P-Funk. SA developed Nuclear weapons and was the pole-cat of the West at the time.

P-Funk
"Lastly, why are we so scared of Iran? History has shown that even muslims, when in a position of power and wealth, do not suppose to be so foolish as to throw it all away on idiotic behavior such as an unwinnable war."

Wrong P-Funk. He went by the name of Saddam bin Hussein at-Takriti, remember him?

[P_Funk]

The only reason Israel is hostile to Iran is because Iran wishes to destroy Israel. If Iran were happy in their oil pond and would simplly not declare their desire to practice another Jewish genocide, Israel couldn't care what Iran does with itself.

So far, it's been Iranian terrorist proxies and Iranian provided weapons that have been terrorizing Israel and Jews around the world, in addition to civilians and military personnel of countries around the world. And what moral qualifying are you trying to do? What does it matter why Israel is opposed to Iran? The reality is what it is regardless of which side you believe. Frankly neither Israel nor Iran are saintly in their regional conduct, but then which power in any place in the world is? The point I make isn't one of trying to root for the Iranians. The difference however is that this propoganda that is constantly spewed is not practically useful except to galvanize people to hate Iran and possibly prepare for war. People who were in charge 30 years ago with the US's blessing were as bad or worse. Whatever justification for Israel's stance on Iran there is blood and guilt either way , in my opinion. I don't buy the innocent self-defense cries of Israel, not that I deny that Israel has a right to defend itself. The extremist need to place people in one category or another and to avoid critical analysis of both sides is what I am avoiding, but yet again you place me in an extreme.

*Sigh* But then I expected this and its why I post.

@Skybird

Again why do people insist on assuming that everyone must be merry freinds to be involved in one another? Of course Pakistan is not a true ally to the US, but Musharraf is in bed with them at the moment. The point I was making was that we fear Iran getting the bomb yet we encourage the power of those that already have it but may soon become a more immedite and ultimately less predictable power than Iran. The politics of the Bush administration make him friendly at the moment, but then that is the classic foreign policy M.O. Make freinds of your enemy's enemy, or something to that effect. Its not very smart is it, but thats my point.

And again I am not stating that Ahmadinejadh is my personal savior. But to assume that he is some madman on a mission to annihilate the world is folly. He might be dangerous in some ways but not in the proto-Hitler way that is being touted. He is far more shrewd than anyone allows him credit.
@Von Tonner

Yes I recall him. He was an interesting figure. Encouraged by the US to invade Iran after the revolution I believe. Many of his atrocities were coverd up by the US prior to the Gulf War since Bush Sr. still desired to keep him as a regional proxy.

[Skybird]

Show me the subtelty of a nuclear armed Iran. It simply means this: nuclear bombs in the hands of global Islamic terror, sooner or later.

Musharaf is struggling for survival, simply that, and it was like that from the beginning. Not an ally I would put my money on. He is not in control of his house, and the ISI actively supports and assists and sympathizes with he Taleban that shoot live bullets at American soldiers. And that you call a classic case of foreign policy? I call it suicide on rates. there are reasons why the mission in Afghanistan is failing so miserably, and constantly detoriating. This "classical example of foreign policy" is the major reason for that. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you must defeat Pakistan first.

[geetrue]

I think a scantily clad guy in leather giving him a wet one is the best way to go.

Plus spray a little windex on his food first ... :rotfl:

[geetrue]

What everyone always seems to neglect to mention is that Ahmadinejad isn't the ultimate authority over Iran. He has to answer to someone else too. And from what I've read this person isn't nearly as inflammatory as Ahmadinejad.

Blah, blah, blah


Lastly, why are we so scared of Iran? History has shown that even muslims, when in a position of power and wealth, do not suppose to be so foolish as to throw it all away on idiotic behavior such as an unwinnable war. Has anyone noticed Pakistan lately? have an Islamic militant power with nuclear capability, and this is a US ally.


I don't remember his name, the man that is really in charge of Iran that is, but he is even more messed up in his thinking than Ahmadinejad.

He said, "So what if America bombs our installations" "We all get to go to heaven sooner"

You have to be afraid of loonies like that ... they aren't afraid to start a war with the thoughts of virgins in their future.

Here's the guy really in charge:


Although Ahmadinejad is often the face of Iran's foreign policy, he doesn't have the ultimate power to set it. Under the constitution, that power belongs to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is also commander of the country's armed forces. Both foreign and domestic policy decisions must also be reviewed by the Islamic clerics of Iran's Guardian Council, which has authority to veto government decisions it deems un-Islamic.

[bradclark1]

I think a scantily clad guy in leather giving him a wet one is the best way to go.
Especially after his university speech.

[P_Funk]

Show me the subtelty of a nuclear armed Iran. It simply means this: nuclear bombs in the hands of global Islamic terror, sooner or later.

Musharaf is struggling for survival, simply that, and it was like that from the beginning. Not an ally I would put my money on. He is not in control of his house, and the ISI actively supports and assists and sympathizes with he Taleban that shoot live bullets at American soldiers. And that you call a classic case of foreign policy? I call it suicide on rates. there are reasons why the mission in Afghanistan is failing so miserably, and constantly detoriating. This "classical example of foreign policy" is the major reason for that. If you want to win in Afghanistan, you must defeat Pakistan first. The subtlety of the situation isn't about the severity of who gets a nuke but of how we react to the current situation. As I was saying before of Pakistan the freinds and enemies of the West are barely distinguishable except for which one Bush wants us to invade next. Iran's government may be touting extremism but the people of that nation are less extremist than Pakistan. And Skybird, aren't we both agreeing on Pakistan? Isn't that what I was saying? That while we agonize over Iran we allow a power as fundamentally more dangerous to lurk within our political ranks? Thats the point I was making.

Secondly Pakistan has a Sunni majority population, and when you consider Iran is a Shia majority and that these two countries are bordering one another... well nuke with Pakistan... nuke Israel... and the rest of the world is breathing down their neck of course they'd want a nuclear weapon. And while the US effectively gives Pakistan the space to remain in its current situation there is a real possibility that an uncontrollable nation with a nuke that is hostile to Iran will appear suddenly. And I have no doubt that any new extremist leadership that might appear in Pakistan would be a far worse threat than Iran today.

I don't remember his name, the man that is really in charge of Iran that is, but he is even more messed up in his thinking than Ahmadinejad.

He said, "So what if America bombs our installations" "We all get to go to heaven sooner"

You have to be afraid of loonies like that ... they aren't afraid to start a war with the thoughts of virgins in their future.

Here's the guy really in charge: Although Ahmadinejad is often the face of Iran's foreign policy, he doesn't have the ultimate power to set it. Under the constitution, that power belongs to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is also commander of the country's armed forces. Both foreign and domestic policy decisions must also be reviewed by the Islamic clerics of Iran's Guardian Council, which has authority to veto government decisions it deems un-Islamic. And your point? Conservative religious powers run Iran. Meanwhile in the US the seperation of church and state are being erroded. That it is an Islamic council is irrelavent. You of course ascribe to the notion that Islam is an evil enough thing to be an argument by itself. The point is that it does not matter who is most orthodox but who is most dangerous. And going on what he's said alone isn't much of an argument if you can pull up one 'frightening' quote.

There's this one too:
"Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned" he said "wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be"

And where does that quote imply that he is going to start a war? You are inferring a meaning and using the out of context quote as a crutch. If anyone starts a war its America and that will catastrophic and you can't blame Iran for enticing an idiotic administration into waging a foolish war.

The point is why does everyone seem to gleeful over invasion of Iran? It wont work and will just turn the whole middle east situation up to boiling point. Whatever farcical exaggerations of world terrorism which are being spewed now will certainly become more real since the divide between civilized muslim and extremist fighter will shrink.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Graphics/Funny_Animations/images/funny_myspace.gif

fight your own wars israel, why are you dragging the United states into it??:shifty:



you already got the US to attack iraq and afghanistan... now iran???:roll:

can i guess that , syria ,lebanon, jordan, libya, pakistan , suaid arabia , yemen, oman are after iraq and iran??

[Skybird]

The subtlety of the situation isn't about the severity of who gets a nuke but of how we react to the current situation.

Aha. :doh:

So our reaction has consequences that travel back through time and make the deed a different one (if so, why our reaction, then)? Or do you say that, as an example, a crime, lets say rape or murder, is no crime if we do not label it as such?

I cannot imagine I am the only one not understanding what you say here. I'm even not sure you even understood yourself.

How subtle do you react to an islamic terror group being supplied with nuclear weapons? And the fact that Sunni leader-state Saudi Arabia would react to the nuclear armament of its Shia arch-rival Iran by seeking it's own nuclear weapons (as they already proclaimed)? And the ongoing missile and nuclear proliferation in general, as alreayd to be seen from Pakistan, Northkorea, and others?

Or make it even easier. If you see me raising a weapon at your direction with the intention to kill you - what subtelties do you do? Argue with me? That is reasonable, before you die. Hope for the best? that is optimistic, before you die. Pray? That is conviction, before you die. Fall on your knees and beg for mercy? That is surrender. You have no guarantee if I would accept it and stop wanting to kill you, and if so, what price you have to pay for living on.

Or wouldn't it be the best idea to try to be faster than me and shoot me before I can shoot you?

If you allow these subtle questions.


Warum zum Überfluss Worte machen,
was soll das?
Es steht die Sache
einzig auf diesem Schwerte,
auf diesem Schwerte allein.

Why making plenty of words,
what's that good for?
The matter gets decided
by this sword,
by this sword alone.

Iran can choose between two options. It is free to choose between them. Both options have different consequences. No matter what they choose, the consequences they have to accept to be responsible for, they cannot avoid them. They choose their fate themselves.

The West can choose how to react to Iran in case of compliance, or non-compliance. No matter what it chooses, there will be consequences the West has to accept to be responsible for, it cannot avoid them. It chooses its fate all itself.

that is all. All what is important was said, and many times. Nobody is left in ignorrance. Everybody knows what is going on, and what the stakes are. There is no need to set up another cycle or old repetitions of words. no need for pessimism or optimism, hope or fear.

Do or don't. That subtle it is. And that already is too subtle for many.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4966/higginsog0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8561/022406blogyc1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2336/outragepi2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/17/untitledpj5.png (http://imageshack.us)



well well... someones anti-semetic??:shifty:

[Skybird]

fight your own wars israel, why are you dragging the United states into it??:shifty:

you already got the US to attack iraq and afghanistan... now iran???:roll:

While I agree that there is a strong Israeli lobby in US politics, I fail to see them having lurked the Us into Afghanistan. at worse, Afghanistan was a shot from the hip. Concenring Afghanistan I only ask: why Afghanistan after 9/11? the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis, and got payed with Saudi money from the Saudi Dar-el-Maal el Islami-Trust, which is leed and controlled by a Saudi prince who enjoys much respect in the foolish West, Muhammad El Faisal (talking on kissing the hand that stabs you)! Al Quaeda is a Saudi organisation! the foreigners of the (Saudi-payed) green legion battling against the Soviets in Afghanistan, were not much loved by most Afghans, and had been chased away soon after the Soviets gave up. The attack that reached Afghanistan - should have struck Saudi-Arabia instead.

And beyond that, a nuclear-armed Iran not only threatens Israel. It is a threat to all the West, and all the world. May it be due to an escalating nuclear war with Israel, may it be due to supplying Islamic terrorists with nuclear "devices".

[elite_hunter_sh3]

how are they a nuclear threat when they have no missile capabilites to even reach the atlantic ocean let alonw any western cities???

[Skybird]

how are they a nuclear threat when they have no missile capabilites to even reach the atlantic ocean let alonw any western cities???

BUMP.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

????:shifty:

[August]

Immediately after the 79' revolution however all existing agreements for the development of nuclear technology were terminated, despite Iran being owed significant resources. Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology.

Gee, maybe the fact that they invaded our embassy and took 50 of our people hostage for well over a year had something to do with our feelings on the issue... :roll:

[August]

????:shifty:

Missles aren't the only means for delivering a nuclear bomb to it's target you know.

[August]

And finally from our friends at Fox news:

JERUSALEM — The wife of an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hezbollah confronted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a news conference at the United Nations, urging him to use his influence over the guerrilla group to allow aid workers to see her husband. In an exchange broadcast on Israeli radio stations Wednesday, Karnit Goldwasser accused the Iranian leader of responsibility for her husband's capture.
"My name is Karnit and I'm the wife of Goldwasser that was kidnapped by Hezbollah to Lebanon more than a year ago and you're responsible for this by your support. I'm asking how come you're not allowing the Red Cross to go to visit them," Goldwasser said at the Tuesday news conference.
Ahmadinejad ignored her, saying "next question."
Goldwasser told Israeli Army Radio on Wednesday that Ahmadinejad was clearly caught off guard. "He was pretty surprised to find me there," she said. "The distance between us was about two meters (yards),"
Goldwasser's husband, Israeli soldier Ehud Goldwasser, and Eldad Regev were seized in a July 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid, triggering a 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah did not comment on Tuesday's incident at the U.N. In the past, Hezbollah has said the two soldiers are being treated "humanely," but it has not provided any sign of life from the men and refused to allow the Red Cross to see them.

[P_Funk]

How subtle do you react to an islamic terror group being supplied with nuclear weapons? And the fact that Sunni leader-state Saudi Arabia would react to the nuclear armament of its Shia arch-rival Iran by seeking it's own nuclear weapons (as they already proclaimed)? And the ongoing missile and nuclear proliferation in general, as alreayd to be seen from Pakistan, Northkorea, and others?

Or make it even easier. If you see me raising a weapon at your direction with the intention to kill you - what subtelties do you do? Argue with me? That is reasonable, before you die. Hope for the best? that is optimistic, before you die. Pray? That is conviction, before you die. Fall on your knees and beg for mercy? That is surrender. You have no guarantee if I would accept it and stop wanting to kill you, and if so, what price you have to pay for living on. You make a good point, except that Iran is in the same situation, with political and religious opponents flanking them with nuclear arms. So what do you suggest as the course of action against Iran? Invasion is ridiculous. The current political attitudes towards Iran are ones that barre other forms of copromise and inevitably state that war will happen. The West is intentionally cornering Iran and trying to bully it like it does smaller nations. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't give up as easily. A war with Iran is the most irresponsible thing that could happen.

The US started the ball rolling on nukes in the mid east 40 years ago with Israel and they associate and do not put presure on Pakistan. Iran's position is a poor one and anyone familiar with history would recognize that Iran cannot and should not trust the US to protect their interests in the region. So where is this going? If war is declared then its a catastrophy that will make Vietnam look reasonable.

[P_Funk]

Immediately after the 79' revolution however all existing agreements for the development of nuclear technology were terminated, despite Iran being owed significant resources. Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology.
Gee, maybe the fact that they invaded our embassy and took 50 of our people hostage for well over a year had something to do with our feelings on the issue... :roll:
Oh and the fact that the Shah was a stooge of the US for years and that the US encouraged Iraq under saddam to invade Iran as a response to Iran's popular revolution is somehow forgotten here?

50 Americans hostage... Hundreds of thousands dead in Iran-Iraq war...

Do you ever read history books not approved by the American High School curriculum?

[Skybird]

You'll hate this posting, and others will hate it, too, and think I lost my mind. But I mean it bloody damn serious.

You make a good point, except that Iran is in the same situation, with political and religious opponents flanking them with nuclear arms. So what do you suggest as the course of action against Iran? Invasion is ridiculous. The current political attitudes towards Iran are ones that barre other forms of copromise and inevitably state that war will happen. The West is intentionally cornering Iran and trying to bully it like it does smaller nations. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't give up as easily. A war with Iran is the most irresponsible thing that could happen.

If you look back one year or so you will see that I have posted repeatedly the same things: no invasion possible, airstrikes alone extremely unlikely to bring their program down. My conclusion back then was that any war with Iran is very likely to include small nukes on the program-relevant hardened sites (whose entrances - weak spots - we do not even have GPS coordinates of: we only know that they are somehwere in a given area, often deep inside the ground, or a mountain, where even the greatest conventional bombs will probably not do more than just minor damage - if even that). Back then i said it is unacceptable to attack iran with nukes, but probably would be done in that manner. The events of the time since then have forced me to chnage my mind. I don't like that, but that is the logic of war. Preventing the Iranian bomb is a must. not using nukes if that is the only way to acchieve that, is not necessarily a must. As little violence as possible - but as much as is needed, withiout fould compromises: the stakes are too high this time.

I cant see the West bullying Iran, they do bully the West in fact. After Iraq, the US cannot afford to launch a war again in the way like they did with Iraq, based on lies and manipulation. It would cost them any remaining sympathy in europe - even more so if nukes will be used. Nobody will ever deal with them anymore.

You seem to conclude that war against Iran to destroy it's military program on nukes will be such a grim thing that it prohibits itself. I agree that it will become an extrfmely nasty affair. Due to the inevitable pollution even when subterranean nukes explode, people in the region will suffer health problems and will die for decades to come, so the death toll all in all will probabaly not only reach into the hundreds of thousands, but go beyond that over the years and decades. But I do not conclude from that that this fact rules out to use the needed ammount of force necessary to stop the nuclear bomb for Iran. If we allow that, the next nuclear detonations will not be in Iran, but a european city, or an American one - just a question of time. If you think your own position to the logical end, then you have already willed to allow Iran the nuclear bomb - you state that you shy away from the ammount of brutality needed to prevent it, so according to you - they already have won. They will not back down in last minute.

Don't think I take this thing easy. It costed me a long time to come this far.

The US started the ball rolling on nukes in the mid east 40 years ago with Israel and they associate and do not put presure on Pakistan. Iran's position is a poor one.
that is not true, as long as the West shies away from using small nuclear weapns on accoridng sites, they are in a winning position. they eiother get what they want, the bomb, or they get massive support and sympathy from the Islamic world for becoming attacked and their poor big-eyed babies suffering. as long as the West does not accept top use every ammount of violence needed to stop the bomb, they are in a win-win situation.

and anyone familiar with history would recognize that Iran cannot and should not trust the US to protect their interests in the region. So where is this going? If war is declared then its a catastrophy that will make Vietnam look reasonable.

Again, this maybe upcoming war in my view is about preventing the Iranian nuclear bomb. I do not compare this to Iraq which was launched for corporate interests, geostrategic missionising and such. I will oppose the Iran war when I see that it is handled as half-heartly like the last Lebanon war, or as dilletantic like the Iraq war - if you're about to kill so many people over the long time, you better make sure that you have a damn good reason for that and don't make mistakes. Better an end with horror, than horror without end, and in vain. If there will be an Iran war, it must be conducted as hard and brutal as possible to get those sites beeing taken out, and that most likely cannot be accieved without nukes being used on these sites. If one is chasing illusions and wants to do it with the wrong means, I will never agree to such a war taking place, becasue then it is a monumental waste of life for no purpose. we then better simply surrender and accept Iran having the bomb. The blood toll then will be hours, and our societies' one. So, this is no option for me any longer. Iran alone having the bomb maybe, eventually, would be acceptable, but they have too close links to terrorism, and Iran being nuclear would be the deciding argument for toher nations in the region also to get nukes. This scenario is even greater horror for me than using nukes on Iranian bomb-related hardened installations. One thing is sure, that after the attack on Iran the world will no more be the same, and life in the West becoming more dangerous anyway: if we attack Iran, it will be more dangerous due to hostile sentiments, and if we allow them the bomb, it will be more dangerous due to nuclear terrorism.

Note that I nowhere set up the scenario of iran itself striking at europe. I would sleep bad with Iran having the bomb, but the far greater danger is from terrorists getting access to the bomb. Iran is training and educating Hezbullah to set up ammo dumbs and firing positions inside hospitals, on roofs of kindergardens, and to hide in the cellar below civilian structures, so that every strike at them must necessarily provoke the killing of civilians which then can be used in the picture war on TV. This is not the kind of people I consider to be reasonable, ethical, and want them to see possessing nukes. they must be prevented that access, no matter what it costs.

that all is very grim and brutal, yes. And it cannot be decided on ethical terms, yes. The threat we are confronted with simply is beyond ethics. Do we allow nuclear terrorism in the future, yes or no? It comes down to this simple question. Terrorists have used chemical weapons on civilians and killed and injured hundreds (Japan), they already have used airplanes as bombs (NY), killing thousands, and islamic terorists have slaughtered hostages like a butcher is slaughtering cattle, and they are even proud of their bloodthirsty barbarism and know that they must do it this way to acchieve the greatest shock in the West, and so they call for others to follow their example.

To think they would shy away from using nukes if only they have access to them, is naive.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

i think the US shud change their foreign policy.. from "lets fight all of israel's wars!!" to " let them see if they can walk the walk... they talk the talk.. so lets see what REALLY happens.."

then there would be no threat from al qaeda etc... why do you think 9/11 happened!!:shifty:

[August]

Immediately after the 79' revolution however all existing agreements for the development of nuclear technology were terminated, despite Iran being owed significant resources. Apparently only compliant regimes are allowed to make this kind of technology.
Gee, maybe the fact that they invaded our embassy and took 50 of our people hostage for well over a year had something to do with our feelings on the issue... :roll:

Oh and the fact that the Shah was a stooge of the US for years and that the US encouraged Iraq under saddam to invade Iran as a response to Iran's popular revolution is somehow forgotten here?

50 Americans hostage... Hundreds of thousands dead in Iran-Iraq war...

Do you ever read history books not approved by the American High School curriculum?

Don't attempt to cloud the issue with events that took place after they kidnapped our people. That's like saying hitler was justified in attacking Russia because of the damage the Soviets would do to Berlin in 1945. The only one forgetting anything is you and it seems to be the proper time line.

BTW you can keep your insults to yourself Sonny. I didn't have to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis from the history books like you apparently did. On November 4th 1979 I had been serving my country as a soldier for over two years already.

The nuclear agreements we had with Iran was with the Shahs government, not the pack of murdering religious fanatics who supplanted him. How can you possibly argue that not giving Khomeni and company the Bomb was not a good thing?

[P_Funk]

Don't attempt to cloud the issue with events that took place after they kidnapped our people. That's like saying hitler was justified in attacking Russia because of the damage the Soviets would do to Berlin in 1945. The only one forgetting anything is you and it seems to be the proper time line.

BTW you can keep your insults to yourself Sonny. I didn't have to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis from the history books like you apparently did. On November 4th 1979 I had been serving my country as a soldier for over two years already.

The nuclear agreements we had with Iran was with the Shahs government, not the pack of murdering religious fanatics who supplanted him. How can you possibly argue that not giving Khomeni and company the Bomb was not a good thing?
A) Don't bring Hitler into this. Using Hitler comparisons is just stupid. Its a whole seperate issue. Hitler was an especially bad person and you are demeaning Hitler by bringing him down to the level of our petty modern despots. Hitler worked hard to be the man that he was, and don't go taking that away from him.

B) The US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and threw the Shah into power. Before the 79 revolution Iran was another one of America's manufactured autocracies. You want to talk about who did what before the US did plenty to Iran long before the Embassy event. Just like in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama and many others the US intervened against democracy when it looked that their economic and political interests would be supplanted by self-interest on the part of the local population. How insensitive of them.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that you didn't know what had happened. It just seems that you either choose to ignore what happened to lead to the 79 revolution or you simply don't care. America has been dicking with Iran's sovereignty ever since the end of the 2nd world war. Cause and effect foes back farther than 1979.

[P_Funk]

i think the US shud change their foreign policy.. from "lets fight all of israel's wars!!" to " let them see if they can walk the walk... they talk the talk.. so lets see what REALLY happens.."

then there would be no threat from al qaeda etc... why do you think 9/11 happened!!:shifty: Without the US there is no bloody Israel. Isreal is an artificial state. Its placed in the middle of un-arable land. The US had to pour mountains of money into an irrigation program to make it so that people could actually live off that land. Their weapons are either directly from the US or are bought with over 2 billion dollars of American taxpayer money every year. And without the US's support at the UN all of Israel's regional nemesies would be able to actually assert an independant foreign policy and possibly develop an economy.

9/11 has nothing to do with it.

EDIT.
Sorry but I didn't want to be a total prat and triple post.

@Skybird. First I have to thank you for your intellect. Yours is the first reply that while I was reading it it didn't feel as if you were yelling at me. Others it seems as if whenever I disagree with them I'm personally in this moment helping Iran win.

I agree with your conclusions as to the likely fallout of events following an attack on Iran, including a nuclear attack. However I don't believe that it is worth it in the end. How can it possibly stand that a nuclear attack on a muslim nation is the only way to prevent nuclear proliferation? It is the height of irrationality. Indeed it would cripple the threat of Iran developing a nuke and distributing it to terrorist groups. However it would I believe set into motion a kind of Muslim rage that would create a world in which terrorism would grow exponentially and in which all muslims would unite against the West.

A nuclear attack on a muslim state would unite the muslim world and end peaceful political dominion of the US and its allies. Such actions would also legitimize for the first time since WW2 the tactical use of nuclear weapons. It would if anything make proliferation more likely in that nations would see that the threat of use is no longer sufficient when the most powerful nation in the world used them. I completely disagree on this Skybird, and I think that it would be a far better thing to see a small nuke explode in a western city than to see Iran levelled by American stealth bombers. In the end both are terrible but the deliberate and legitimized use of nukes on a muslim nation would... I can't even imagine how to say it. There would be no peace for as long as we lived thats for sure.

[Skybird]

However it would I believe set into motion a kind of Muslim rage that would create a world in which terrorism would grow exponentially and in which all muslims would unite against the West.

Islam already is united against anything that is not itself, including the West. That'S what Islam is about by teaching and inner essence.

Why are we expected to always take care of muslim rage and and always pay obedience in advance not to enflame their precious, holy, Islamic sentiments? They ALWAYS are offended by something, if not by this than by something else, and ALWAYS make demands, and more demands, and demanding more, and after that: what a surprise - demands, anyone? This is not because they have bad genes or are stupid by birth, but their damn idiotic ideology educates them to be stupid, and arrogant to demand all world in the name of this thing Islam. So if they yell in the streets and burn flags and such - what would be new? They ALWAYS do it, no matter what! The new swedish cartoon painter - is in hiding, since there have been calls for his murder again, and many demonstrations and mass hysteria and gaga-events which the Western media did not report so much about this time, since it has lost its attractiveness a bit. But when they run thorugh their nstreets in some Godforsaken place thiusands of miles away, of what interest must that be for us? Let them, if they want, if they want, and if the approach the borders and try to enter our countries, show them what nice big sticks we have. So what...?

A nuclear attack on a muslim state would unite the muslim world and end peaceful political dominion of the US and its allies.

????


Such actions would also legitimize for the first time since WW2 the tactical use of nuclear weapons.

No, that legitimiation does already come from an aggressive power not hiding it's intention to drive Islam into the West at all cost and means available, trying to get the nuclear option.


It would if anything make proliferation more likely in that nations would see that the threat of use is no longer sufficient when the most powerful nation in the world used them.

Proliferation already is a problem, yes. but that does not mean that we need to help it, or allow it where we could prevent it. Ahgain, you already have given up and thus want to do nothing.

I completely disagree on this Skybird, and I think that it would be a far better thing to see a small nuke explode in a western city than to see Iran levelled by American stealth bombers.

Okay, I cannot argue with somebody saying such a self-sacrioficing thing. If somebody accepts his own killing so that he must not raise his hand in self-defense, all hope is lost. By chance, I do not value their lives and culture higher than ours. And concenring the culture, I see it exactly the other way around. If there would be no Islam in the world, mankind would be much better off, and 1.3 billion people would not be raised in an atmosphere of supression, intimidation, and superstitious anti-intellectualism, and no showdown like the one we spoke of here. If there would be no western culture, there would be no desease control centre in Atlanta, helping in global epidemics. No injection at the dentist :), and no vaccine to condcut mass-vaccinations for children in the "first" and "third" world. No 70 years of peace in europe, and the tolerance and wealth coming from that. No world food program. no modern medicine saving lifes and curing pain. No tradition of humanism, no values like freedom and liberty and equality and their juristical implementation. No scientiifc understanding of life, man and cosmos. No classcial music, no western arts. No refrigerators, think about that, how important it is to be able to cool your food reserves! No x-ray. No ability to adapt to changing living conditions and environements. no chance to raise an anti-meteorit program in case a cosmic visitor threatens to annihilate all life on earth. No separation of politics and religion. No end to inquisition and witch-hunting. No - go figure yourself.

For a farewell I just say two things:

First, I nowhere talked of indiscriminatory use of nukes, and "levelling Iran". I talked of the use of nukes to destroy relevant hardened installation which cannot be destroyed in conventional ways, what would nevertheless cost a lot of lives over the decades due to the contamination even if the bombs explode sub-terranean, or inside mountains. For this, their CCCI needs to be crippled to a certain degree, especially with regard to their SAM and AA capacity.

Second, in the end, the US prooved to be civilised enough not to use nukes after WWII, so was England, France, and others, even Israel. but with Iran and it'S aggressive pushing and sponsoring or terrorism and declared intention to destroy Israel and push Israelis into the sea, this tradition would come to an end, thus it cannot be accepted. In the end, the real problem at the basis of it all, the real motivation behind this acting of theirs, the real energy for their yearnings to get the bomb - is Islam, once again.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

the reason why 9/11 happened is because US supports israel, arabs instantly started hating israel when they (israelis) came in and wipe out the palestinians and created their own country, then the US started supporting Israel because israelis owned major corporations in the US and had control of the media, US is the only country to give billions in $$ of "no stringd attached" aid...:shifty:, and obviously if a country is supporting a country that your fighting a war against then that country is your enemy, then the arabs decided ok america supports israel, we attack them too, then they did... then the israelis decided o ok now we have an excuse to send our puppet the united states to fight our wars for us, so the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan... welll WAKE UP USA... ur fighting a losing war for a nation that technically shouldnt be there...:shifty::shifty:

[bradclark1]

the reason why 9/11 happened is because US supports israel, arabs instantly started hating israel when they (israelis) came in and wipe out the palestinians and created their own country,

Try a little truth:

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.
There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.
You can find a lot of information if you want to.

[August]

A) Don't bring Hitler into this. Using Hitler comparisons is just stupid. Its a whole seperate issue. Hitler was an especially bad person and you are demeaning Hitler by bringing him down to the level of our petty modern despots. Hitler worked hard to be the man that he was, and don't go taking that away from him.

B) The US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and threw the Shah into power. Before the 79 revolution Iran was another one of America's manufactured autocracies. You want to talk about who did what before the US did plenty to Iran long before the Embassy event. Just like in Nicaragua, Chile, Panama and many others the US intervened against democracy when it looked that their economic and political interests would be supplanted by self-interest on the part of the local population. How insensitive of them.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have implied that you didn't know what had happened. It just seems that you either choose to ignore what happened to lead to the 79 revolution or you simply don't care. America has been dicking with Iran's sovereignty ever since the end of the 2nd world war. Cause and effect foes back farther than 1979.
A. I didn't bring hitler into this, history did. You're conveniently omiting the fact that the WW2 allies were forced to occupy Iran to keep it from joining the axis powers.

B. You're also omitting the fact that the "democraticaly elected government" you mention was actually one person, Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was removed from power after he illegally dissolved a democratically elected parliment to avoid impeachment.

C. You're omitting the fact that when Khomeni siezed power the first thing he did was to remove all the political freedoms and social improvement programs installed by the Shahs government such as:

Extending the Right to Vote to Women, gone
Land Reforms Program and Abolishing Feudalism, gone
Nationalization of Forests and Pasturelands, gone:
Privatization of the Government Owned Enterprises, gone.
Profit Sharing for industrial workers in private sector enterprises, gone
Formation of the Literacy Corps, gone
Formation of the Health Corps, gone.
Formation of the Reconstruction and Development Corps, gone.
Nationalization of all Water Resources, gone
Urban and Rural Modernization and Reconstruction, gone.
Didactic Education Reforms, gone.
Workers' Right to Own Shares in the Industrial Complexes, gone.
Price Stabilization and campaign against unreasonable profiteering, gone.
Free and Compulsory Education and a daily free meal for all children, gone.
Free Food for Needy Mothers and for all newborn babies up to the age of two, gone.
Introduction of Social Security and National Insurance, gone.

Since then Khomenis thug government has turned one of the most progressive nations in the entire middle east into a backwards and oppressive theocracy whose people are little more then feudal peasants, living and dying at the whim of the mullahs, but in your mind the west are the bad guys for not continuing Irans nuclear program after the Islamists came to power, right? :roll:

[Skybird]

C. You're omitting the fact that when Khomeni siezed power the first thing he did was to remove all the political freedoms and social improvement programs installed by the Shahs government such as:

I always take some diabolic satisfaction from pointing out what happened to his allies, socialists and communists, those who helped him to come back to Iran because they thought a common enemy - the Shah regime - makes Islam their friend: once he felt safe and comfortable, they ended up hanging in the streets, at telephone poles and light masts.

Irren ist menschlich.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6110095161238848541

"911 the Israeli connection"

[August]

C. You're omitting the fact that when Khomeni siezed power the first thing he did was to remove all the political freedoms and social improvement programs installed by the Shahs government such as:
I always take some diabolic satisfaction from pointing out what happened to his allies, socialists and communists, those who helped him to come back to Iran because they thought a common enemy - the Shah regime - makes Islam their friend: once he felt safe and comfortable, they ended up hanging in the streets, at telephone poles and light masts.

Irren ist menschlich.

Yep. Apparently they still haven't learned either.

[Skybird]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.

[bradclark1]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.
If I read it on CNN...............................

[bradclark1]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.


WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Ha ha, yeah, roight! :lol:

[Skybird]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.
Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?

I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done.

[P_Funk]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS. Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?

I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done. Indeed people seem very quick to dismiss entire legions of facts in the face of an unpopular banner or unfamiliar source or what have you. Personal moral tendencies aside, what makes sense is more important than which side you should be rooting for.

And whats a reliable source anyway? News networks in America aren't trusted, I keep seeing people say bad stuff about the BBC, governments lie even in the face of blatant proof. Its like being a gold miner on a streambed, sifting for the nuggets of truth.

I'm rather bored with simple sentence answers to dismiss entire suggested realities.

[Skybird]

Two readings from two different camps.

Iranian Press Service: Rafsanjani recommends to attack Israel with nukes, calling nuclear retaliation to Iran as "small damage" only.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

A critical comment on using "mini-nukes" (a comment which for the reasons I already gave I do not agree with. What I agree with is that there is a lot of disinformation about how harmless mini-nukes would be - that illusion I do not share, too. It's just that I accept the massive damage and contamination they would do, for to me achieving the mission objective - taking out the nuclear program of Iran - has priority over longtermed humanitarian concerns regarding local population).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

[bradclark1]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.
Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?
I can't explain how the nukes got to be on the plane and ended up in Louisiana but that article was putting a whole lot on the VP. Cheney has more power then any VP in history but not that much and he can't start a war. The president is the only one who can release nukes. If the Air Force were given the order to transport nukes somewhere they would have done it. They are not going to refuse an order. If that had of happened the whole Air Force chain of command would have been relieved.
This administration has proved it's not the smartest on the block but they aren't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
Browse the rest of the site. It's nothing but a whole bunch of conspiracy theories. I'd be one of the first to wag my finger against this administration if I thought it true but unfortunately this site reads like a $0.10 spy novel.


I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done.
For at least two decades the U.S. has stored nukes in Israel for the same reasons they were stored in Europe. To have them close in trouble spots if needed. They have no need to transport any, they are already there.

[bradclark1]

And whats a reliable source anyway? News networks in America aren't trusted, I keep seeing people say bad stuff about the BBC, governments lie even in the face of blatant proof. Its like being a gold miner on a streambed, sifting for the nuggets of truth.

Show any credible or semi-credible source from anywhere in the world. Thats all I would like. Not some dork conspiracy site whose authors have an great imagination. Look at the rest of the site.

I'm rather bored with simple sentence answers to dismiss entire suggested realities.
I'm not exactly famous for writing multiple paragraphs when one sentence will do. Sorry you were bored with it. The site has no grip on any realities.

[Fish]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

Is it?

The guy isn't as far as I can see? :hmm:


Wayne Madsen is a Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.)-based investigative journalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist), author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author), and syndicated columnist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnist). His articles have appeared in The Village Voice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_Voice) and Wired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_magazine).
Madsen was a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#_note-0) He was a communications security analyst with the National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency) in the 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s), and an intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence) officer in the US Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy). He has testified on numerous occasions before the US Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States).
Wayne Madsen edits the Wayne Madsen Report[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#_note-1) which he describes as following in the tradition of Drew Pearson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pearson_%28journalist%29)'s and Jack Anderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson)'s famous "Washington Merry-Go-Round" syndicated column and columns by I.F. Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.F._Stone).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen

[geetrue]

I love and support my President ... George Bush has been known to do things like this when running for election. Things like what? Things like in just make up a story and circulate it ... that was with his old advisors of course, both of which have moved on.

The message itself was full of forced exposition ... our military words everything in modern say something without saying anything Pentagon talk.

This is a made up issue, but who wants Iran to be scared of an attack? We do ...

On the other hand if I were a general, I'm not of course and I don't even have a nice big easy chair to sit in either, but if I was a general I would not order a USAF B-52 with nuclear tipped missiles into an area that can be dealt with without nukes.

Two carrier task forces, B-2's out of Missouri, submarine launched cruise missiles ... two hours and the war is over without landing troops.

You don't need nukes to do the job leaves a made up story.

After all we are trying to stop a nuclear war, not start one ...

[bradclark1]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

Is it?

The guy isn't as far as I can see? :hmm:

He is as far as I can see.:hmm: I'd say he has a few shingles loose.

World leaders suspect the Bush administration of involvement in the 911 attacks
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_784.shtml

Libby a Long-Time Mossad Agent
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_070705_libby_a_long_time_mo.htm

Imus remarks and prison camps in Africa? What one has to do with the other I don't know.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_070412_washington_post_equa.htm

Bush is gay.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=22848

Bush and Blair made up terrorist airline liquid bomb plot.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Cooked.htm

[Lurchi]

On the other hand if I were a general, I'm not of course and I don't even have a nice big easy chair to sit in either, but if I was a general I would not order a USAF B-52 with nuclear tipped missiles into an area that can be dealt with without nukes.

Two carrier task forces, B-2's out of Missouri, submarine launched cruise missiles ... two hours and the war is over without landing troops ... Are you ironic or do you really believe this?
Nice pathos but as Lord Vader said "Don't be too proud of your technological bugbears". I also doubt that the location of all installations are known - the nuclear program is probably decentralized and scattered over the whole country.

I believe that every General/Admiral knows that such an operation is certainly not a matter of just two hours - at least if you desire more than just a nice fireworks for the evening news or the destruction of Iran's military potential. The only way to disrupt Iran's nuclear program by force seems to be a full scale war so you can look beneath every stone afterwards. I doubt that the U.S. or any of it's allies is ready for such an extensive campaign ...

Sadly this could be the only way to save Israel as the logic of MAD which works quite good during the cold war is not compatible with the iranian regime that sees the destruction of it's arch enemy as integral part of its raison d'être.

[Skybird]

I'm afraid he means it serious, Lurchi. Because the same mechanisms that to some people made Iraq look like a three weeks walk in the park, and Afghanistan like a 2 months liberation operation, and Vietnam like an adventure trip of half a year, are at work.

Whenever I hear somebody say "I love my president" instead of something like "I love my country", it sends me shivers down my spine. Even more so if both this somebody and the president say they are just listening to voices in their head.


When it is said there is a nuclear installation in for example Natanz, one should not think that the key installation's coordinates inside this compound are known - and these compounds can have siozes uf many square-miles. It means that the buildings on the surface are known and photographed, and are attributed to the name of the nearby village, which means they are not important. However, the key components are known to be dozens of meters below the surface, and invisible, or even deeper hidden inside mountains. for reasons of simple physics, no matter what kind of bomb and weight you drop from whatever an altitude, it does not pentrate deeper than a.) some scalculate 12 meters, b.) others calculate 20-25 ft into the ground. If the subterranean bunkers are even much deeper, let's say 30 or 40 meters below the ground, thus protected by 20-30 m thick levels of solid geological material, and build by steel_hardened concrete bunkers, than even a MOAB will not do more than shake up some dust inside them, so to speak. This has two consequences:

a.) conventional ammunitions can not do damage to them as long as not being delivered through weak spots like entrances, and if these are long tunnels, even then they are likely to do only minor damage. GPS coordinates of such weak spots are said to be unknown - as reported repeatedly over the last two years.

b.) it means that even a "mini"-nuke penetrating only to a maximum of ca. 12m/20ft before exploding will practically cause massive aerial and surface contamination of major levels. These delivery methods in no way compare to the subterranean nuclear tests of the past, where the devices were delivered to depths up to of several hundred meters, by drilling.

Let nobody have any illusions of what we talk about. This thing, if it is bound to happen, will become an extremely dirty, mean and nasty affair.

I am worried by the pakistani reaction, and their nukes. I dare to ask if maybe one has to deal with the Pakistan nuclear arsenal before attacking Iran. Depending on what reaction from Pakistan you assume, the whole attack-on-Iran story maybe cannot be conducted at all. I am not knowing to what degree locations and protection levels of Pakistani nukes are known, and thus are targets that could be reached.

again, the folly of allowing them nukes now leaves us maybe no other choice than to brutally push them against the wall so that they hardly can breathe and make it clear to them that if they even dare to blink with a single nuke of theirs in case of a war with Iran - their country would be massively nuked and wiped of the map once and forever before the Iran war is over.

Pakistan is another "gaining nukes"-story that at no price should have been allowed to happen while there still was time.

That's what happens when you allow monsters under your bed and do not care, thinking if you ignore them they are not there. They are there, and they become more and more with every night. One day your bed starts shaking, and then you will have the nightmare of your lifetime.

Andn then it cannot be solved anymore by just saying "Scheiße". Maybe you will need to burn your house.

Kill all politicians and all religions - before their stupidity and arrogance kill all of us, saying that it is a fate promised in the scriptures. :doh: