Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

[turbo]

From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

 

[slugcountry]

mmm i really, really, don't think so.. how will it look if the republicans invade THREE countries during their administration??

then again they've more than likely already lost re-election so they must just do it lol sad times

edit: if anyone should make a strike on iran's nuclear facilities its israel, who is directly threatened by both that nuclear program and the government of iran.

 

[edward]

Cheney is crazy enough to attack Iran. Is Bush sane enough to stop him?

 

[Futobingoro]

If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.

 

[phoenixy]

If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.

hahaha

I would like a similar video system setup within the whitehouse. C-SPAN just won't cut it since congress is acting like a lame duck. I want to know if Cheney runs on energizers. Or more importantly, if there is a memory purger that can reduce any response to "I don't remember".


Intuitively, I think a strike will happen. It has come to a stage where those in power are willing to risk it all in an act of desperation. Why would one want to focus on domestic issues, when we are still able to pay for our big guns? The atmosphere had clearly shift toward a hardline approach regarding Iran. Just watch any Rep debate and see how Ron Paul being the only candidate who is serious about diplomacy. The hawks might not have the consensus to initiate action, but then again they never really need it.

 

[edward]

I seriously doubt that we could do much of anything in Iran without causing an international crisis. China is heavily involved in developing oil production in Iran.

Sinopec, China's state-owned oil giant, signed a $70 billion deal with the Iranians in November 2004 to develop the Yadavaran oil field. Sinopec will also buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years. Iran is committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years.

http://www.investmentu.com/research/crude-oil-forecast.html

China also holds about $600 billion in U.S. treasury bills and other government backed securities. China isn't about to roll over and play dead if do anything that interferes with their oil interests in the ME.

Rather than buying oil on the open market with almost daily price fluctuations, China"s nationalized oil companies have been paying cash up front for long term supply commitments.

 

[hserse]

Oh, the flow of animosity and hatred shall flow for centuries to come. You will not bear the suffering, but your children, grandchildren shall suffer the consequences. Have you not learn anything from age old conflicts that you've created. For your animosity and hatred are the weapons of mass destruction.
Millions people will be displaced, millions will die. Is IRAQ not enough of a holocaust? Does the dead have to be your allies and have to your ideology before you considered a holocaust? Does the quantity have to be >1,000,000 dead within specified time frame before you considered to be a holocaust? In the eyes of the Almighty even ONE is considered a holocaust. To the Jews, Christian, Muslim-the reasons and justification you have of animosity will not modify the hypocracy in the eyes of your creator. Let the conflicts begin, for you shall kill your own brother.

 

[chemisttree]

From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization "gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."

This clearly shows that Hillary considers dealing with the Revolutionary Guard equivalent to dealing with the leaders of Iran... a position right out of the Bush/Cheney neocon playbook.

I'm sure lots of high resolution satellite photographs are being stockpiled even now.

It's just a question of who gets to say, 'go'.

 

[baywax]

Who do you believe after all the doublespeak coming out of Washington?

 

[mjsd]

we definitely don't need another war so soon...
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter

 

[kach22i]

FYI......

Ellsberg calls for actions to prevent war with Iran
By MICHAEL YODER, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Sep 28, 2007 12:58 AM EST
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/210086

He said the Senate resolution passed Wednesday declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is an invitation for Bush to declare war on Iran.

Click the link above to read the whole article, short but informative.

 

[chemisttree]

we definitely don't need another war so soon...
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter

If you look at a map of Iran, you will see that the US occupies territory along both the eastern (Iraq) and western (Afghanistan) border. We have them in a classic pincer movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement) and we could (if we had the will) squeeze them like a zit until they popped. That's what Iran is so freaked out about, and I can't blame them. How would the US feel if the former Soviet Union simultaneously attacked and occupied Canada and Mexico while stopping to search all of our sea traffic just outside our jurisdictional waters? If we didn't already have nuclear weapons, we would find a way to get them... and quick.

Iran is a huge source of instability in the middle east and their rising influence has their arab neighbors quite uneasy. It is very likely that the US is acting the part of the mercenary on behalf of wealthy arab states to check Iran's rising power. How many anti-american protests do you see on the streets of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

Thus the 'status quo' needs a war with Iran to keep the good times rolling. I can hardly wait until the US is free of the influence of Middle East oil...

 

[BobG]

It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote. Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

 

[kach22i]

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

At least read the first few sentences of an article before you post it.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.

 

[chemisttree]

Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

I guess I should have said that his wife didn't vote for it because... Clearly tongue-in-cheek.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote.

But is it likely that McCain will ever be president? I think that "President Obama" is a very likely thing, if not in '08 then perhaps in '12 or '16.

Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 )

So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.

 

[chemisttree]

It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.

I think that some are just laughing it off.

 

[BobG]

So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.

Absolutely. Iran can refuse to buy any Western materials, equipment, goods, or technology associated with nuclear programs from any Western nation and it can also refuse to sell arms to any Western nation. Doing so would at least bring Iran's foreign policy in accordance with Newton's Third Law of Physics.

The issues between Iran and the US appear to be unresolvable unless Iran gives up on a nuclear program. If they're not going to give up their nuclear program then they have little to lose by responding "Bite me!" to the US. The US will attack the Iranian Republican Guard or it won't. There's little Iran could say that would have much affect one way or the other.

 

[Art]

Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

Still I'm sure the neo-cons will see this as only a small speed bump on their path to war. The character assassination of Mohamed El- Baradei has started already. He is being called such things as the 'Rogue Regulator' for daring to report facts that contravene the Bush propaganda machine.

Funny how not so long back he was being feted by the same propaganda machine as the honest, independent investigator who Iran must satisfy.

Still 'it's an ill wind that blows nobody some good' and so although the rest of the world would view an attack on Iran and it's likely consequences as an appalling disaster some people somewhere will do very nicely out of it I am sure.

DeJa Vu anyone?

 

[Moridin]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

 

[Art]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand...

 

[turbo]

The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

 

[edward]

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

WOW, great post Turbo-1

 

[Moridin]

Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand...

Arguments from authority.

Iran announced on 2 September that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium. This is in defiance of the UN Security Council's demand for Iran to suspend all enrichment activity.

The Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran. The US and its allies want to impose more.

Why are the 3,000 centrifuges important? [...]

The latest estimate from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (in its 2007 annual review) says: "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm (published 3 Oct 2007)

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

I apologize if your Islamic apologetics is in the way of true understanding of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38682
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7020603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Of course Iran is not locked into iron age belief systems. It is not like they behead people in public or reject science, oppress women

Your living in a world of make-belief. Your comment is using the well-know formal fallacy called 'two wrongs make a right'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

I do not claim that the US is not locked into an iron age belief system as well, because it is.

Also, Islamic theology does contain demonic forces. Have you read the Qur'an and seen its brutal message? Probably not. In any case, these demonic forces are probably though of being Israel or the US. Wonder how Islam combats demonic forces. Your major fallacy is thinking that Iran is a secular society that can be reasoned with.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Iran has about 16 nuclear facilities. But I guess they didn't tell you that on the hate-bush-administration conference, did they? I would say that the 70000-80000 civilians means more than just a couple of thousand US soldiers.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

Feel free to show how any of those two states are trapped in an iron age belief system that is entirely based on killing everyone that doesn't agree, that everything is controlled by religion, from politics to your sexual preferences. Go on.

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

When Iran acquires nuclear weapons of mass destruction, there is only going to be one way out. If you want the world to survive, that is.

 

[Art]

Moridin I suspect the irony of your hate filled rants is wasted on you.

 

[sneez]

This is madness moridin. Who brainwashed you so much? is it fox or bbc? You not going to take arguments from somebody who comes and goes to iran on regular basis, probably so I am not going to try. However, if you are such a pro- "reason" person, I dare you to do research to try to disprove your own arguments. Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

And the only one who is not possible to reason with might be ppl who say that someone else cannot be reasoned with. I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

 

[Moridin]

Moridin I suspect the irony of your hate filled rants is wasted on you.

What an intelligent non-argument. Disagreement has nothing to do with 'hate'.

This is madness moridin. Who brainwashed you so much? is it fox or bbc? You not going to take arguments from somebody who comes and goes to iran on regular basis, probably so I am not going to try. However, if you are such a pro- "reason" person, I dare you to do research to try to disprove your own arguments. Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

And the only one who is not possible to reason with might be ppl who say that someone else cannot be reasoned with. I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

I just posted links to content supporting my stance.

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is a theocracy?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is hostile to Israel and the US?
Do you deny the fact that homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran?
Do you deny the fact that women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam?
Do you deny the fact that critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing?

Where is the 16th century witch hunt mentality? Iran. But go on, deny reason and have faith in your forever unprovable apologetics.

 

[chemisttree]

Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

Is this what you believe a 'scientist' does? This is political science, remember. Do you advocate one-sided research because you believe it is a valid method to test a 'theory' (there was absolutely no 'theory' discussed in Moridin's post) or because you employ it to formulate your own beliefs? You then follow with this gem:

I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up

Is it a 16th century witch hunting mentality to provide evidence in defence of one's argument?

Or is it 16th century witch hunting mentalilty to only investigate one side of a story with the goal of disproving someone else's "theory"?

 

[chemisttree]

Arguments from authority.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm (published 3 Oct 2007)



I apologize if your Islamic apologetics is in the way of true understanding of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38682
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7020603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Of course Iran is not locked into iron age belief systems. It is not like they behead people in public or reject science, oppress women

Your living in a world of make-belief. Your comment is using the well-know formal fallacy called 'two wrongs make a right'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

I do not claim that the US is not locked into an iron age belief system as well, because it is.

Also, Islamic theology does contain demonic forces. Have you read the Qur'an and seen its brutal message? Probably not. In any case, these demonic forces are probably though of being Israel or the US. Wonder how Islam combats demonic forces. Your major fallacy is thinking that Iran is a secular society that can be reasoned with.



Iran has about 16 nuclear facilities. But I guess they didn't tell you that on the hate-bush-administration conference, did they? I would say that the 70000-80000 civilians means more than just a couple of thousand US soldiers.



Feel free to show how any of those two states are trapped in an iron age belief system that is entirely based on killing everyone that doesn't agree, that everything is controlled by religion, from politics to your sexual preferences. Go on.



When Iran acquires nuclear weapons of mass destruction, there is only going to be one way out. If you want the world to survive, that is.

WOW, great post Moridin!

 

[kach22i]

I think that some are just laughing it off.

Good for Gravel he made his point, Hillary sucks.

Bill Richardson for president!

 

[sneez]

Moridin, I am not going to go into this since you made up your mind already twice over. It does not matter how strong emotional attachments you have to your political opinions about iran ,they are primitivelly naive. I can toss out hundreds of links and you can toss out 200 more that support your conclusion, its not going to change anything. So let me not waste time on that.

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is a theocracy?
Do you deny the fact that Iran is hostile to Israel and the US?
Do you deny the fact that homosexuals are stoned to death or buried alive in Iran?
Do you deny the fact that women are oppressed in Iran due to Islam?
Do you deny the fact that critics of the regime are killed by the regime or simply gone missing?

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly. I do not deny that Iran has made bad judgements. I can as well bring out the houndred cases of US/Israel violation of much broader scale (genocide, torture on mass scale, well all those thing you know about and do not admit). But that is not going to do as good talking about Iran.

Iran is all but what you present here you think it is. I am pro discussion on the sharia law of iran, the religious aspect and etc, but I am totally numb from the ignorance you present about Iran. And ofcause its not your fault since you have never been there. You probably don't even personally know anyone from there, so all your opinions came from external source. A source you just prefer for one reason or the other. Your refusal of looking at world just for a second through different lense is astonishing but hey, if it works for you. I am just sad that ppl with similar minds are in governments.

"Is this what you believe a 'scientist' does? This is political science, remember. Do you advocate one-sided research because you believe it is a valid method to test a 'theory' (there was absolutely no 'theory' discussed in Moridin's post) or because you employ it to formulate your own beliefs? You then follow with this gem:"
WTF? How did I imply any of that nonsense? This is not the thread to be investigating your inability to understand an argument in the context of forum posting.

 

[baywax]

Let's put it this way, if Iran actually made the mistake of dropping an A bomb or a Vacuum bomb on Isreal, suddenly there would be no more Iran. Not much else would take place after that other than Russian sabre rattling, Chinese goose stepping and Peace activists crying... but, for the most part, we would be minus one culture in a world where cultures seem to be falling more often than rising.

 

[kach22i]

Do you deny the fact that the President of Iran denies the Holocaust?

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

 

[slugcountry]

kach I agree that is an enormous crime against humanity but iran is IMHO more relevant because israel is being threatened TODAY

that said I agree absolutely that the armenian genocide deserves far greater recognition than it receives today.

 

[slugcountry]

Who in their sane mind is not opposed to US foreign policy and Israel? What hostility r u talking about? Who is threating who here, who is planning war agains who here?, anyway You should take a educational trip to Iran and see for your self about the nonsense opinion you hold so dearly.

U.S. foreign policy is one thing but Israel is entirely different. Perhaps YOU should take an educational trip to ISRAEL before spouting your own nonsense opinion.

 

[chemisttree]

Just an FYI here, you guys do realize that Turkey still denies the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians in 1915, right? And that Turkey has successfully lobbied the US Congress and all our Presidents for nearly the past 100 years to suppress the truth the whole world knows.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the US ally Turkey and by the US government is long overdue, but you will not be seeing this in the news as a justification for war on the US or Turkey by anyone anytime soon.

Just think about the hypocrisy for a moment.

Wikipedia Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The real leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, does not deny the Holocaust although he does advocate the abolishment of Israel.

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

but not by force (apparently).

"the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2050168,00.html

Is he lying through his teeth? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'threaten'. His statement that, "...this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." coupled with Iran's funding of Hezbollah and desire to obtain nuclear materials could be construed by most sane people as a threatening posture.

Would any sane people go to war based solely on the fact that the Jewish Holocaust is or isn't a real event in history?