Iran under the threat of war?

[sonz]

By: Nasir Khan
Source: http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=551632

Is the United States going to attack Iran? This question is being asked around the world. The big American military build-up in the Persian Gulf has been going on for some time, and there is every reason to believe that Washington is setting stage for a major offensive against Iran.

In fact, the Bush administration has followed a carefully orchestrated strategy with a view to pave the way for a major conflict with Iran. The clearest signal comes from US Vice President Dick Cheney’s latest comments on February 23. At a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Cheney said that ‘all options’ are on the table if Iran continues to defy UN- led efforts to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear programmes. The news conference was held amidst tight security because thousands of protesters were voicing their anger at his visit. They called the main architect of invasion and occupation of Iraq a ‘war criminal’ and they called for the withdrawal of Australian soldiers from Iraq.

Cheney said that the United States remained ‘deeply concerned’ about Iran’s activities, including the ‘aggressive’ sponsoring of Hezbollah and ‘inflammatory statements’ by President Ahmadinejad: ‘We worked with European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and to resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference.’

‘But I have also made the point, and the president has also made the point, that all options are on the table,’ said Cheney.

Even though Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly for peaceful purpose, to generate energy, the United States and some of its allies suspect this could lead to Iran producing nuclear weapons that could challenge the nuclear power and political hegemony of the US and Israel in the Middle East.

Only the United States of America and Israel have some kind of ‘God-given’ right to have nuclear and other destructive weapons of mass destruction and to use them whenever they decide to do so.

The whole world knows that the US occupation forces used internationally banned weapons during their deadly assault on Fallujah. They also used prohibited substances including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals in their attacks. Fallujah residents reported that they saw ‘melted’ bodies in the city, which suggests that US military used napalm gas that makes the human body melt. Last summer, Israeli army littered the whole of south Lebanon with cluster bombs provided by the United States.

Let us recall the similar scenarios in 2002 and early 2003 when Iraq was accused by the United States of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the Bush administration knew that no such weapons existed in Iraq. But the pretext was used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. It was in furtherance of the grand strategy to bring the Middle East under America’s political hegemony and to control its oil resources. Now the US administration is using the same methods in the case of Iran.

The BBC recently revealed some clear indications of the US-planned attack on Iran. According to the BBC, the US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure. Any such attack would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

Iran is within an hour’s flying time from some American bases or aircraft carriers. In case of war, the US, most probably America and Israel together, will have no difficulty in destroying Iranian army, its military bases and the economic infrastructure of Iran.

* Military plans:

Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigating journalist, reported that American Special Operation Forces were already operating inside Iran in preparation for a possible air ground attack (New Yorker, 24 January 2005). He also later reported that current and former officials told him that one of the options being considered by the Bush administration called ‘for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as B61-11, against underground nuclear sites’. (New Yorker, 17 April 2005).

Hersh pointed out last year how the Bush administration had increased the secret activities inside Iran with a view to pave the way for a major air attack. He writes: ‘Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.’ (New Yorker, 17 April 2006).

The United States has been deeply involved in the affairs and politics of Iran since the Second World War. The Shah of Iran who had inherited throne from his father in 1941 was forced into exile in 1951 by the popular government headed by the Iranian leader Dr Mohammad Mossadegh. He nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. US intervened in 1953 and installed the Shah to power again. He established a dictatorship. In 1957 Washington helped the Shah create SAVAK, the notorious secret police, which silenced all those who criticised the policies of the Shah.

The brutal regime of the Shah came to an end in 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic. America cut off all diplomatic relations and imposed tight economic sanctions against Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Washington provided seed stock for biological weapons, weapons and financial backing to Iraq.

Iran continues to be a major concern to the US for a number of reasons. Iran, like Iraq, is a big country. It has oil wealth, water resources and a large population. After having occupied Iraq and its oils resources under control, in Washington’s calculation, Iran is the only country in the region that can challenge its domination of the Middle East. As the US controls the political developments throughout the Middle East, the only major country that has not capitulated to Washington is Iran. The stage is set for a new war of aggression and the Bush administration has been busy preparing for a massive attack on Iran.

Bush in his January 10, 2007 speech not only announced sending further US troops to Iraq; he also signalled his determination to reshape the entire Middle East under the domination of the United States.

‘Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of the extremist challenge,’ Bush declared. ‘This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.’ What he meant by ‘defending Iraq’s integrity’ and ‘stabilising the region’ was to safeguard the military occupation of Iraq without any complaint from any quarter and extending the US domination over Iran and Syria, who have not been brought to their knees yet. In his speech, Bush also declared: ‘We are taking steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.’

In fact, a huge military build-up in the Persian Gulf had been gaining momentum. The World Net Daily’s staff writer Dr Jerome Corsi has pointed out that by the end of February, an American armada of 50 warships will be stationed in the area. The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) aircraft carrier battle group has gone to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) aircraft carrier battle group already stationed there. Besides, the USS Boxer (LDH 4) amphibious assault ship is stationed in the Persian Gulf. The USS Bataan (LHD 5) was also sent to the area in January. A fleet of 12 ships supports each carrier attack group, including two guided missile-cruisers, two guided missile destroyers, and an attack submarine.

American military domination of the Middle East is maintained by a vast network of military bases throughout the region. The US military in case of war has the capacity to crush Iran by round-the-clock bombing using cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes. Batteries of Patriot anti-missile systems are at present being installed in the Gulf states to protect vital US military assets.

Despite the clear war preparations that are going on, President Bush continues to declare that the US has no immediate plans to attack Iran. The fact remains that his objective is to have an Iran closely allied with the US as under the Shah and the rest of the Arab rulers. Such an objective will not be achieved by negotiations to end the nuclear standoff but by changing the present rulers of Iran. As no clandestine operations have succeeded so far to bring the clerics to capitulation, the Bush administration thinks that a major blitzkrieg will do the job and protect the American interests in the Middle East. But we all know what those interests are.

The dangerous course followed by Washington has not been the focus of only informed media, but also of some important American public figures. At the end of last year, the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraqi crisis. However, President Bush has taken a total opposite direction and blames Iran and Syria for the US military losses in Iraq!

Perhaps the most realistic warning of the dangerous policies followed by the Bush administration came in the February 1, 2007 testimony of the former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Senate Foreign relations Committee.

Deeply critical of the disastrous policies followed by Bush, Brzezinski said: ‘The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.’

Brzezinski fully aware of the policy of the use of overwhelming military power predicted that ‘if the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam’.

In a sharp critique of Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror,’ Brzezinski described as ‘a mythical historical narrative’ where the attempts are being made to equate Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda with the threat posed to the US by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Russia: ‘This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and Stalinism was able to mobilise not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.’

He warned that ‘to argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicentre, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.’

Brzezinski saw the danger of the White House manufacturing ‘some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States’ to blame Iran and using it as a pretext to unleash a ‘defensive’ military action against Iran.

According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times (January14, 2007), an attack on Iran can come anytime. This information was obtained from a reliable source, which said that President Bush had held a meeting with Vice president Cheney, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Codoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House to discuss the plan for an attack in minute detail. While Gates and Rice seem to have suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go ahead with the attack in the near future.

But there is also opposition to the plans of Bush and Cheney in the military and navy. Some generals and admirals have recently said that they would resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran.

Despite all the military build-up in and around the Middle East, war is not a foregone conclusion. Bush and Cheney also have an alternative course by which they can continue to further the interests of American imperialism short of war. They can engage in a meaningful dialogue with Iran and Syria in order to avoid another war and spare the life and livelihood of millions of people.


-- Nasir Khan is a historian and a peace activist.

[ManchesterFolk]

The Bush admin paved the way for the conflict? It wasn't Irans defying the council. Hmmm...

[wilberhum]

Despite all the military build-up in and around the Middle East, war is not a foregone conclusion.

Iran has already gone to war, it is just that it is a Silent war.

[Keltoi]

The connection that many aren't making is the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict that occurred not long ago. This was Iran's first "blow" in Wilberhum's silent war.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Chiteng]

First:

Iran ad Iraq are NOT linked issues.
Many US citizens dislike what Bush is doing in Iraq, and will do almost
anything legal, to end the adventure.

However, Iran is another story. The same people that deplore what s going on in Iraq, would cheer if Bush eliminated Iran's nuclear threat.

The reasons are quite simple. Iran wanted to capture the Shah alive.
They didnt. Then they wanted the USA to simply turn him over to them
when he came to the USA for medical treatment.

The idea that Iran 'demands' that the USA do something like turning a man
over to a lynch mob, offends the common US citizen.
They do NOT care how it seems to Iran. AND they are not going to care.

So since that time Iran has been at war with the USA. The hostages
in Lebanon are the most blatant example. The hostages from the embassy
are another example.
It doesnt matter how Iran views what it is doing. What matters is how
the USA views what Iran is doing. The people of the USA currently feel
that Iran is delibretly rattling its sabre to drive the price of oil up.

To the common US citizen, taking people hostage, and holding them for
ransom, is a heinous crime. A country that does that loses ALL credibility.
The common USA citizen believe ANY statement from Iran to be a lie.
They will NOT change their minds, unless the current Iran government falls.
Which 'I' think is very unlikely.

So in essence, the people of the USA may dislike Bush, but they dislike Iran
a GREAT deal more. If he bombs Iran, his popularity will go UP, not down.

Further, it doesnt mattter what threat Iran and its people make.
The USA like Iran, doesnt scare. In this game of chicken, both cats will
collide, head on. No one will flinch.

So have no illusions. If it comes to war, it will be REAL war. Not the useless
inertia you seen in Iraq. You will see mass mobilizations, and a country united. Frankly I have little hope personaly. You cannot reason with fanatics
who want war.

Bush said it VERY clearly. 'Iran will not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons'

Yes yes, we know that Iran purchased some from the old USSR.
So what?

The only chance I see is if Iran backs down. After observing bullies for many
years, I dont think that is likely.

It is very sad, and very unfortunate.
:cry:

[Chiteng]

One more comment, a bit more subtle



New York Sun Editorial
May 11, 2006

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


A D V E R T I S E M E N T

President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.

Much of the rest of Ahmadinejad's letter is devoted to portraying Mr. Bush as an infidel. Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power. All the "carrots" that the doves in the American foreign policy establishment want to offer - abandoning Israel, offering Iran "security guarantees" and economic and political relations - fall short of what Iran's president demands. He demands that America "follow the true path," that is, convert to Islam. Short of that, America will not receive peace from the Iranian regime.

Mr. Bush has been clear that America wishes the Iranian people well and supports them in their quest for freedom from their clerical regime. He needs to do everything he can to help the Iranian people oust the regime in Tehran before the regime has a chance to launch its offensive against America. Such an offensive by Iran would be dangerous enough with conventional weapons; we certainly don't want to permit a nation that is about to attack us to have nuclear weapons. And our president would do us all a service by telling Americans about this Iranian declaration of war. When Al Qaeda issued its February 1998 fatwa, only a few Americans recognized its significance as a declaration of war. That took until September 11, 2001. This time around, let's not miss the warning.

[wilberhum]

Well the scilent war is Silent no more.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says

But I guess it was only silent to those that were not lessening.

[Philosopher]

America cant afford to start a war with Iran anytime soon, they're over-stretched in Iraq already.

[Joe98]

Only the United States of America and Israel have some kind of ‘God-given’ right to have nuclear …….weapons

Hmmmmm. Iran says their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. And so why is this paragraph in the article?


There are 7 countries that we know for sure have nuclear weapons and the author knows it too. And therefore the words “Only the United States of America and Israel” are inserted for propaganda purposes to make Muslims hate. And it has succeeded.




And a welcome to Chiteng!

-

[wilberhum]

America cant afford to start a war with Iran anytime soon, they're over-stretched in Iraq already.

Depends if we put boots on the ground or bombs in the air.
But I hope we do neither.

[Chiteng]

America cant afford to start a war with Iran anytime soon, they're over-stretched in Iraq already.

That is quite true. It wont be possible to invade Iran.

However, one can also argue that invasion is NOT needed.

Bombardment is not as expensive as invasion, and leaves no US military
bodies (usually)

No sniping, no roadside bombs, no street battles.

[Keltoi]

If there is going to be military action against Iran it will be quick and decisive. Why? For the very reasons many point out as to why the U.S. is "overstretched". The U.S. doesn't have the time, patience, or manpower for another prolonged occupation. It will be quick, highly destructive, and highly unfortunate for Iran. Let us all pray it doesn't reach that point.

[Cognescenti]

To all the Iran cheerleaders;

As other posters have noted, the US doesn't have to "invade" Iran to cause major economic suffering. In fact, an actual ground invasion and a march to Tehran would be a nightmare. If it comes down to it, the attack will chiefly be from B-2 radar-evading bombers and crusie missiles. Stand off missiles would be used to attack radar and SAM sites and the Iranian Navy along the coast. There might be a few special operations raids...but no big land force.

The deeply buried Iranian fuel-processing facilities would be hard to destroy completely, but they have a major weakness....they require major amounts of electricity to operate. This has to be brought in. Electrical generation plants and transmission lines are highly vulnerable. Hydroelectic dams? How many of those do you think would survive? Ports? Oil terminals? Of course, this would destroy the Iranian economy and cause a severe oil price shock that might prompt a global recession. the Iranians would strike back, lobbing missiles at Kuwait and the UAE. They would shoot down some US planes and they might even damage or sink a US ship or two...perhaps a couple of oil tankers. Oil shipmetn out of the Persian Gulf would be dangerous for some time. They would unleash suicide or car bombers at US and Israel and perhaps even European targets all over the world and a lot of civilians would die. They might even unleash Hizbollah on Israel. they might attack oil facilities or the government of Saudi out of spite.

It would a heck of a lot like a war. This is why it hasn't happened yet. :) Still, there will be no doubt about who won when it is done.

I hope there is somebody in Iran who, sonner rather than later, gives Amedinajad leash a big yank on his leash and says.."bad dog"

[AvarAllahNoor]

If there is going to be military action against Iran it will be quick and decisive. Why? For the very reasons many point out as to why the U.S. is "overstretched". The U.S. doesn't have the time, patience, or manpower for another prolonged occupation. It will be quick, highly destructive, and highly unfortunate for Iran. Let us all pray it doesn't reach that point.

Get this general talking nonsense....

You go in, be ready to get a taste of your own medicine AGAIN! - Think 9/11 and how you were brought to your knees....

[Idris]

First:

Iran ad Iraq are NOT linked issues.LoL For countries that are right next to each other it is hard not to being linked.
Many US citizens dislike what Bush is doing in Iraq, and will do almost
anything legal, to end the adventure.That's why they keep voting him in right?

However, Iran is another story. The same people that deplore what s going on in Iraq, would cheer if Bush eliminated Iran's nuclear threat.So Iran has a nuclear bomb now. Like Iraq had WMD.

The reasons are quite simple. Iran wanted to capture the Shah alive.
They didnt. Then they wanted the USA to simply turn him over to them
when he came to the USA for medical treatment.

The idea that Iran 'demands' that the USA do something like turning a man
over to a lynch mob, offends the common US citizen.
They do NOT care how it seems to Iran. AND they are not going to care.
Anyone remember Saddam Hussein? And how they US handed him you some “mob”.

So since that time Iran has been at war with the USA.I don't think you know the meaing of "war"... Iran has not been to war with someone of 400 years or so. The hostages
in Lebanon are the most blatant example. The hostages from the embassy
are another example.
It doesnt matter how Iran views what it is doing. What matters is how
the USA views what Iran is doing. Yea sure who care's what they think. The people of the USA currently feel
that Iran is delibretly rattling its sabre to drive the price of oil up.Oil?:D

To the common US citizen, taking people hostage, and holding them for
ransom, is a heinous crime. A country that does that loses ALL credibility.
The common USA citizen believe ANY statement from Iran to be a lie.
They will NOT change their minds, unless the current Iran government falls.
Which 'I' think is very unlikely.

So in essence, the people of the USA may dislike Bush, but they dislike Iran
a GREAT deal more. If he bombs Iran, his popularity will go UP, not down.


Further, it doesnt mattter what threat Iran and its people make.
he USA like Iran, doesnt scare. In this game of chicken, both cats will
collide, head on. No one will flinch.

So have no illusions. If it comes to war, it will be REAL war. Not the useless
inertia you seen in Iraq. You will see mass mobilizations, and a country united. Frankly I have little hope personaly. You cannot reason with fanatics
who want war. Well it's you who want's war not Iran. I sure you will not see Iran bombing the US.

Bush said it VERY clearly. 'Iran will not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons'
Yea I think he siad some like that before o yea Iraq and some thing about WOMD
Yes yes, we know that Iran purchased some from the old USSR.
So what?

The only chance I see is if Iran backs down. After observing bullies for many
years, I dont think that is likely.

It is very sad, and very unfortunate.
:cry:

Your not sad you just want war using some idea about Nuclear weapons. Man we have heard it all we know what you want and you know what you so stop the BS about nuclear weapons, what the US want is oil and by God they will do anything to get.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Bush was never voted in to begin with.so stating ''he gets voted in'' is senile!

[Chiteng]

Your not sad you just want war using some idea about Nuclear weapons. Man we have heard it all we know what you want and you know what you so stop the BS about nuclear weapons, what the US want is oil and by God they will do anything to get.

You are wrong. I am quite sad indeed. I have served in one lost war
in 1965, I have no desire to see it all again. However, it looks like
Iraq will be the same. Bush was very foolish indeed.

As for Iran, and its nuclear ambitions. Yes, I agree Iran keeps saying
that it only wants the technology for peacefull puposes.

And no one, believes them. As for the oil, we dont buy any oil from Iran.
So I dont see your point.

I am an old man now, and all I can do is pray. Sometimes, prayer is all you have.

[Idris]

Chiteng you have no idea that this BS about Nuclear weapones is about do you? You are right about Iran having a Nuclear weapone but not the one you know.

So I will tell you

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

If this happens the $ will go down lol

PLz read more.This is not fake it's real life.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11613.htm

[Chiteng]

Chiteng you have no idea that this BS about Nuclear weapones is about do you? You are right about Iran having a Nuclear weapone but not the one you know.

So I will tell you

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

If this happens the $ will go down lol

PLz read more.This is not fake it's real life.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11613.htm

As I said, the USA does not buy oil from Iran.
I am puzzled as to why you assume what Iran does will impact the USA.

As for its nuclear ambitions, they are quite obvious.
Also, as I said, I am an old man, I dont hold the dollar as sacred.

[Idris]

I really think you have not comprehended what I have just told you. Everyone buys oil in the dollar. What will happen if Iran starts selling oil in Euro? I do not have time to explain all of it but plz read the link I have put down for you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11613.htm

[Kidman]

If there is going to be military action against Iran it will be quick and decisive. Why? For the very reasons many point out as to why the U.S. is "overstretched". The U.S. doesn't have the time, patience, or manpower for another prolonged occupation. It will be quick, highly destructive, and highly unfortunate for Iran. Let us all pray it doesn't reach that point.

Yup, cause if that happens, then you will see another huge bomb landing in America, then back and forth and the world will end up having radiation and dust all over, which will lead to the destruction of us humans.

[Keltoi]

Get this general talking nonsense....

You go in, be ready to get a taste of your own medicine AGAIN! - Think 9/11 and how you were brought to your knees....

Brought to our knees? Been watching some good propoganda films huh?

There seems to be a bit of confusion on this forum about the difference between an occupation and a war. Any conflict with Iran will be unfortunate for everybody. This isn't a football game. Don't believe for a second that Iran is somehow anything near an equal to the United States militarily. This wouldn't be "fair" and it wouldn't be an occupation.

[MTAFFI]

^^I dont know why even bother trying to tell anyone on this board what war would be like to Iran, almost everyone on this forum will side with Iran no matter what, that is why there isnt an argument about how the US would attack just what would hypothetically happen in response. The people responding on this thread obviously live in a box and have absolutely no idea. Personally, sometimes I wish we would go to war with Iran just to flex our military muscle a little bit. I think a lot of people percieve our country as weak now because we cant police the country of Iraq against people who dont care about morals or life. I would like to see another country give it a whirl, see how well they come out of the situation.

As far as all of this talk of the US wanting oil, we should just laugh as it is pure ignorance and shows the simplistic thinking of those who support who we do not. If we went to war with Iran, you might as well plan on starting the process of obtaining the oil over, which would be more trouble than it would be worth, especially since we already dont even get any oil from there and the American people are more than capable of paying for our own. Not to mention that within the next 30 years we wont even need it for vehicles anyways. My suggestion, sit back and enjoy the fireworks, enjoy the misery that Iran will surely bring on its people and government, it will be their own underestimations and arrogance that will lead to their demise.

Isnt it funny how each time we go to war with one of these countries the leaders run and hide in holes or mountains? (ie Saddam, Taliban, OBL) It just shows what real cowards they are, they get young people, brainwash them and have them do the dirty work but then when the sh** hits the fan they run and hide and send out messages through the internet. If their countries truly supported them and God is really on their side then why not call upon their armies and people to fight like a real military, oh yeah thats right, because their people typically dont support them and neither does God.:raging:

[Kidman]

^^I dont know why even bother trying to tell anyone on this board what war would be like to Iran, almost everyone on this forum will side with Iran no matter what, that is why there isnt an argument about how the US would attack just what would hypothetically happen in response. The people responding on this thread obviously live in a box and have absolutely no idea. Personally, sometimes I wish we would go to war with Iran just to flex our military muscle a little bit. I think a lot of people percieve our country as weak now because we cant police the country of Iraq against people who dont care about morals or life. I would like to see another country give it a whirl, see how well they come out of the situation.

As far as all of this talk of the US wanting oil, we should just laugh as it is pure ignorance and shows the simplistic thinking of those who support who we do not. If we went to war with Iran, you might as well plan on starting the process of obtaining the oil over, which would be more trouble than it would be worth, especially since we already dont even get any oil from there and the American people are more than capable of paying for our own. Not to mention that within the next 30 years we wont even need it for vehicles anyways. My suggestion, sit back and enjoy the fireworks, enjoy the misery that Iran will surely bring on its people and government, it will be their own underestimations and arrogance that will lead to their demise.

Isnt it funny how each time we go to war with one of these countries the leaders run and hide in holes or mountains? (ie Saddam, Taliban, OBL) It just shows what real cowards they are, they get young people, brainwash them and have them do the dirty work but then when the sh** hits the fan they run and hide and send out messages through the internet. If their countries truly supported them and God is really on their side then why not call upon their armies and people to fight like a real military, oh yeah thats right, because their people typically dont support them and neither does God.:raging:

"one of these countries??" I'm telling you straight out bro, Iran is not "one of these countries." Saddam, Taliban, and those other countries have no real backing. More than half of Iraq hated Saddam and his evil Regime. Go to war against a country where they love their leader and you will not just see a war in Iran, but there would be bombs dropping into American military headquaters as well.

This will lead to a world war no doubt.

Don't ever wish again for a war to "stregthen your muscles"; cause as you flex your arm might just get cut off!!!

Kidman

[MTAFFI]

"one of these countries??" I'm telling you straight out bro, Iran is not "one of these countries." Saddam, Taliban, and those other countries have no real backing. More than half of Iraq hated Saddam and his evil Regime. Go to war against a country where they love their leader and you will not just see a war in Iran, but there would be bombs dropping into American military headquaters as well.

This will lead to a world war no doubt.

Don't ever wish again for a war to "stregthen your muscles"; cause as you flex your arm might just get cut off!!!

Kidman

LOL :laugh:

Kidman you really are hilarious, I would love to see Iran make one military offensive against a US military base, without using a terrorist group as a conduit. They couldnt do it, a world war, ummmm perhaps, but it wouldnt be fought on US soil and the world wouldnt be against the US. I think you fail to realize that Iran is probably hated more than the US.

The US may very well stregthen it muscles through a war with Iran, just like Ahmadinjehad strengthens his mouth muscles. I would like to see a sword weilding Iranian cut the arm off a cruise missle. That is the difference there wouldnt be a US military serviceman in sight only fast planes equipped with faster missles. Good luck Iran, sorry for the people that didnt chant "Death to America", if that isnt a provocation for war I dont know what is

[Kidman]

LOL :laugh:

Kidman you really are hilarious, I would love to see Iran make one military offensive against a US military base, without using a terrorist group as a conduit. They couldnt do it, a world war, ummmm perhaps, but it wouldnt be fought on US soil and the world wouldnt be against the US. I think you fail to realize that Iran is probably hated more than the US.

The US may very well stregthen it muscles through a war with Iran, just like Ahmadinjehad strengthens his mouth muscles. I would like to see a sword weilding Iranian cut the arm off a cruise missle. That is the difference there wouldnt be a US military serviceman in sight only fast planes equipped with faster missles. Good luck Iran, sorry for the people that didnt chant "Death to America", if that isnt a provocation for war I dont know what is

Thank you, i try :)

They will if needed make a military offensive against a U.S military base but only if they are attacked first. But ya, they might use a group, you say terrorist group but if Iran is attacked, then is america not the one who is terrorizing? How is America not considered a terrorist when they are the ones constantly attacking countries and having innocent people (not intentional of course) killed?

World war probably wouldn't be fought on U.S soil... but you think U.S will send troops to Iran?? (real question, not tryin to be smart here or anything). I think they would probalby just do what they did to Hiroshima and would rather drop a bomb and turn Iran into a huge crater. May God protect those innocent people... the millions of women and children that didn't have anything to do with a war but are taken out for the glory of the American dynasty.

Iran more hated than U.S?? Really, i didn't know that... did you get these statistics from an Israeli sensus?

"Death to America" isn't provocation for war, it is a symbol of how the Government of America acts unjustly, and against humanity and only for selfish purposes. If you realize that, then you would also realize that more than half of U.S citizens are against Bush and his way of governing, and if the chant didn't seem so bloody, they would be chanting also.

Iranians love americans, but hate the american government. If you ever cared, you can visit Iran and watch how wonderful their culture is, and how you are treated there. But since you are so influenced by what you hear, you are thinking "helllll no, they will kidnap and torture me, and hold me for ransom, and etc.....

Take care, and wish you the best of knowledge and hopefully you will be against any war and all about peace.

Kidman

[MTAFFI]

Thank you, i try :)

They will if needed make a military offensive against a U.S military base but only if they are attacked first. But ya, they might use a group, you say terrorist group but if Iran is attacked, then is america not the one who is terrorizing? How is America not considered a terrorist when they are the ones constantly attacking countries and having innocent people (not intentional of course) killed?

World war probably wouldn't be fought on U.S soil... but you think U.S will send troops to Iran?? (real question, not tryin to be smart here or anything). I think they would probalby just do what they did to Hiroshima and would rather drop a bomb and turn Iran into a huge crater. May God protect those innocent people... the millions of women and children that didn't have anything to do with a war but are taken out for the glory of the American dynasty.

Iran more hated than U.S?? Really, i didn't know that... did you get these statistics from an Israeli sensus?

"Death to America" isn't provocation for war, it is a symbol of how the Government of America acts unjustly, and against humanity and only for selfish purposes. If you realize that, then you would also realize that more than half of U.S citizens are against Bush and his way of governing, and if the chant didn't seem so bloody, they would be chanting also.

Iranians love americans, but hate the american government. If you ever cared, you can visit Iran and watch how wonderful their culture is, and how you are treated there. But since you are so influenced by what you hear, you are thinking "helllll no, they will kidnap and torture me, and hold me for ransom, and etc.....

Take care, and wish you the best of knowledge and hopefully you will be against any war and all about peace.

Kidman

Kidman

First off, no I dont think the US is a terrorist group, I think that the US defends itself. The US's war in the mideast was not unprovoked, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. You kill 3000 of our people and bring down two of our buildings and we will retaliate, do not doubt that or mistake it for anything else. It is a military response to a threat against our nation, a military response to a miltary action. What would Iran do, or any other country for that matter do if the US threatened to destroy their country as Saddam threatened the US many times or if another country harbored the leader of the organization that just killed 3000 of your citizens? Something must be done or anyone will think they can attack the US. As far as innocent people being killed, I think maybe you would want to talk to your Muslim brothers and sisters before you come to the US about that, they seem to be the ones who kill indiscriminately, if this were the case for the US wouldnt occupy Iraq and would have been out of Iraq before you could say abra cadabra

Second.. No I dont think that the US would send in troops, that was the point I was making in my previous post, there wouldnt be an occupation or a troop to "cut the arm off" of. As far as the innocent people, they wont die because of America they will die because their government is sacrificing them for their own military agenda.

As for the comment regarding the question who where the stats come from on Iran or the US, ask the Saudis, Israel, Britain, the US, Russia, Japan and basically anyone else you would consider with the "west". Who doesnt like the US? Iran, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, Palestine Venezuela and Cuba, hardly anyone to worry about.

Death to America isnt a provocation for war huh? I suppose some cartoons are though right? I wonder how Iran would react if we began burning their flags and caricatures of their highest religious leaders and chanted Death to Iran. I wonder how that would go over.. If they want bush to die, then fine say death to Bush or even better, how about chanting "Cant wait for the 2008 elections" Rather than chanting the death for a country. As far as I am concerned that is just an excuse for their hate speeches and rallies.

Iranians love americans?! LOL This is news to me but really when I said the Iranians I was just talking about the Iranian government, you know how that is right? By the way it is hard not to be influenced by what you see in hear, especially when you dont write off everything that is pro US and listen to everything that is Pro mideast, there are two sides to everything.

You take care as well, I dont wish for war, but I dont wish to be constantly taunted indirectly and constantly told how my lifestyle and my countries lifestyle is wrong by people who dont even know what a lifestyle is because their country controls theirs. Again I will say Good Luck Iran

[Chiteng]

Thank you, i try :)

They will if needed make a military offensive against a U.S military base but only if they are attacked first. But ya, they might use a group, you say terrorist group but if Iran is attacked, then is america not the one who is terrorizing? How is America not considered a terrorist when they are the ones constantly attacking countries and having innocent people (not intentional of course) killed?

World war probably wouldn't be fought on U.S soil... but you think U.S will send troops to Iran?? (real question, not tryin to be smart here or anything). I think they would probalby just do what they did to Hiroshima and would rather drop a bomb and turn Iran into a huge crater. May God protect those innocent people... the millions of women and children that didn't have anything to do with a war but are taken out for the glory of the American dynasty.

Iran more hated than U.S?? Really, i didn't know that... did you get these statistics from an Israeli sensus?

"Death to America" isn't provocation for war, it is a symbol of how the Government of America acts unjustly, and against humanity and only for selfish purposes. If you realize that, then you would also realize that more than half of U.S citizens are against Bush and his way of governing, and if the chant didn't seem so bloody, they would be chanting also.

Iranians love americans, but hate the american government. If you ever cared, you can visit Iran and watch how wonderful their culture is, and how you are treated there. But since you are so influenced by what you hear, you are thinking "helllll no, they will kidnap and torture me, and hold me for ransom, and etc.....

Take care, and wish you the best of knowledge and hopefully you will be against any war and all about peace.

Kidman

Yes Iran is a model of tolerance. For example the treatment of Ba Hai followers. And if Iran is such a great place to be, why is it that so
many Iranians come to the USA for education, and then try to stay here?
Claiming political persecution? I would really like the answer to that one.

[Cognescenti]

12:12 GMT+8


Iran has historical grievances against US hegemony. They are a peace loving people and grow quite delicious pistacchios. They also have really good caviar. Xerxes was misunderstood. The Ayatollah was really nice guy too, once you got to know him and he could do really good Carter imitations. Amadinajad is a genius. Everyone knows this.

The Iranian military is all powerful, in fact, they are darn near immortal. They have photon torpedoes and tractor beams. Everyone knows this.

The US is the new Rome. They are corrupt and effete. Everyone knows this. Bush stole the election and he gets messages from God to do things like invade helpless law-abiding nations to steal their oil. He also cheats on his taxes and doesn't floss. Everyone knows this too. So it goes.


Woohoo...9 1/2 hrs without getting a post deleted! I have discovered the formula. As they say...when in Rome.....

[Kidman]

Kidman

First off, no I dont think the US is a terrorist group, I think that the US defends itself. The US's war in the mideast was not unprovoked, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. You kill 3000 of our people and bring down two of our buildings and we will retaliate, do not doubt that or mistake it for anything else. It is a military response to a threat against our nation, a military response to a miltary action. What would Iran do, or any other country for that matter do if the US threatened to destroy their country as Saddam threatened the US many times or if another country harbored the leader of the organization that just killed 3000 of your citizens? Something must be done or anyone will think they can attack the US. As far as innocent people being killed, I think maybe you would want to talk to your Muslim brothers and sisters before you come to the US about that, they seem to be the ones who kill indiscriminately, if this were the case for the US wouldnt occupy Iraq and would have been out of Iraq before you could say abra cadabra

Hello MTAFFI,
I understand the want to retaliate when something horrible happens like the innocent lives that were taken. And yes, any country, even Iran, would retaliate as well. And when America sent troops looking for Al-Qieda and Osama, that was a reasonable reaction. Actually, Iran was one of the first countries to come out and express sympathy for the innocent lives that were taken in that attack, and to denounce whoever created the atrocity. But, when America used horrible sources to link Saddam with Osama Bin Laden and all of a sudden Saddam is a terrorist even when before America were the ones supporting his power in Iraq, and gave him weapons to go to war with Iran. Come on now, that is where some people got upset. Then you hear stories about what they do to the prisoners in Iraq, the rapings, etc... Is this they type of retaliation you take?? The soldiers who went on a rampage on innocent Iraqi civilians, even poor women and children, because their friend was blown up then should be looked upon as a good deed or retaliation in your eyes???
Quran "The killing of one innocent person is like killing all of humanity, and the saving of one person is like saving all of humanity"
According to that, do you believe REAL muslims support those who are killing innocent people in the name of Islam? Please don't associate us with those people, it's like us associating Christianity to the Preachers who molest little children, which we know is not true Christianity.

Second.. No I dont think that the US would send in troops, that was the point I was making in my previous post, there wouldnt be an occupation or a troop to "cut the arm off" of. As far as the innocent people, they wont die because of America they will die because their government is sacrificing them for their own military agenda.

so they are dying for the government of America's own military agenda right?

As for the comment regarding the question who where the stats come from on Iran or the US, ask the Saudis, Israel, Britain, the US, Russia, Japan and basically anyone else you would consider with the "west". Who doesnt like the US? Iran, Iraq, Afghan, Syria, Palestine Venezuela and Cuba, hardly anyone to worry about.

Ohhh, i see, you are talking about governments. Of course they side with america, cause America is good at making deals (with the government) that would benefit the country as long as they side with America... But, i believe if you ask the majority of people... and i've been to Saudi, and they really dislike America, lol, even to the point where i was kinda scared to say i was american... but the majority of PEOPLE would dislike america more than Iran.

Death to America isnt a provocation for war huh? I suppose some cartoons are though right? I wonder how Iran would react if we began burning their flags and caricatures of their highest religious leaders and chanted Death to Iran. I wonder how that would go over.. If they want bush to die, then fine say death to Bush or even better, how about chanting "Cant wait for the 2008 elections" Rather than chanting the death for a country. As far as I am concerned that is just an excuse for their hate speeches and rallies.

Burning the iranian flag, or pictures of Ahmadinejad wont be anything big, you might have some hardline iranian fundamentalist who will try something. But when you get to religious values (the Prophet), then you are basically talking bad about God. If Jesus were portrayed in that manner then you will also see muslims rallying against the perpetrators. And, we are also disappointed in a way that America, which is mainly Christians, would let people portray Jesus in such a manner. Your so-called freedom of expression is the cause of so many youths with less and less religious values and who now are saying "it's ok to sin, as long as you believe Jesus is God then you are going to heaven" and now a lot are even turning to athiesm. It's dissappointing to me when i drive by and see a church being taken down, little kids cursing, little 12 yr olds wearing basically no clothes and so much make-up. Sorry, i'm going off subject. Ok, i agree they should be saying something more like "can't wait till 2008 elections" or something, and that would be looked at in a better way.

Iranians love americans?! LOL This is news to me but really when I said the Iranians I was just talking about the Iranian government, you know how that is right? By the way it is hard not to be influenced by what you see in hear, especially when you dont write off everything that is pro US and listen to everything that is Pro mideast, there are two sides to everything.

The iranian government is the same way, they don't have problems with people, as long as you are respectful to their culture and values. Ahmadinejad and Khomenai both like having conversations with people... and both have been to america.

You take care as well, I dont wish for war, but I dont wish to be constantly taunted indirectly and constantly told how my lifestyle and my countries lifestyle is wrong by people who dont even know what a lifestyle is because their country controls theirs. Again I will say Good Luck Iran

See, now this kinda sounds like a big bully. Saying you don't like getting taunted so you are going to beat up whoever is taunting you. If people talk, let them talk, their words are not doing anything to your pocket or your physicals, why worry if what they say is not true? That is a bad idiology, where you would rather have people die instead of 'being taunted'.

Anyways, lets not argue over stupid matters, takes tooo much time and will be useless in the end. We both agree that war is bad and terrible, so lets try to keep that option as far away as possible.

Kidman

[Kidman]

Yes Iran is a model of tolerance. For example the treatment of Ba Hai followers. And if Iran is such a great place to be, why is it that so
many Iranians come to the USA for education, and then try to stay here?
Claiming political persecution? I would really like the answer to that one.

I have a lot of Bahai friends, and i know that they were treated very badly. In a way, the government in the past try to get rid of the bahai movement but were unsuccessful. Now, the people still torment the bahai's, not the government, but the government is kinda turning their face saying "we didn't see anything". That is wrong, and I believe it is better than the past, and the future for bahai's in iran are only getting better. I'm not saying Iran is perfect, because yes, the are still far from it... but they are not bad like a lot of people say. Especially the iranians here in america will usually talk really bad about iran or a bad experience they had way back in the day, it did get a lot better and is continuing to develop.
Sorry if you were looking for more of a debate... I know what people say and understand what it was, but also am looking at the future of Iran and what it will be (inshallah).

Kidman

[MTAFFI]

Please don't associate us with those people, it's like us associating Christianity to the Preachers who molest little children, which we know is not true Christianity.

I am sorry for seemingly associating all Muslims to those people, my point to the comment was that the Americans are not the terrorist you should be looking for, if it were not those commiting the atrocites against their fellow Muslim in Iraq the US wouldnt even still be there

so they are dying for the government of America's own military agenda right?

No they will die before Americans would, should America sit idle while Iran whose government openly taunts and indirectly already threatens our security, creates a nuclear weapon. All they would have to do is stop what they are doing, let inspectors do their thing, have a little dialogue and they could have their nuclear power (peaceful)

Ohhh, i see, you are talking about governments. Of course they side with america, cause America is good at making deals (with the government) that would benefit the country as long as they side with America... But, i believe if you ask the majority of people... and i've been to Saudi, and they really dislike America, lol, even to the point where i was kinda scared to say i was american... but the majority of PEOPLE would dislike america more than Iran.

I think most of the people in these countries would either like america or at least like them more than Iran, as for the Saudis, did you ask them how they felt about Iranians? I can tell you that you may have recieved an even fouler response.

But when you get to religious values (the Prophet), then you are basically talking bad about God.

That is how catholics feel about the pope but that didnt stop anyone from burning caricatures of him

If Jesus were portrayed in that manner then you will also see muslims rallying against the perpetrators. And, we are also disappointed in a way that America, which is mainly Christians, would let people portray Jesus in such a manner. Your so-called freedom of expression is the cause of so many youths with less and less religious values and who now are saying "it's ok to sin, as long as you believe Jesus is God then you are going to heaven" and now a lot are even turning to athiesm. It's dissappointing to me when i drive by and see a church being taken down, little kids cursing, little 12 yr olds wearing basically no clothes and so much make-up. Sorry, i'm going off subject. Ok, i agree they should be saying something more like "can't wait till 2008 elections" or something, and that would be looked at in a better way.

Agreed, except for the freedom of expression part, the loss of values is because of the loss of parenting in my opinion. I have a daughter and I can gaurantee you that she will have plenty of moral and religious values.

The iranian government is the same way, they don't have problems with people, as long as you are respectful to their culture and values. Ahmadinejad and Khomenai both like having conversations with people... and both have been to america.

Perhaps, I wouldnt say they are always respectful of others cultures and values though and to get respect you must give it (I am speaking of the government)

See, now this kinda sounds like a big bully. Saying you don't like getting taunted so you are going to beat up whoever is taunting you. If people talk, let them talk, their words are not doing anything to your pocket or your physicals, why worry if what they say is not true? That is a bad idiology, where you would rather have people die instead of 'being taunted'.

There was a lot of taunting from OBL prior to 9/11, and that was the mentality prior to 9/11 but because of the actions taken after their taunting, one must be cautious of what he/she accepts as mere talk or as a warning of what might come. I would rather ensure my security rather than wait on my security to be breached, especially when it comes to a country like Iran obtaining WMD's

Anyways, lets not argue over stupid matters, takes tooo much time and will be useless in the end. We both agree that war is bad and terrible, so lets try to keep that option as far away as possible.
Kidman

I agree, that is why I like to think of this as a constructive discussion. War is bad and I hope it doesnt happen, but all iran has to do is let the inspectors, have some discussions and they could have their peaceful technology. However if they wish to continue on their path at some point someone will have to step in and say stop it or we will stop it. When it comes to my security, my families security and the security of my country, I have to agree with Bush, ALL options must be on the table

[Kidman]

I am sorry for seemingly associating all Muslims to those people, my point to the comment was that the Americans are not the terrorist you should be looking for, if it were not those commiting the atrocites against their fellow Muslim in Iraq the US wouldnt even still be there

Hello MTAFFI,

In my point of view, America does terrorize people and supports terrorism also, and in that case are terrorist by their own definition. You can agree or not, but then we would have to discuss each event, so lets not go further then that unless we hang out or something, lol.

No they will die before Americans would, should America sit idle while Iran whose government openly taunts and indirectly already threatens our security, creates a nuclear weapon. All they would have to do is stop what they are doing, let inspectors do their thing, have a little dialogue and they could have their nuclear power (peaceful)

In Iran's eyes, America is taunting Iran... not by words but by actions. Critisizing every move the President makes, having so-called experts talk about Iran every second, then, when the President of Iran wanted to come to the U.N to explain their position, U.S holds back on giving them visa's was like a way of saying "ha, you can't move unless i tell you to." Iran wanted negociations, but America said "no, unless you stop everything right now, we will not even consider talking to you." So, based on this, who is at fault for not dialoging? Also, before 1979 when the Shah was in power (U.S's little puppet), Iran was allowed to enrich uranium and create nuclear power, but now that America cannot benefit from the new government, they automatically say they are using it to create a nuclear weapon.

Now, what will Iran gain from Attacking America? America has nothing to give Iran, Iran has a lot that America can benefit from. Would Iran attack a country, knowing they will not gain anything (except for maybe a title of standing up to the west), and knowing that doing such a war would have loss of life in Iran inadvertly? Of course not, the only reason they are pushing, is cause U.S pushed first and are basically telling Iran to follow their rules... and Iran is not one to submit.

I think most of the people in these countries would either like america or at least like them more than Iran, as for the Saudis, did you ask them how they felt about Iranians? I can tell you that you may have recieved an even fouler response.

They didn't really care too much about Iran. But, they might have been really fired up at the time against america because of the Iraq thing, i went a year and a half ago or so.

That is how catholics feel about the pope but that didnt stop anyone from burning caricatures of him

The pope is like the religious leader, like i said, Khomenai in Iran is like the same status, or the Grand Ayatolla Sistani in Iraq has millions of followers, but will never be on the same level as a Prophet or God.

Agreed, except for the freedom of expression part, the loss of values is because of the loss of parenting in my opinion. I have a daughter and I can gaurantee you that she will have plenty of moral and religious values.

Yes, loss of parenting is also it. But when your Government see's this, like the 12 year old, and doesn't say anything and stays silent... well, i don't know. You get what i'm saying. I'm glad you are raising your daughter with such values, but it is hard for a lot of people to raise a daughter with good values in this society. Example, my next door neighbors, raised two girls very good. LIke took them to church and everything, and they are really good parents from what i saw. Right when one of the girls turned 18 she ran away from home, just like that, with this guy or something without even telling her parents, and the cops were looking for her and when they found her they couldn't do anything... I don't know the full story and don't want to jump to anything. But the other girl turned out to be really good and i'm very happy that she's friends with my sister and stuff, cause they are really good girls. Anyways, not to scare you or anything, from talking to you i'm sure you will be a great parent and dad.

Perhaps, I wouldnt say they are always respectful of others cultures and values though and to get respect you must give it (I am speaking of the government)

Not as much as they should be, but they are getting there. The Prophet used to live with Christians and Jews, and used to get along great because they all respected each others religion. Even the time that he was leader of the area, he made all the Muslims to respect their religion, and let them build their own churches and places for worshipping God. Iran is almost the same way, but like if a Iranian beats up on a Jew just because he is a Jew, the government doesn't punish the Iranian as much as it should, and this is wrong.

There was a lot of taunting from OBL prior to 9/11, and that was the mentality prior to 9/11 but because of the actions taken after their taunting, one must be cautious of what he/she accepts as mere talk or as a warning of what might come. I would rather ensure my security rather than wait on my security to be breached, especially when it comes to a country like Iran obtaining WMD's

I can see that, but Iran never said they will attack. I explained this above. Iran has nothing to gain from attacking, and is very much against the killing of innocent people. Also, they do not at all like OBL, and they too believe he is unjust and a terrorist, and believe that he will go to hell for his actions. By trying to bully Iran, you will get nowhere. Why not have the discussions without trying to push Iran to stop what it is currently doing and putting a stop to its advancement in their society? To Iran, it seems like America is trying to keep Iran down. Do you see what i mean?

I agree, that is why I like to think of this as a constructive discussion. War is bad and I hope it doesnt happen, but all iran has to do is let the inspectors, have some discussions and they could have their peaceful technology. However if they wish to continue on their path at some point someone will have to step in and say stop it or we will stop it. When it comes to my security, my families security and the security of my country, I have to agree with Bush, ALL options must be on the table

But you can't just stop a person on it's way up in advancement. Its like, two competing business... one is of course bigger than the other. The smaller business is making some big moves, similar to what the bigger company did as well, the bigger company see this and 'feels threatened' and tells the smaller company to stop it's business until they are satisfied and they have their talks and discussions. The smaller business, like anyone, would be like "who are you to tell me to stop???" That is not fair. The smaller business is willing to talk, but they do not want to freeze their business to do so.

Again, Iran has nothing to gain but everything to lose if they fight with america, it is in their own interest to keep to themselves and that is what they want, but America comes and is telling them to stop what they are doing and etc... and Iran says that they are willing to have talks but they are not going to stop developing their country. Do you agree or understand why Iran is mad at U.S for trying to stop them in obtaining nuclear energy for the development of their country?

Anyways, i will be out this weekend visiting friends in Arizona. I'll be back next week. It has been very educational dialoging with you, hope you are in the best of health and that God is happy with all your deeds.

Kidman
Kidman

[Link]

About a month ago, Iran succesfully launched missles to space. This means they can hit anywhere in the world correct me if I'm wrong.

The game has changed about a month ago, which is why Iran is announcing it's nuclear capabalities now.

US bet too much on Iraq, and there sources are extended to far, and from now on, like Nasrallah (ha) said, there will be nothing but victories after victories.

May God hasten the appearance of Imam Mahdi (as) and continue to help his (as) helpers and representives.

ws

[MTAFFI]

Hello MTAFFI,

In my point of view, America does terrorize people and supports terrorism also, and in that case are terrorist by their own definition. You can agree or not, but then we would have to discuss each event, so lets not go further then that unless we hang out or something, lol.

Hey Kidman
Well until then we can just agree to disagree! and that is alright by me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion :D

In Iran's eyes, America is taunting Iran... not by words but by actions. Critisizing every move the President makes, having so-called experts talk about Iran every second, then, when the President of Iran wanted to come to the U.N to explain their position, U.S holds back on giving them visa's was like a way of saying "ha, you can't move unless i tell you to." Iran wanted negociations, but America said "no, unless you stop everything right now, we will not even consider talking to you." So, based on this, who is at fault for not dialoging? Also, before 1979 when the Shah was in power (U.S's little puppet), Iran was allowed to enrich uranium and create nuclear power, but now that America cannot benefit from the new government, they automatically say they are using it to create a nuclear weapon.

The US is no doubt taunting Iran right now, it is in response to the Iranian taunting, it sounds so childish doesnt it? My problem with Iran is the not stopping the enrichment, if it werent for their aggressive rhetoric in regards to Israel and their meetings with political figures from NK and being caught with plans for nuclear weapons and their military being very secretive about their involvement, I dont think the US would take such a tough stance with them. So the US isnt "automatically" saying they are using the technology for a nuclear weapon, there is very very good reason to believe that is precisely what they are doing.

Now, what will Iran gain from Attacking America? America has nothing to give Iran, Iran has a lot that America can benefit from. Would Iran attack a country, knowing they will not gain anything (except for maybe a title of standing up to the west), and knowing that doing such a war would have loss of life in Iran inadvertly? Of course not, the only reason they are pushing, is cause U.S pushed first and are basically telling Iran to follow their rules... and Iran is not one to submit.

I dont think the US is as worried about itself as it is Israel

from talking to you i'm sure you will be a great parent and dad.

Thank you very much I appreciate your vote of confidence

Not as much as they should be, but they are getting there. The Prophet used to live with Christians and Jews, and used to get along great because they all respected each others religion. Even the time that he was leader of the area, he made all the Muslims to respect their religion, and let them build their own churches and places for worshipping God. Iran is almost the same way, but like if a Iranian beats up on a Jew just because he is a Jew, the government doesn't punish the Iranian as much as it should, and this is wrong.

Agreed

I can see that, but Iran never said they will attack. I explained this above. Iran has nothing to gain from attacking, and is very much against the killing of innocent people. Also, they do not at all like OBL, and they too believe he is unjust and a terrorist, and believe that he will go to hell for his actions. By trying to bully Iran, you will get nowhere. Why not have the discussions without trying to push Iran to stop what it is currently doing and putting a stop to its advancement in their society? To Iran, it seems like America is trying to keep Iran down. Do you see what i mean?

I dont think it is to stop advancement in their society, I think that the US and the EU and the UN all just want to ensure their security, I can understand though how it may seem to Iran that the US is trying to keep them down with all that is going on in the world right now.

Again, Iran has nothing to gain but everything to lose if they fight with america, it is in their own interest to keep to themselves and that is what they want, but America comes and is telling them to stop what they are doing and etc... and Iran says that they are willing to have talks but they are not going to stop developing their country. Do you agree or understand why Iran is mad at U.S for trying to stop them in obtaining nuclear energy for the development of their country?

I could understand if there wasnt as much evidence to support that Iran is not only out to obtain energy. I think that in this issue Iran is covering up and telling people one thing and doing the exact opposite. Also it isnt just the US trying to get them to stop enrichment, if they would just show a little cooperation with the rest of the world, I am sure that they would greatly benefit.

Anyways, i will be out this weekend visiting friends in Arizona. I'll be back next week. It has been very educational dialoging with you, hope you are in the best of health and that God is happy with all your deeds.

Kidman
Kidman

Well have a great trip and I hope your travels are quick and safe. The dialoge has been very beneficial, I wish the best for you

PEACE

[MTAFFI]

About a month ago, Iran succesfully launched missles to space. This means they can hit anywhere in the world correct me if I'm wrong.

The game has changed about a month ago, which is why Iran is announcing it's nuclear capabalities now.

US bet too much on Iraq, and there sources are extended to far, and from now on, like Nasrallah (ha) said, there will be nothing but victories after victories.

May God hasten the appearance of Imam Mahdi (as) and continue to help his (as) helpers and representives.

ws

launching a missle into space and launching a missle carrying a nuclear payload are two totally different things. The US is not extended as far as you may think, Irans nuclear capabilities are still in the infant stage and at the rate they are going I suspect they will not mature.

[Link]

It wasn't any type of missle, if you want to make yourself feel better about Iran's millitary and nuclear capabalities by denying what they have already accompished, then go ahead, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[MTAFFI]

It wasn't any type of missle, if you want to make yourself feel better about Iran's millitary and nuclear capabalities by denying what they have already accompished, then go ahead, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I really dont think you know what you are talking about, I was just trying to help you sound a little more intelligent, but if you want to be ignorant or one sided then that is your perogative,:blind: Iran has a missle that could carry a small nuke as far as central Europe, but no further, they could not hit anywhere in the world, you are quite simply wrong. As far as their nuclear capabilities, they havent even acheived 3000 centrifuges, which is by no means industrial, that is just Ahmadinjhad and is big bark. But hey as you said "whatever helps you sleep at night":D

[AvarAllahNoor]

Mtaffi, go against a country that isn't weak. Then we'll see how far your muscles can be flexed. Why only go for the oil wealthy countries? Korea would have bombed you to Kingdom come, but you were all stiff scared. So went to talks with them.

I only side with Iran, because of the anger I have for the invasion of Iraq for nothing more than oil. You kill civillains and then pay them a few hundred dollars (which has just been leaked out) compensation. I'd like to see the same happen in the US. See how you like it. You've destroyed a country, and you're not liberators of any sort. Just power hungry cretins. Iran is wrong too at times, but the only reason i side with them is, the defaince they show bushy wushy, whom I LOATHE!! - He's a white hitler, and as soon as he gets a bullet in his head, the sooner the world will be a better place.

[MTAFFI]

Mtaffi, go against a country that isn't weak. Then we'll see how far your muscles can be flexed. Why only go for the oil wealthy countries? Korea would have bombed you to Kingdom come, but you were all stiff scared. So went to talks with them.

Avar
I have always regarded you on this site as a funny yet intelligent person who offers a different perspective, but after this little speech, I am not sure if you are just having a bad day, I am not sure what to think of you. I suppose I will start with you thinking that Korea could "boom the US to kingdom come". First off that is simply not true, Korea doesnt even have a missle that could reach the US, and even if they did do you think it would ever have reach US airspace? You would be stupid to think such a thing, they were and are on constant surveilance, the missle wouldnt have left the ground before exploding on their own soil. As far as fighting a bigger nation to flex muscle, I would have picked Russia or China to do that, but since we get along with them ok and Russia already lost to the US once I dont see that happening.

I only side with Iran, because of the anger I have for the invasion of Iraq for nothing more than oil. You kill civillains and then pay them a few hundred dollars (which has just been leaked out) compensation. I'd like to see the same happen in the US. See how you like it. You've destroyed a country, and you're not liberators of any sort. Just power hungry cretins. Iran is wrong too at times, but the only reason i side with them is, the defaince they show bushy wushy, whom I LOATHE!! - He's a white hitler, and as soon as he gets a bullet in his head, the sooner the world will be a better place.

Do tell, what oil has the US recieved from Iraq? Has any been taken? Do we even get our oil from Iraq? NO NO and NO, that is pure ignorance flowing from your mouth.

Please provide a link for the "compensation" and please show how it is a bad thing, to compensate people whose family may have accidentally become a casualty.

If you want to show Iran support then go for it, I am not opposing that, what I do oppose is Iran obtaining WMD, and I think that the vast majority of the rest of the world agrees that WMD's should vanish and no more countries need to develop them. I am not saying that the US should have them either, but I dont see the US developing any new ones either, and why should we have to destroy what we put so much money into, what we invented and developed.

As far as being power hungry cretins and people who do not liberate, we will see just what the US's real role in Iraq is when 2008 rolls around and the democrats take control and remove the troops from Iraq. You will see who is truly power hungry when the groups in Iraq escalate the violence and kill each other in mass numbers without any presence to stop the different factions from direct confrontation. See who is really after the oil then

I would suggest you actually take time to think before your respond so that you dont come off a such a one sided, ignorant hatemonger

[AvarAllahNoor]

Avar
I have always regarded you on this site as a funny yet intelligent person who offers a different perspective, but after this little speech, I am not sure if you are just having a bad day, I am not sure what to think of you. I suppose I will start with you thinking that Korea could "boom the US to kingdom come". First off that is simply not true, Korea doesnt even have a missle that could reach the US, and even if they did do you think it would ever have reach US airspace? You would be stupid to think such a thing, they were and are on constant surveilance, the missle wouldnt have left the ground before exploding on their own soil. As far as fighting a bigger nation to flex muscle, I would have picked Russia or China to do that, but since we get along with them ok and Russia already lost to the US once I dont see that happening.



Do tell, what oil has the US recieved from Iraq? Has any been taken? Do we even get our oil from Iraq? NO NO and NO, that is pure ignorance flowing from your mouth.

Please provide a link for the "compensation" and please show how it is a bad thing, to compensate people whose family may have accidentally become a casualty.

If you want to show Iran support then go for it, I am not opposing that, what I do oppose is Iran obtaining WMD, and I think that the vast majority of the rest of the world agrees that WMD's should vanish and no more countries need to develop them. I am not saying that the US should have them either, but I dont see the US developing any new ones either, and why should we have to destroy what we put so much money into, what we invented and developed.

As far as being power hungry cretins and people who do not liberate, we will see just what the US's real role in Iraq is when 2008 rolls around and the democrats take control and remove the troops from Iraq. You will see who is truly power hungry when the groups in Iraq escalate the violence and kill each other in mass numbers without any presence to stop the different factions from direct confrontation. See who is really after the oil then

I would suggest you actually take time to think before your respond so that you dont come off a such a one sided, ignorant hatemonger

Dude I too have respect for you. You seem cool unlike a few others O've spoken to on here....

We can argue all we like. But I don't hate the US. (as stated before) Yes I'm a democrat supporter and not a rebublican. (not that it matters as I'm a UK resident, but i follow world politics)

I do not agree with the invasion. Is that acceptable? my reasons have been stated numerous times and am getting tired just as you will be no doubt lol

Lets see how the Dems handle it. It's true I hate bush because he's stupid. He's unintellgient and wasnt'even voted in the first time round. But Lets not get into that. My reasons are the same as before. I just hope it's resolved bush was the worst thing to ever happen to the USA! A country which was once great but has been turned into the laughing stock of the entire world!

Gur Fateh:)

[MTAFFI]

Dude I too have respect for you. You seem cool unlike a few others O've spoken to on here....

We can argue all we like. But I don't hate the US. (as stated before) Yes I'm a democrat supporter and not a rebublican. (not that it matters as I'm a UK resident, but i follow world politics)

Well that makes a bit of a difference, the way your post came off to me was as if you had become a nation hater rather than a political hater. I can understand how people dont support one political group or another.. I am glad you clarified that :statisfie

I do not agree with the invasion. Is that acceptable? my reasons have been stated numerous times and am getting tired just as you will be no doubt lol

Totally acceptable, everyone has their own reasons one side or the other, and yes it is very tiring LOL

Lets see how the Dems handle it. It's true I hate bush because he's stupid. He's unintellgient and wasnt'even voted in the first time round. But Lets not get into that. My reasons are the same as before. I just hope it's resolved bush was the worst thing to ever happen to the USA! A country which was once great but has been turned into the laughing stock of the entire world!

Gur Fateh[/B]:)

I think the dems will probably take hold and change a lot of things, that is the wonderful thing about democracy, when things go bad there is always different mindsets that can come into power fairly shortly thereafter. As far as hating bush, well to that I say really who doesnt. I dont mind him, lol, but I can understand why people hate him, he is definitely not the finest thing to ever make its way into politics. Like we both said though the dems will change things, make no mistake about it, it is probably going to be a drastic change :)

PEACE

[AvarAllahNoor]

Let's hope Iraq is an issue we no longer need to discuss in a negative way. Although he's still in until 2008??

*Bangs head on wall*

[Cognescenti]

It wasn't any type of missle, if you want to make yourself feel better about Iran's millitary and nuclear capabalities by denying what they have already accompished, then go ahead, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The Iranians are all braniacs. They have superior missile and reentry vehicle technology. Everybody knows that. NASA is a poor stepchild to the Iranian space program. Quite possibly the moon landings were faked in a sound stage in Hollywood. I have already ordered plans for a backyard bomb shelter and am starting to stockpile canned goods for the nuclear winter. I am also taking a class in Farsi so I can sidle up to my new masters.


24 hrs without a post deleted...Wohoo!

[Keltoi]

lol...I see you truly have given up Congnescenti

[MTAFFI]

Let's hope Iraq is an issue we no longer need to discuss in a negative way. Although he's still in until 2008??

*Bangs head on wall*

Indeed lets hope so!

November 4, 2008 the US will have new leadership

[Cognescenti]

Let's hope Iraq is an issue we no longer need to discuss in a negative way. Although he's still in until 2008??

*Bangs head on wall*

Yes, yes. Completely agree with you, sir. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He stole the 2000 election. Cheney and Rove are the real powers behind the throne. Everyone knows that. Come on 2008...I can hardly wait either. Hillary Clinton will make peace with the Muslim world and be real nice and stop trying to invade places and things like that. When the US leaves Iraq, there will be a giant music festival where Shia and Sunni will dance barefoot on the spring grass in great exhaultation. And they will throw their now useless weapons into a great bonfire. Huzzah! Everyone knows that.

[MTAFFI]

The Iranians are all braniacs. They have superior missile and reentry vehicle technology. Everybody knows that. NASA is a poor stepchild to the Iranian space program. Quite possibly the moon landings were faked in a sound stage in Hollywood. I have already ordered plans for a backyard bomb shelter and am starting to stockpile canned goods for the nuclear winter. I am also taking a class in Farsi so I can sidle up to my new masters.


24 hrs without a post deleted...Wohoo!

LOL Can I come and stay with you, I am shaking in my little anti-radioactivity boots!!! :-[

[Keltoi]

Anyone who believes Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama are going to just take the troops out of Iraq is living in a fantasy world. They are taking advantage of the anti-war sentiment in their own party and the more liberal side of America to gain political points, but when you get in the White House you learn very quick that things aren't as simple as they are when you're running a campaign.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Yes, yes. Completely agree with you, sir. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He stole the 2000 election. Cheney and Rove are the real powers behind the throne. Everyone knows that. Come on 2008...I can hardly wait either. Hillary Clinton will make peace with the Muslim world and be real nice and stop trying to invade places and things like that. When the US leaves Iraq, there will be a giant music festival where Shia and Sunni will dance barefoot on the spring grass in great exhaultation. And they will throw their now useless weapons into a great bonfire. Huzzah! Everyone knows that.

You must be rubbing that crystall ball of yours too roughly.....

[Cognescenti]

You must be rubbing that crystall ball of yours too roughly.....

No...I made a vow to stop doing that for Lent...oh wait, Lent is over.

Of course, it goes without saying, I could be wrong. Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but , really, if there is to be world peace, it must start with a hope somewhere?

Someone must soften their hardened heart, so I am not afraid of criticism.

[MTAFFI]

Anyone who believes Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama are going to just take the troops out of Iraq is living in a fantasy world. They are taking advantage of the anti-war sentiment in their own party and the more liberal side of America to gain political points, but when you get in the White House you learn very quick that things aren't as simple as they are when you're running a campaign.

You dont think that they will pull the troops?

[AvarAllahNoor]

I don't see peace on earth.

[Keltoi]

You dont think that they will pull the troops?

Immediately, no. I'm sure if a Dem wins they will talk alot about deadlines and timetables, but there won't be any overnight declaration of a pullout. Once you are president the party bickering and partisanship takes a backseat to successful foreign policy. I don't put much faith in the Dems when the U.S. military is involved, but no president wants to be the one to "lose" a war. If Hillary is president, or Obama, they will be faced with the reality of the situation.

[AvarAllahNoor]

You dont think that they will pull the troops?

They'll have to eventually. Not straight away. I'm also glad that speaker is gone to Syria and try to make ammends.

[Keltoi]

They'll have to eventually. Not straight away. I'm also glad that speaker is gone to Syria and try to make ammends.

Nancy Pelosi make a mockery of herself with her little trip, even mucking up relations with Israel.

[noodles]

Arrite, I've skipped through majority of the posts and frankly don't really care about other's opinion either. Here is my opinion on this topic. (And I don't really care if you agree with it or not.)

Someone on this thread mentioned muscles and it got me thinking.

If you take all the political systems and try to find something to compare them to, the best example would be a school playground.

You have a bully (America in this case) and then you have some kids (Some weeny countries) for the bully to push around.

If the bully has muscles and wants to show them off, all he has to do is go beat somebody up. However, if a kid wants to acquire some muscles, it isn't allowed? I think it is rather silly that you can't let him build muscles.

In most cases, the kid has aspirations of having a built body that he can show off to his fellow students. But usually the teachers preach that pride is not something that should be valued.

If you notice what happens in the playground, the bully usually tries to treminate the potential enemies by humiliating them. In this case, America is doing exactly the thing. As a result if the kid wants to build some muscles, he has to pick someelse to pusharound.

My comparisons are rather silly if you think about it, but they do make sense.

Anyway, before anyone takes a mickey out of me, I'm leaving this thread :X

Start the mockeries ;P

[AvarAllahNoor]

Nancy Pelosi make a mockery of herself with her little trip, even mucking up relations with Israel.

Yes Heaven forbid Israel should get upset....She's got a brain and has used it. The dems will bring back the US to it's original good status.

[Keltoi]

Yes Heaven forbid Israel should get upset....She's got a brain and has used it. The dems will bring back the US to it's original good status.

Israel is a much more important ally than Syria. Pelosi used her brain? I guess that is a matter of opinion. If you mean the Dems will bring back America to the time when growing threats are allowed to grow and materialize before action is taken...you are probably correct, that is what they do.

[Woodrow]

Indeed lets hope so!

November 4, 2008 the US will have new leadership

Except he/she will not be President until January 20, 2009. A lot can happen in Bush's last 2 months.

The first Presidential Inauguration took place on April 30, 1789. George Washington had been President since March 4, of that year but did not get officially sworn in until April 30. From then until 1938, US Presidents were sworn in on March 4th.

In 1938, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution changed the inauguration date to January 20. This was done to shorten the lame duck term of the existing president.

Source: http://www.calendarmine.com/Holidays...urationDay.asp

[Cognescenti]

Nancy Pelosi is a genius. She can do low order solutions of the Schroedinger wave equation in her head. Assad was putty in her lovely feminine hands. Everyone knows that. She would solve the problem with Iran in a week if she could just get Ahmadinajad on one of those diplomatic couches somewhere...no, not that..I mean one of those where they sit 6 feet apart and smile for the cameras

Oh..Hillary is a genius too. So it goes.





27 hrs without a post deletion.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Israel is a much more important ally than Syria. Pelosi used her brain? I guess that is a matter of opinion. If you mean the Dems will bring back America to the time when growing threats are allowed to grow and materialize before action is taken...you are probably correct, that is what they do.

You don't know much about democracy, infact you know zilch about it...I'll not be responding to your future posts....

[Keltoi]

You don't know much about democracy, infact you know zilch about it...I'll not be responding to your future posts....

I don't know about democracy? Kindly enlighten me.

[Kidman]

Hello again Mtaffi... sorry, been very busy with finals and stuff, hopefully i can keep up with out dialog.

Hey Kidman
Well until then we can just agree to disagree! and that is alright by me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion :D


The US is no doubt taunting Iran right now, it is in response to the Iranian taunting, it sounds so childish doesnt it? My problem with Iran is the not stopping the enrichment, if it werent for their aggressive rhetoric in regards to Israel and their meetings with political figures from NK and being caught with plans for nuclear weapons and their military being very secretive about their involvement, I dont think the US would take such a tough stance with them. So the US isnt "automatically" saying they are using the technology for a nuclear weapon, there is very very good reason to believe that is precisely what they are doing.

Yes, it is very childish, and because of it a lot of people are being affected.
Then the meetings with North Korea is only for gaining allies... Iran has a very limited selection in this... but with the more people Iran gets on their side, the less chance anybody would want to strike their country due to the possibility of a world war. Being caught with plans for nuclear weapons??? Please provide source. I think U.S has just as much reason to believe that Iran is making nuclear weapons as Saddam having WMDs. My Dad and brother went to Iran a couple months ago... and they said unlike America, Iran was not saying anything about a war, people were not talking about it and were just living their life and other topics were the main discussions. Where here Iran is constantly in the news. Iran is trying to provide for itself, but yes, they are also talking a lot about Israel. Maybe they should keep their mouth shut, but what is going on in Israel is very inhumane and if anything, they are trying to shine a light on the situation there so people can help out a little. Everyday people are being imprisoned, tortured, and killed, and it has been going for so long that people just kinda don't care anymore.

I could understand if there wasnt as much evidence to support that Iran is not only out to obtain energy. I think that in this issue Iran is covering up and telling people one thing and doing the exact opposite. Also it isnt just the US trying to get them to stop enrichment, if they would just show a little cooperation with the rest of the world, I am sure that they would greatly benefit.

Iran tries to cooperate, but they are not going to stop what they are currently doing just to talk about it. If America really wanted to work with Iran, then why are they forcing them to stop production before letting them talk. Why don't they let AhmadiNejad come and speak to the U.N concerning their actions. Why didn't they hold back when giving him a visa?

Iran wants to cooperate and let them know what they are doing... but they don't want two things.
1) to stop their current production
2) to give all access to the U.N to snoop around all over Iran and gain intellegence on them.

Well have a great trip and I hope your travels are quick and safe. The dialoge has been very beneficial, I wish the best for you

PEACE

Thank you, i had a fun trip. Hope everything is going well with you and your family.

Kidman

[King Solomon]

I don't know about democracy? Kindly enlighten me.

I think he meant diplomacy but when you post in anger...