/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Iran welcomes US nuclear report



islamirama
12-04-2007, 02:35 PM
Iran has welcomed a major US intelligence report which suggests its government is not currently trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate says it is now believed Iran stopped its weapons programme in 2003.

Tehran has always maintained its nuclear programme is being developed purely for peaceful purposes.

But the US and other Western powers say Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran is currently under UN Security Council and unilateral US sanctions.

But the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the question of sanctions remains active because Iran is still defying Security Council calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment.

The standoff is now likely to continue indefinitely but at a lower temperature, he says.

Iran's 'victory'

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said he welcomed the change of opinion.

"It's natural that we welcome it when those countries who in the past have questions and ambiguities about this case ... now amend their views realistically," he said.

Iranian state TV hailed the report as a "victory". It said Iran was "honest" and had been "vindicated", while it said the report demonstrated flaws in US intelligence.

The International Atomic Energy Agency also responded positively. It said the report backed up its statements that it had no evidence of an undeclared nuclear weapons programme anywhere.

Earlier US Democrats called for a major policy rethink in the light of the NIE report.


Report @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...ran_report.pdf
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
MTAFFI
12-04-2007, 06:57 PM
I read this earlier today, I think this is a great bit of news. I am happy to see that the IAEA and the US reported positively that Irans nuclear weapons program is not currently up and running and that they do appear to be only striving for nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As long as they allow the IAEA to perform regular inspections and are capable of providing evidence that no such program is in existence then I say let them have the nuclear power. I just hope the Iranians stay on their current course with this and do not take another path to nuclear weapons otherwise I may have to call the Iranian government a deceitful one and wish for their immediate demise... :D
Reply

islamirama
12-04-2007, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I read this earlier today, I think this is a great bit of news. I am happy to see that the IAEA and the US reported positively that Irans nuclear weapons program is not currently up and running and that they do appear to be only striving for nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As long as they allow the IAEA to perform regular inspections and are capable of providing evidence that no such program is in existence then I say let them have the nuclear power. I just hope the Iranians stay on their current course with this and do not take another path to nuclear weapons otherwise I may have to call the Iranian government a deceitful one and wish for their immediate demise... :D
And yet, some people are never satisfied :rollseyes


Mr Bush said the report released on Monday was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed".
The president stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons programme.

Tehran has denied continued accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons.

This report proves Bush's statements - which always speak of the serious threat of Iran's nuclear programme - are unreliable and fictitious




Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
Iranian foreign ministry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7127198.stm


Reply

Fishman
12-04-2007, 07:17 PM
:sl:
Every country should have the right, and the responsiblity, to use peaceful nuclear power, and none should have the right to use nuclear weapons. I would rather there be the certainty of another WWII than the possibility of a nuclear war...
:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
sudais1
12-04-2007, 08:49 PM
The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.
Reply

MTAFFI
12-04-2007, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
And yet, some people are never satisfied :rollseyes


Mr Bush said the report released on Monday was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed".
The president stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons programme.

Tehran has denied continued accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons.

This report proves Bush's statements - which always speak of the serious threat of Iran's nuclear programme - are unreliable and fictitious




Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
Iranian foreign ministry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7127198.stm


I agree with you here! Bush could just let it go now since Iran is allowing these regular checkups and if they cease to allow them or do something that would indicate that they are developing nuclear power for weapons purposes then act, otherwise just leave them alone. It seems in this case Bush is attempting to take on the role of Ahmadinejad and provoke the next dialog of trash talk out of Iran
Reply

MTAFFI
12-04-2007, 08:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1
The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.
bush cant cancel elections because of any situations an 8 year term is the max allowed, what you are talking about is just plain crazy, 8 years is written in the constituition there is no exception.

The 'Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Reply

snakelegs
12-04-2007, 09:01 PM
this looks way too much like the build-up to iraq. it won't matter whether or not iran has nukes, allows inspections etc etc - if bush has already decided to launch an attack on iran, he will anyway, and it certainly looks that way.
seems like the same scenario all over again.
Reply

wilberhum
12-04-2007, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1
The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.
Knowledge is power.

Our Constitution makes no provision for an “emergency” that would let a
US President postpone Presidential elections.
Reply

Jayda
12-04-2007, 10:27 PM
i'm glad that is over!
Reply

wilberhum
12-04-2007, 10:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
i'm glad that is over!
It isn't over, it is just posponed. :?
Reply

NoName55
12-04-2007, 11:14 PM
another step towards paving the way for next spring alliance
Reply

Keltoi
12-04-2007, 11:18 PM
The nation that is really against this report is Israel. If Israel isn't convinced by this report, then they may decide to take action on their own, which could harm relations with Israel and Iran at the same time.
Reply

NoName55
12-04-2007, 11:21 PM
I'll believe Israeli intelligence before I would anything coming from Bush camp or any Lahnatullah! (but its guaranteed that Israel will tow the official US line more than 100%)
Reply

Woodrow
12-04-2007, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
It isn't over, it is just posponed. :?
A few days ago, in one of these threads, there a brief discussion on the possibility of Iran and the USA becoming allies again. Although it seems far fetched at the moment. We can not rule it out as a possibility. I would not be surprised if this is a step in that direction.

Historically the US has consistently been allied with either Iran or Iraq and opposed to the other. Most often it has been Iran and USA vs. Iraq. This would be an excellent opportunity for the USA to get out of Iraq, and leave Iraq to Iran.
Reply

wilberhum
12-04-2007, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
A few days ago, in one of these threads, there a brief discussion on the possibility of Iran and the USA becoming allies again. Although it seems far fetched at the moment. We can not rule it out as a possibility. I would not be surprised if this is a step in that direction.

Historically the US has consistently been allied with either Iran or Iraq and opposed to the other. Most often it has been Iran and USA vs. Iraq. This would be an excellent opportunity for the USA to get out of Iraq, and leave Iraq to Iran.
Allies again? The US and Islamic Republic of Iran have never been allies.

Now the US is known for making allies with anyone when we share a common enemy.

So often we find that when the common enemy is gone, we become enemies of our former allies.

We do it time and time again, so it could happen with Iran, but only when we have a common enemy.
Reply

NoName55
12-04-2007, 11:41 PM
... only when we have a common enemy
That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)
Reply

wilberhum
12-04-2007, 11:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by NoName55
That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)
I don't think so. But you could be right.

I assume that some day in the near future, militant extremists will take over.

I also assume that they will continue to support OBL and company.

My only conclusion is that if my first two assumptions are correct we will have to take out the Pakistani government or be nuked.

But then I hope I’m wrong on all three.
Reply

Woodrow
12-05-2007, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Allies again? The US and Islamic Republic of Iran have never been allies.

Now the US is known for making allies with anyone when we share a common enemy.

So often we find that when the common enemy is gone, we become enemies of our former allies.

We do it time and time again, so it could happen with Iran, but only when we have a common enemy.
I guess I was thinking too much of the 1960s-1970s when we were all palsy with the Shah

Prior to that the only real closeness would have been in 1910 or so when the old monarchy ended and Iran was attempting to adopt a US type constitution.

But, you are correct that a common enemy could be the cause of USA/Iran alliance. there is little historiacal love between Iran and Iraq.

Iran still has memories of this:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/i...r_pictures.php

Another potential common enemy could easily become Pakistan. either way I personaly believe that there will be an Iranian-USA alliance. But it will be at the expense of either or both Pakistan/Iraq
Reply

Woodrow
12-05-2007, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by NoName55
That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)
I believe we are close to an alliance with Iran and there is a strong probability Pakistan will suffer as a result.
Reply

wilberhum
12-05-2007, 12:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I believe we are close to an alliance with Iran and there is a strong probability Pakistan will suffer as a result.
Nasty memories but there was a major problem from the get-go.

But why do you think "Pakistan will suffer"?

Same reasons I do? Or do you have others?
Reply

Woodrow
12-05-2007, 12:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Nasty memories but there was a major problem from the get-go.

But why do you think "Pakistan will suffer"?

Same reasons I do? Or do you have others?
I believe that Iran still has eyes on Pakistan territory. Any build up or support of Iran would greatly increase the incentive for Iran to push into Pakistan. At the moment we seem to have 3 potential invaders of Pakistan, Iran, The Taliban from Afghanistan and India. The one with the support to do so would begin a major offensive into Pakistan. this will open the door for a major 3 way invasion.

Of course in time that will result in a 3 way conflict with Pakistan serving as the battlefield.
Reply

snakelegs
12-05-2007, 02:05 AM
i think iran, afghanistan and india never really had their eyes off pakistan territory.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-05-2007, 04:18 AM
Guys, I would suggest you dont read too much into this.

1) It is an "estimate". The actual assembly on a nuclear weapon once the components are available (and given a good design) can be done in a very small building (or even a tent) in secrecy.

2) The Iranians alrady seem to have bought a desing from A Q Kahn

3) They are still processing uranium! Even if they stop at a level of U-235 insufficient for a bomb, they are still 98% of the way there and can divert some non-bomb grade HEU to bomb production.

4) The report says they still could have a nuke shoudl they chose by 2010!!! :(

5) The Israeli make up their own minds :D

Also, I don't see any alliance with Iran in the near future. Promises have been made to the Gulf Arab states for security guarantees.
Reply

The_Prince
12-05-2007, 11:52 AM
lol notice the ppl who are never satisfied, they say iran COULD still make a nuke IF they WANT to. notice all speculation, every fact and report keeps comming out showing they ARE NOT making a bomb! the counter reply? oh well they probaly want to! wowwwwwwww lets go to war now based on an assumption.

this is a joke, these ppl who want war are willing to go to war just because they think iran wants to make a bomb, not because they have actual proof that Iran is making a bomb, no, but they THINK iran is thinking of making a bomb. how pathetic.

the war is still comming, we are dealing with very arrogant barbaric neo-con crusading terrorists who will not stop at anything to carry out their plans for change in the mid-east to fit their ways and ideas. too bad they will fail though as theyre failing in iraq, and afghanistan, and lebanon, but they are like a pest and wont stop until they self-destruct by the will of Allah, and thats going to be when Isa comes back and kills the dajjal and destroys his system. :)
Reply

Keltoi
12-05-2007, 01:28 PM
Anyway, I do agree with Cognescenti. This is simply a report by the NIE, the same NIE who handed us the Iraq intelligence pre-war. I also noticed the date of 2003 as the time when Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program, which happens to be the same year as the invasion of Iraq. Could be coincedence, but somehow I doubt it.
Reply

islamirama
12-05-2007, 04:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
this looks way too much like the build-up to iraq. it won't matter whether or not iran has nukes, allows inspections etc etc - if bush has already decided to launch an attack on iran, he will anyway, and it certainly looks that way.
seems like the same scenario all over again.
Bush speaks before Iran war as he spoke before Iraq war

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d4e62654f
Reply

Woodrow
12-05-2007, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Bush speaks before Iran war as he spoke before Iraq war

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d4e62654f
Some parts of the scenario may very well change depending on the situation in Pakistan.

Pakistan has been getting to be very Palsy with China and it seems much of their support is now coming from China.

Felicitation Message from Chinese President Hu Jintao to H.E. Pervez Musharraf on his assumption of the office of President of Pakistan for the second term (2007-11-29)
Vast Scope to Further Bilateral Economic Ties: Chinese Envoy (2007-11-27)
Chinese Channels to be Shown on Local Cable Network-The Daily Mail, Chinese Embassy make joint efforts to motive cable operators (2007-11-12)
China satisfied by Pakistan's measures for security of Chinese: Ambassador (2007-10-30)
A Journey of Love to China (2007-10-17)
Speech on Chinese National Day by Ambassador Luo Zhaohui on PTV (2007-10-02)
China to set up engineering varsity in Capital (2007-09-30)
Government to Support Use of Hybrid Seed to Increase Rice Production (2007-09-27)
100 Young Pakistanis Leave for China (2007-09-03)
Chinese Envoy for Boosting Media Ties (2007-08-28)
Pakistan to Attend Chinese Trade Fair (2007-08-23)
Chinese Counselor Visits The Nation (2007-08-21)
Pakistan, China to enhance cooperation in vocational training (2007-08-17)
CHINA-PAKISTAN ENJOY STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BASED ON STRONG TRUST, COOPERATION & UNDERSTANDING (2007-08-08)
"Invisible Security" for Chinese Strengthened (2007-08-08)
Congratulatory Message by the Prime Minister of Pakistan for the China-Tibet Mountaineering Team (2007-07-31)
125 mountaineering expeditions due this year: Shaukat Aziz (2007-07-28)
The Purchase Delegation of Chinese Government Visited Pakistan (2007-07-19)
PAKISTAN AND CHINA AGREE TO ENHANCE COLLABORATION IN TRADITIONAL MEDICINE (2007-07-19)
STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND CHINA CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS REGIONAL PEACE AND STABILITY (2007-07-19)
China Donates $0.3m Equipments for National Art Gallery (2007-07-17)
Handing over Ceremony for Grant Assistance of Equipment for National Art Gallery from the Government of People's Republic of China to Government of Pakistan (2007-07-16)
Interview with Chinese Ambassador Luo Zhaohui by the NEWS, Pakistan (2007-07-15)
Press Release of the Chinese Embassy (2007-07-10)
Press Release of Chinese Embassy in Islamabad (2007-07-07)
Harmonic Friendship (2007-07-06)
Pakistan, China to further strengthen defence ties (2007-07-06)
China donates anti-malaria medicines (2007-07-04)
And the ties continue to be on the rise---Incumbent Chinese Ambassador hosts reception (2007-06-20)
Ambassador Luo hosted a banquet in honor of H.E. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz (2007-06-18)
Source: http://pk.china-embassy.org/eng/zbgx/


Add to this the probability that there are at least 3 entities that want Pakistan and given the chance Pakistan will be split among 3 invaders.

I suspect that Bush and company are aware that the quickest way to keep China from gaining strength in the mid east would be to support this 3 way split by strengthening ties with Iran for a take over of Pakistan by Iran, Afghanistan and India.

At the moment Iran does not have to worry about any further attacks from Iraq, so it can reduce it's military force from the Iran/Iraq border and concentrate on pushing into Pakistan. Bush may gain more by having Iran concentrate on Pakistan, than to consider aggression towards Iran. Many mutual problems are resolved. Iran gains by not having to worry about it's long time enemy Iraq, Iran gains at least a portion of Pakistan, the US fear of Chinese presence in the region is lessened. Everybody except Iraq and Pakistan walk away happy.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-05-2007, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
lol notice the ppl who are never satisfied, they say iran COULD still make a nuke IF they WANT to. notice all speculation, every fact and report keeps comming out showing they ARE NOT making a bomb! the counter reply? oh well they probaly want to! wowwwwwwww lets go to war now based on an assumption.

this is a joke, these ppl who want war are willing to go to war just because they think iran wants to make a bomb, not because they have actual proof that Iran is making a bomb, no, but they THINK iran is thinking of making a bomb. how pathetic.

the war is still comming, we are dealing with very arrogant barbaric neo-con crusading terrorists who will not stop at anything to carry out their plans for change in the mid-east to fit their ways and ideas. too bad they will fail though as theyre failing in iraq, and afghanistan, and lebanon, but they are like a pest and wont stop until they self-destruct by the will of Allah, and thats going to be when Isa comes back and kills the dajjal and destroys his system. :)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :giggling:

Hey Pal, who said anything about attacking? It is a simple question of physics. The most difficult part of making a nuclear bomb is getting your hands on sufficient fissionable material (Uranium 235 or Plutonium usually although it is even possible to use Amerecium). Plutonium is man made in nuclear reactors. Iran has no reactors to do this so if they awant fissionable material they need to acquire U235. Uranium 235 is only present in natural Uranium in small amounts so it has to be concentrated against a big gradient to a high level of purity. This is VERY expensive and technologically difficult. The Iranians are still doing this as we speak. This has to be costing them big money and consuming massive amounts of electrical power to do this. Why would the possibly choose to do this when the Russians have offered to sell them Uranium fuel for nuclear reactors at a cost they could not hope to match? Nobody trusts the Iranians not to divert the stuff when they have it. Why do they not trust them? Because they intentionally hid their program from the IAEA in violation of treaty obligations.

Maybe they have "stopped" actively trying to make a bomb...maybe not. But do you realize the meaning of the word "to stop"??? It means they were trying to do so in the past. Do you think they lost the plans? Try not to be so dense. Let something that doesn't fit your template permaeate your head every once in a while (if Allah wills it of course).


EDIT: Removed challenge. Gambling is haram and to allow anything that may entice gambling, no matter how small is haram. Perhaps the member can rephrase the challange in a manner that is not gambling.
Reply

The_Prince
12-05-2007, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :giggling:

Hey Pal, who said anything about attacking? It is a simple question of physics. The most difficult part of making a nuclear bomb is getting your hands on sufficient fissionable material (Uranium 235 or Plutonium usually although it is even possible to use Amerecium). Plutonium is man made in nuclear reactors. Iran has no reactors to do this so if they awant fissionable material they need to acquire U235. Uranium 235 is only present in natural Uranium in small amounts so it has to be concentrated against a big gradient to a high level of purity. This is VERY expensive and technologically difficult. The Iranians are still doing this as we speak. This has to be costing them big money and consuming massive amounts of electrical power to do this. Why would the possibly choose to do this when the Russians have offered to sell them Uranium fuel for nuclear reactors at a cost they could not hope to match? Nobody trusts the Iranians not to divert the stuff when they have it. Why do they not trust them? Because they intentionally hid their program from the IAEA in violation of treaty obligations.

Maybe they have "stopped" actively trying to make a bomb...maybe not. But do you realize the meaning of the word "to stop"??? It means they were trying to do so in the past. Do you think they lost the plans? Try not to be so dense. Let something that doesn't fit your template permaeate your head every once in a while (if Allah wills it of course).


BTW..I am prepared to make a bet with anyone on the forum that the US will not attack Iran (unless overtly attacked first) while Bush is in office. I would sugest $50-100. I would bet more because it is a good bet but I wouldn't trust 90% of you to pay me. If you can't bet for religious resaons then the loser will donate to a charity of the winner's choice (not :D Holyland Foundation )
you prove my point, all you have is SPECULATION, ohhhhhh their doing this, so ohhhhhhh they must want that! in terms of debating thats a fallacy.

iran has stated they are doing this for peaceful means and as a way for the future to have good atomic energy etc etc. now you dont believe them, but who cares what you believe or not, the REPORTS AND FACTS say iran isnt building a bomb, and you say ohhhhhhh their enriching uranium which iran has said is for peaceful means and again you respond by saying ohhhhhhhh its a lie they want a bomb not peace! and i ask where is the actual proof that theyre making a bomb? oh wait a minute, there is none!!!!!!!!!

again, BRING ACTUAL FACTS that theyre making a bomb, not ohhh theyre enriching uranium thefore they want to make a bomb! iran has already denied that.

as for being so secret about it, actually they havent been SO SECRET about it many times theyve given reports even the IAE stated Iran are being open and so on.

and quite frankly why should iran be open with every program it does? oh its a treaty agreement? oh really? perhaps america and israel should start doing the same then and start telling us about all the great millitary and civillian technology that they work on and even make yet keep secret.

its even doubly funny that israel is FULLY SECRET about its own nuclear program then all of you want to turn and point fingers at iran? iran, a nation that NEVER attacked another country first, unlike israel who has time and time again attacked countries first, and were supposed to be worried about iran who have no bomb, arent making a bomb, dont make wars! what a joke.

even IF iran was making a bomb, you know what? why not? id be happy if they made a bomb, usa makes so many nukes, israel has done it, so why not iran? ohhhhhh they said we wanna wipe israel off the map! oh nooooooo theyre so mean now! forget about israel who used to say they will kick all palestinians and arabs out and DID follow on their words on several occasions, but oh nooooooo lets worry about iran because of one comment they made which was even mis-translated. iran has every single right to have a bomb with terrorist israel beside them always making threats and killing and oppressing the Muslims of the region.

its really funny, we see this EVERYDAY AND EVERY YEAR. first with the palestinians, the israelis act like their the victims, yes, israel with f-16's, the best tanks, one of the most advanced millitaries in the world, and the strongest in the mid-east, and even have nukes, and yes, their the victims, while the very very oppressing palestinians with rocks, ak's, and katushya's who have to carry id's and pass through checkpoints which delays by 3 hours to reach a place which only takes 5 mins are the realllllll bad oppressing ppl!

and now same with iran, iran with no nuclear bomb, with no proof of even making a bomb, a country who never attacked another nation, yes they are the very very evil scary ones, while israel the sweet innocent angel who HAS nuclear bombs and every other type of chemical and biological weapon, who have ATTACKED other countries first, who HAVE killed thousands of innocent Muslim arabs, yes they are the good guys and the oppressed ones who's survival is at stake.

its all a JOKE, the biggest JOKE that has ever been portrayed to the public. oh yes lets not forget america, the only nation to have used an atomic bomb! i mean unless you were a human you would honestly not believe this cr@p! it sounds so unbelievable yet its true! if an alien came here and we told this to them theyd laugh at us saying haha nice once, the oppresser is acting like the oppressed! then wed say, its true, no joke, no script!!!!!!!!!
Reply

NoName55
12-05-2007, 07:14 PM
I think rafidah friends in this thread are being selective as much as the neo-cons are.

either they are little kiddies playing at being analyst or they think that rest of us are dumb and daft.

rafidah are after recreating the Persian empire that may have existed before or around Christ times. each and every time we are invaded by India lahnatullas of Iran try to take over Baluchistan.

india sees pakistan as a reminder of mughal rule and when east pakistan was taken from us, Indira gandi said as much.

india tried successfully to label pakistani nuclear program as "Islamic Bomb" and once some thing is labelled Islamist and bush has bought in to the idea, it becomes an obsession to eradicate it lest it becomes vanguard for a rival empire

co-operation between china and pakistan is another thorn in sides of both india and bush.

mullah of red mosque was used in an attempt to cause rifts between china and pakistan but with Allah's help he was sent to hell before he could do much damage
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 06:53 PM
you know if i was american i would be worried that my president has lied to me YET AGAIN, and has YET AGAIN built up a false sense of danger.

remember when bush said iran getting a nuclear bomb can lead to WORLD WAR THREE?!!!!!!!! well guess what, when he said that he was already informed of this report that iran had stopped their nuclear program.

so he was spewing about ww3 when he knew iran wasnt even making a bomb.

if your american i think that should make you more worried than a man all the way in the mid-east, you have your own president talking about ww3 based on a non-existent entity.....
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 06:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
you know if i was american i would be worried that my president has lied to me YET AGAIN, and has YET AGAIN built up a false sense of danger.

remember when bush said iran getting a nuclear bomb can lead to WORLD WAR THREE?!!!!!!!! well guess what, when he said that he was already informed of this report that iran had stopped their nuclear program.

so he was spewing about ww3 when he knew iran wasnt even making a bomb.

if your american i think that should make you more worried than a man all the way in the mid-east, you have your own president talking about ww3 based on a non-existent entity.....
Some of us are capable of worring about more that one thing.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2007, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
you know if i was american i would be worried that my president has lied to me YET AGAIN, and has YET AGAIN built up a false sense of danger.

remember when bush said iran getting a nuclear bomb can lead to WORLD WAR THREE?!!!!!!!! well guess what, when he said that he was already informed of this report that iran had stopped their nuclear program.

so he was spewing about ww3 when he knew iran wasnt even making a bomb.

if your american i think that should make you more worried than a man all the way in the mid-east, you have your own president talking about ww3 based on a non-existent entity.....
i am much more worried about the madman in the white house than the madman in tehran.
it is unbelievable how we are seeing the exact same scenario as the lead-up to iraq all over again.
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Some of us are capable of worring about more that one thing.
well be MORE worried about bush, he has lied to you guys AGAIN, everyone was on clintons back for lying about a sexual affair, i mean who wouldnt lie about that if you were in his position?! no one would actually get hurt by his lies, and national security wasnt in danger.

BUT bush, he has lied about things that can get ppl killed, and has threatened american national security, yet no one calls for impeachment and they dont give him half the trouble they gave clinton! and now with that ww3 comment WHEN HE KNEW iran wasnt in a nuc weapons program!

this guy should be impeached.
Reply

Woodrow
12-07-2007, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
well be MORE worried about bush, he has lied to you guys AGAIN, everyone was on clintons back for lying about a sexual affair, i mean who wouldnt lie about that if you were in his position?! no one would actually get hurt by his lies, and national security wasnt in danger.

BUT bush, he has lied about things that can get ppl killed, and has threatened american national security, yet no one calls for impeachment and they dont give him half the trouble they gave clinton! and now with that ww3 comment WHEN HE KNEW iran wasnt in a nuc weapons program!

this guy should be impeached.
:w:

Perhaps our biggest danger is we view him as a "Lame Duck" President who is on his way out and has no influence or power left. Too many of us may be thinking that his antics are no more dangerous than a 2 year olds temper tantrums.

It is time for us to wake up. If not for helping other people, but to at least protect ourselves.
Reply

NoName55
12-07-2007, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Nasty memories but there was a major problem from the get-go.

But why do you think "Pakistan will suffer"?

Same reasons I do? Or do you have others?
just think about neighbourhood criminal gangs and their alliances in any inner cities. no mafia don would want another to dominate "his" areas. and alliance and cooperation between China is unacceptable to both India an US.

if you remember not too along a foreign agent (murderous mullah) at red mosque tried to split Pakistan and china by kidnapping Chinese citizens but was thwarted successfully.
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
well be MORE worried about bush,
I think I am fully capable of determing what I need to worry the most about. By the way it is neither Bush, who will go away soon, or Iran which will go away in the future.
he has lied to you guys AGAIN,
Was that ment to be informative or retorical?
everyone was on clintons back for lying about a sexual affair,
Not me, I was never concerned about his sex life. I cared how he ran the country. I think people who worry about other peoples sex lives have a peverted sence of importance.
i mean who wouldnt lie about that if you were in his position?! no one would actually get hurt by his lies,
By the same token, I don't defend adultery either.
and national security wasnt in danger.
Not quite true. OBL had declared war on us and had made several attacks.
BUT bush, he has lied about things that can get ppl killed, and has threatened american national security,
Well we agree on that.
yet no one calls for impeachment
Not true and you know it, or you know a lot less than you portray.
and they dont give him half the trouble they gave clinton!
There is that "They". But no one ever defines who "They" are.
and now with that ww3 comment WHEN HE KNEW iran wasnt in a nuc weapons program!
I think it is obvious to anyone who doesn't live with there head in the sand that Iran started a Nuke weapons program.
And only the naive would believe that there is no intention to restart it.

this guy should be impeached.
What should be done and what is practical to do, are offen two different things.
So now I will go back to worring about what I care most about.
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 08:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So now I will go back to worring about what I care most about.
iran isnt making a bomb, so thats that, no ww3 for now for the neo-cons, but they will probaly go make something else up.

i wonder what it will be next............................:rolleyes:
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
iran isnt making a bomb, so thats that, no ww3 for now for the neo-cons, but they will probaly go make something else up.

i wonder what it will be next............................:rolleyes:
Obviously you didn't read.
I think it is obvious to anyone who doesn't live with there head in the sand that Iran started a Nuke weapons program.
And only the naive would believe that there is no intention to restart it.
Guess what? I don't live with my head in the sand, nor am I naive.

No WWIII? Now you have to be kidding. Or you are naive.

It will happen. No one knows for sure how it will start, but it will start.
Reply

Woodrow
12-07-2007, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Obviously you didn't read.

Guess what? I don't live with my head in the sand, nor am I naive.

No WWIII? Now you have to be kidding. Or you are naive.

It will happen. No one knows for sure how it will start, but it will start.
can't have WWlll yet, we never had WWll yet. WWl never ended, just the location and goals have been changing.

In my own suspicious mind I see us have been in a continuous war for at least 100 years. Originally it was nation against nation, but it evolved into economics. I doubt if the war could continue unless somebody was making a profit. In the past 100 years the distribution of wealth has shifted to the point where now all of the worlds wealth is controlled by a small minority although that has always been the case, it is now developed to the point where we can not identify a specific entity as the money rulers. War is no longer about domination or control of nations and/or people. It is over control of wealth and it is a small handful of people pulling the strings and manipulating all of us into following their bidding so the end result is our earnings only serve to line the pockets of a few.
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
can't have WWlll yet, we never had WWll yet. WWl never ended, just the location and goals have been changing.

In my own suspicious mind I see us have been in a continuous war for at least 100 years. Originally it was nation against nation, but it evolved into economics. I doubt if the war could continue unless somebody was making a profit. In the past 100 years the distribution of wealth has shifted to the point where now all of the worlds wealth is controlled by a small minority although that has always been the case, it is now developed to the point where we can not identify a specific entity as the money rulers. War is no longer about domination or control of nations and/or people. It is over control of wealth and it is a small handful of people pulling the strings and manipulating all of us into following their bidding so the end result is our earnings only serve to line the pockets of a few.
I don't find anything I would totaly disagree with. WWII was truly a result of WWI so you could call it a continuation but most distinguish between the two.
War is no longer about domination or control of nations and/or people.
and
It is over control of wealth
IMHO both have always been part of the cause of war, are part of the cause of war, and will continue to be part of the cause of war.
The balance between the two may shift and one group may be influanced more by one than by the other, but both will always be part of the cause.

Humans have been at war since there were two tribes.
(I think I have said that several dozen times)

I don't expect it to end soon.

That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try though.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-07-2007, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
you know if i was american i would be worried that my president has lied to me YET AGAIN, and has YET AGAIN built up a false sense of danger.

remember when bush said iran getting a nuclear bomb can lead to WORLD WAR THREE?!!!!!!!! well guess what, when he said that he was already informed of this report that iran had stopped their nuclear program.

so he was spewing about ww3 when he knew iran wasnt even making a bomb.

if your american i think that should make you more worried than a man all the way in the mid-east, you have your own president talking about ww3 based on a non-existent entity.....
Honestly, some of you guys sound like Chicken Little. Ease up on the espresso or something.

Let me try this again. The NIE stand for "National Intelligence Estimate". Do you know what "estimate" means? Let me help. It means "best guess" or "approximation". Nobody truly knows anything about Iranian intentions at the top. That might even apply to the Iranian leadership because they seem to have a decision-making process that is very obtuse due to distributed authority.

Remember, this is the same organization, (CIA) that you no doubt fault for getting the intelligence on Iraqi WMD's wrong. This is the same organization that wasn't sure about Korean nukes until they exploded one! This is the same organization that failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union (one of the most decisive events of the late 20th Century! Honestly, I wouldn't trust them to predict the weather next week. That is what I was explaining to you before. Once a nation has the fissionable material and a workable design, the rest is like a fancy tinkertoy set. So which is it? The CIA was wrong on multiple occaisions before but is right 100% this time??? Or could it be this bit of information fits your views so you choose to emphasize it? You wouldn't be so shallow or easily manipulated, would you?

Bush didn't "lie" about Iranian intentions. They are not knwon to us and in any event his statements predate the NIE. How can you people not understand the straightforward meaning of the word "to lie". It implies willfully telling a falsehood. Does the weather service lie if they predict rain 2 days in advance and it proves to be sunny? Good grief.

As for Bush predicting WWIII????? Did he really say that in as many words? I doubt it. He has said Iran is a threat. Duh, of course they are. They have a track record.

He has repeatedly said that diplomatic efforts should be tried and he is now trying to keep the diplomatic pressure up. You sound like my sister-in-law always worried about someone abducting her 24 year old daughter. Relax. There will not be a war between Iran and the US in Bush's term unless Iran shoots first. I promise :D

If there is, I will donate $50 to a charity of your choice that does not support terrorism (if you can find one). I will get a reciept and post it here.


BTW..you sound like a nutbar when you start talking about impeachment, it isn't going to happen unless a crime is committed :) I mean a real crime..not the kind inside your head.
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti


BTW..you sound like a nutbar when you start talking about impeachment, it isn't going to happen unless a crime is committed :) I mean a real crime..not the kind inside your head.
wow so illegaly invading iraq based on a lie and made up facts which have left thousands of innocent ppl dead isnt crime? you show how sick you are and the sickness Muslims have to deal with.

i want everyone to look at his statement and realize EXACTLY what hes saying, which is that the american army illegally killing thousands of innocent Iraqis based on a lie is NOT a crime.

do you all remember shock and awe? how we saw it on tv, well do you know that every single bomb actually missed its target and hit population centers instead? no no thats not a crime. your the terrorist, and you just proved it to everyone, and with comments like your iran will be 100% justified to make a nuclear bomb, why wouldnt they be? you just said invading iraq based on lies which led to thousands of innocent iraqis dying at the hands of american troops isnt a crime, so who knows what else you ppl will do, therefore iran would have every right to make a bomb as a detterent to you terrorists.
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 09:43 PM
and AGAIN you bring no actual proof that iran is making a bomb, you just spew your neocon-facist rhetoric and propaganda thinking that if you keep repeating yourself it all of a sudden becomes true, thats basics in mass-media deception infact, they keep repeating something until ppl start believing it. thats what your doing, no proof, no proof, no proof whatsoever, just as i repeat again, EMPTY NEO-CON FACIST PROPAGANDA.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2007, 09:54 PM
prince,
the horrible reality is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not (any more than it mattered with iraq).
we live in a unipolar world now that the soviet union is gone, so u.s. can pretty much do whatever it wants to whoever it wants, so no proof is required.
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 09:56 PM
Speaking of "No Proof", isn't that exactly what you have?

As much as I hate Bush, Bush did not lie.

He along with most of the world believed SH had WMD.
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2007, 09:58 PM
true - we don't have proof that he lied, but can you prove that he did not?
i see no reason to believe him just because he is the president.
Reply

The_Prince
12-07-2007, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Speaking of "No Proof", isn't that exactly what you have?

As much as I hate Bush, Bush did not lie.

He along with most of the world believed SH had WMD.
i can bring up a list of documentaries showing bush DID LIE and took the intelligance reports out of complete proportions and distorted them so bad.
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
i can bring up a list of documentaries showing bush DID LIE and took the intelligance reports out of complete proportions and distorted them so bad.
took the intelligance reports out of complete proportions and distorted them so bad, Ya, that be right. For what ever reason he wanted war and was will to distort the facts to get it. That still doesn't make the WMD assumption a lie. Most of the world thought SH had them. SH wanted everyone to think he had them. He thought, wrongly, it would keep him safe.
Many of his generals thought there were WMD, they just thought othere generals were the ones that had them.

Bush want war and he got it. But when it comes to distorting the facts, you do a better job than Bush.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-07-2007, 10:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
true - we don't have proof that he lied, but can you prove that he did not?
i see no reason to believe him just because he is the president.
Do you think that the framers of the Constitution anticipated that the inability to prove the negative is sufficient reason to impeach a President??

You don't want to believe him..or disagree with policy.....fine by me. You want impeachement...I suspect you will be in for a bit of a fight. How would it be if every time a President angered the Congress they brought impeachment charges?
Reply

snakelegs
12-07-2007, 10:34 PM
did i say anything about impeachment? i think it's too late for that - and besides, then we'd have cheney.
Reply

wilberhum
12-07-2007, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
did i say anything about impeachment? i think it's too late for that - and besides, then we'd have cheney.
Two valid reasons not to impeach. And the last is the most compelling.

President Cheney, OMG.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-07-2007, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
and AGAIN you bring no actual proof that iran is making a bomb, you just spew your neocon-facist rhetoric and propaganda thinking that if you keep repeating yourself it all of a sudden becomes true, thats basics in mass-media deception infact, they keep repeating something until ppl start believing it. thats what your doing, no proof, no proof, no proof whatsoever, just as i repeat again, EMPTY NEO-CON FACIST PROPAGANDA.
Clearly I am not making myself understood. I am not saying Iran is making a bomb. Possibly the Iranian leadership has decided it is not worth the political damage at this time. I can also completely understand why they might think it would be a good idea. The fact remains that they hid a weapons program from the IAEA until it was discovered. That has at least got to make you wonder.

Also before you start throwing around words you don't understand (like Neo-con and Fascist) you might try to understand what I am trying to say. I do not work for the Bush Administration. Nobody is going to ask my opinion before they launch something, but I am here to tell you that you have your undies in a bunch over nothing. There will be no attack on Iran during this Admin.

The next one???????
Reply

Cognescenti
12-07-2007, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
did i say anything about impeachment? i think it's too late for that - and besides, then we'd have cheney.
:D This is true.

Plus, if Giuliani wins he may make Bush look Mahatma Ghandi
Reply

Keltoi
12-08-2007, 07:48 PM
The next administration will be busy enough finishing up this Iraq experience, and I doubt another war is in the works at all. At least not a war of choice. I see the next eight years being consumed with domestic American issues, and only our committments to Iraq and Afghanistan to distract from that.
Reply

جوري
12-08-2007, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
true - we don't have proof that he lied, but can you prove that he did not?
i see no reason to believe him just because he is the president.
Bush is taking his Iraq speeches and changing the Q to an N.. it makes it easier for his imbecilic self to carry on in the same fashion while going on longer vacation...

this truly does remind me of a verse from suret Al-Anfal..

36. Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of God. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered.
Ameen


peace!
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-02-2010, 11:35 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2007, 04:38 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 06:22 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2006, 04:30 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2006, 07:12 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!