CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rumours of War! Yes!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumours of War! Yes!

post #1 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

Did we not just learn first-hand that it's probably better to first possess evidence that a nation has weapons of mass destruction before attacking them? Seriously, that was like . . . damn near four years ago? Fuck it! Let's hit em. What could go wrong?

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty is the law of the land in the United States, as determined by the United States Constitution. Iran has a legal right to pursue peaceful nuclear technologies. No one has shown a single piece of fucking evidence yet that their program is not 'peaceful'. They haven't moved to actually build a weapon. They might be - we cannot discount this possibility - but there is no evidence to the contrary. There is speculation, insinuation, intimation . . . it's a slam dunk!

Anyone representing the company line - that Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, that Iran has no right to nuclear technology, that we have to get them before they get us - is party to the same mob mentality that got us into Iraq. If this is your position - fuck you, sign up and do something real.

I can't believe this country is falling for the same excuse. Dick and Bush are so detached from public opinion at this point that it doesn't matter what anyone has to say - Iran is about to get bombed, and they can either take it like a bitch or catch an all-American Ass-Whoopin.

To clarify - if you supported going to war with Iraq, this is your problem. This is your fault. You gave cover, and here we are today, and no one seems to be paying any attention. Of course, you will most likely pass the buck to someone willing to stand the fuck up and do the job for you.

Buy ammunition now, while it's still cheap.
Reply
post #2 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:22am
God Bless America.... how'd that song go?
Reply
post #3 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:48am
Why would they stop what they've been doing for years? Did anyone hand them their asses? Hell, they even won the last election.
I don't think they care if people know what they are doing is wrong. They'll slap together whatever laws they want and make all the money they want until the next election.
Seriously, why would they care if half the population is pissed at them? They aren't afraid of people who complain and do nothing else. Not like you'd ever riot in the streets or anything. The only thing you guys do is vote against them, and even that can be arranged.
Reply
post #4 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
- that Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite, .
I agree that the rest of what you write is true, but this is a matter or public record.
Reply
post #5 of 27
10/22/07 at 12:06pm
ok, the board's crappy new editing feature isn't letting me correct my spelling mistake, so:

or = of
Reply
post #6 of 27
10/22/07 at 12:20pm
We're not going to go to war with Iran. It's just sabre rattling. Be more concerned about Turkey.
Reply
post #7 of 27
10/22/07 at 2:24pm
You all may look at it as early signs that we're going to get bombed to death for this, but think of this- a new, end-of-the-world pickup line has been born.
Reply
post #8 of 27
10/22/07 at 3:25pm
I know someone who just spent a month in Iran and he described Tehran as virtual identical to the United States, down to the color and design of the freeway signs, skyscrapers, western dress, etc. He says that he, as an American, was extremely well-treated by Iranian people, and that he felt there was the same level of frustration among the Iranian people about their leaders as we experience here in the US with the Bush. It would truly be monstrous if political posturing and economic motivators end up destroying these people's lives.
Reply
post #9 of 27
10/22/07 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
I know someone who just spent a month in Iran and he described Tehran as virtual identical to the United States, down to the color and design of the freeway signs, skyscrapers, western dress, etc. He says that he, as an American, was extremely well-treated by Iranian people, and that he felt there was the same level of frustration among the Iranian people about their leaders as we experience here in the US with the Bush. It would truly be monstrous if political posturing and economic motivators end up destroying these people's lives.
That's good to hear, yt. I mean the part about similarities. Not the part about politics and economics destroying people's lives.

The question remains, though, what does the world do with yet another country that appears to want to join the nuclear weapons club? Especially one that has been a state sponsor of terrorism and makes very inflammatory statements about one of its regional neighbors? Israel struck Syria a few weeks ago to destroy its burgeoning nuclear program sponsored by Kim Jong-Il. Lack of serious diplomatic progress with Iran makes it more likely Israel will do the same to them within a few years. I don't want to see the consequences of that.
Reply
post #10 of 27
10/22/07 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty is the law of the land in the United States, as determined by the United States Constitution. Iran has a legal right to pursue peaceful nuclear technologies. No one has shown a single piece of fucking evidence yet that their program is not 'peaceful'. They haven't moved to actually build a weapon. They might be - we cannot discount this possibility - but there is no evidence to the contrary. There is speculation, insinuation, intimation . . . it's a slam dunk!
I just wanted to address this point. From a post I made in a thread last year:

Quote:
It's not that we have concrete proof that a nuclear weapons program exists. But there is enough evidence that it may exist to prove worrisome. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is allowed to have nuclear power and enriched uranium for energy production. The level of uranium enrichment for energy production is very small compared to the level required for weapons-grade uranium. So, the enrichment of uranium beyond the level necessary for energy production is indicative of a weapons program. Also, the possession of certain types or certain numbers of centrifuges used to enrich uranium are indicative of a weapons program. Also, casting the uranium into hemispheres is something you do when making nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has found highly enriched (but not quite weapons grade) uranium in an Iranian waste storage facility. The IAEA suspects that Iran may be using P2 centrifuges, which are capable of enriching uranium faster than the centrifuges normally used for enriching uranium for energy production. Iran won't provide any answers on this. The IAEA also found a 15 page report describing Iran's process for shaping uranium into hemispheres. Iran took the report from inspectors and forced them to destroy their notes on the matter. These actions are all indicative of a country pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program. Iran is doing nothing to show otherwise. In short, the IAEA inspectors have turned up evidence of clandestine plutonium experiments, black-market centrifuge purchases and military links to what Iran says is a civilian nuclear program, according to the agency. Iran could easily clear this up with more transparency.
Now, this is not enough to justify invasion or bombing of Iran. But it clearly shows an area of concern regarding the nature of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Reply
post #11 of 27
10/22/07 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
I know someone who just spent a month in Iran and he described Tehran as virtual identical to the United States, down to the color and design of the freeway signs, skyscrapers, western dress, etc. He says that he, as an American, was extremely well-treated by Iranian people, and that he felt there was the same level of frustration among the Iranian people about their leaders as we experience here in the US with the Bush. It would truly be monstrous if political posturing and economic motivators end up destroying these people's lives.
Seconding this. My ex-girlfriend was Persian (after the hardline Israeli babe), and I still have a lot of Persian friends. They're wonderful, very pro-Western in spite of Bush, and they're fantastic people despite the actions of Ahmadinejad.

Fuck the warmongering idiots who want to see Iranians melt. You all suck horribly and I hope you eat turds in Hell.
Reply
post #12 of 27
10/22/07 at 6:02pm
Well, I just wanted to chime in and say that isn't it a fact that our government also supports/has supported groups/individuals that are considered to be terrorists (looking at you PKK) as long as they further our interests in a given region? Look at the USA and Latin America over the 20th Century. I'm not trying to shit on the US here, but let's be realistic. Most developed countries support suspect groups in different areas to further a state's foreign policies.
Reply
post #13 of 27
10/22/07 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
The question remains, though, what does the world do with yet another country that appears to want to join the nuclear weapons club?
Iran has recently seen their neighbour invaded and practically destroyed because it didnt have nukes. Iran would have to be stupid to not pursue attaining nukes themselves to deter a similar fate befalling them. Looking at the situation objectively anyway.
Reply
post #14 of 27
10/22/07 at 9:31pm
It really at this point, I would be more worried about Turkey. Is the United States willing to stop one of the two Regional powers in the Middle East if they invade Iraq.

This isn't to say the US couldn't defeat Turkey, but if it is willing to put it's troops on the ground
Reply
post #15 of 27
10/22/07 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey
Is the United States willing to stop one of the two Regional powers in the Middle East if they invade Iraq.
No. Turkey is more important than Iraq. It also happens to be a NATO ally.
Reply
post #16 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:01pm
If we go to war with Iran, I'm done here. I'm moving to Canada. I don't care if it's colder. I can't be part of a country that gets duped into a war twice.
Reply
post #17 of 27
10/22/07 at 11:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
If we go to war with Iran, I'm done here. I'm moving to Canada. I don't care if it's colder. I can't be part of a country that gets duped into a war twice.
And judging by your location now, you might find the plentiful water appealing too.
Reply
post #18 of 27
10/23/07 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
If we go to war with Iran, I'm done here. I'm moving to Canada. I don't care if it's colder. I can't be part of a country that gets duped into a war twice.
You probably should have moved a long time ago, then.
Reply
post #19 of 27
10/23/07 at 9:17am
We're not going to war with Iran. We're busy right now, and Iran knows it.
Reply
post #20 of 27
10/23/07 at 9:33am
We won't go to war with Iran unless Bush is even more insane than I think. But nothing surprises me anymore. The Democrats are just going to have to stop being pussies for once (I know you can do it) and use all their powers to stop this shit.
Reply
post #21 of 27
10/23/07 at 4:38pm
Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek:

Quote:
Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

Conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.
Oct 29, 2007 Issue

At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)

In a speech last week, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. The Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao—who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, fomented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them—were rational folk. But not Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

If I had to choose whom to describe as a madman, North Korea's Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad, I do not think there is really any contest. A decade ago Kim Jong Il allowed a famine to kill 2 million of his own people, forcing the others to survive by eating grass, while he imported gallons of expensive French wine. He has sold nuclear technology to other rogue states and threatened his neighbors with test-firings of rockets and missiles. Yet the United States will be participating in international relief efforts to Pyongyang worth billions of dollars.
Read the rest here.
Reply
post #22 of 27
10/23/07 at 4:46pm
It's not really about war with Iran, it's about trying to justify a huge airstrike against suspected nuclear targets across the country. There's no 'regime change' or 'boots on the ground' gameplan, just a massive strike against an infrastructure that may or may not exist in the first place, that could provoke almost anything. It's ridiculous, and the rhetoric coming from the white house, and even the presidential candidates (eg: Hillary last week did the whole 'all options on the table' thing) is very worrying.
Reply
post #23 of 27
10/23/07 at 9:45pm
If they need an airstrike Isreal will do it before Iran is ready and the US knows it. They attacked Iraq in 1981 and Syria a few weeks ago.

So either Bush and Co really want to attack Iran, or it's a fun election issue to hide the fact that the US can't keep control of Iraq behind.
Reply
post #24 of 27
10/23/07 at 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackley
You probably should have moved a long time ago, then.
I'm not saying the U.S. has never been duped into a war. It's just never happened twice in five years.
Reply
post #25 of 27
10/24/07 at 3:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey
If they need an airstrike Isreal will do it before Iran is ready and the US knows it.
Israel can't get to Iran without flying through US-controlled airspace.
Reply
post #26 of 27
10/24/07 at 11:12am
This week's Frontline is, unsurprisingly, right on target.
Reply
post #27 of 27
10/26/07 at 6:00pm
Quote:
he described Tehran as virtual identical to the United States, down to the color and design of the freeway signs, skyscrapers, western dress, etc.
Just like Us:

Quote:
Two gay Iranian teenagers -- one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17, were executed this week for the "crime" of homosexuality, the Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) reported on July 19. (The ISNA report is in Farsi, and was translated into English by the British gay rights group OutRage!, ISNA also provided the terrifying photos of the teens' last moments you see on this page (check below).The two youths -- identified only by their initials as M.A. and A.M., were hanged on July 19 in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, on the orders of Court No. 19. The hanging of the teens was also reported by the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml

Quote:
NEW YORK (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad said to howls and boos among the Columbia University audience.

"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," he said.

Ahmadinejad was challenged during his appearance on Amnesty International figures that suggested that 200 people had been executed in Iran so far this year, among them homosexuals.

"Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do too. In Iran there is capital punishment," he said.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Y1zdYbdpyrG2cw

Quote:
Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, LGBT and human rights groups have cited a lack of tolerance toward the gay community, in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran.[1] Officially, homosexuality remains a crime under the country's theocratic Islamic government. In fact, all types of sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage remain forbidden, although it is debated to what extent these laws are enforced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rumours of War! Yes!