[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You're not comparing Saddam Hussein with Khatami, are you?

Oh, but he has to. Why? Because god forbid that we actually go to war with a country that is humane. the US has to demonize all its enemies prior to war, it helps the propoganda machine back home, and gets all the Americans riled up into this black and white world of good and evil.

Sadly, it's anything but reality.

[SubGeniux]

So let's just go back to the basics of this. The US wants to go into Iran because of suspected nuclear weapons. Um, doesn't Israel have them too, or suspected to? Why no threats in their direction? Ah, because they aren't a threat according to the US? Well, a threat to who? Maybe not to the average American, but Israel is a threat to Iran, Sysria, S. Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. So why aren't we seeing action being taken against them?

they are clearly a threat, and to millions of people. So who is actually the greater therat here? Certainly not Iran IMO.

Fcuking hypocrisy, and I'm half-Israeli too.

[SubGeniux]

Anyway, this topic really gets me mad, amd I'm so glad that those who want war with Iran, are virtually all Americans. Gives me hope that the rest of the world aren't stupid.

I'm outta here.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You know, if anti-Israel threads get locked while anti-Arab threads don't, simply on the basis of their targets, then you could prove it. It wouldn't even take too much effort.

It's been long established that we only delete spam threads; even the most hateful invective on these boards isn't deleted even when the threads are locked. It seems to me that if you want to show our so-called bias, all you need to do is find locked anti-Israel threads, and show that the threads were locked because they were anti-Israel. We have a nice, convenient Search function that will help you in this endeavor.

I'll say this much: you can most certainly threads which started out as anti-Israel which were later locked. However, I think you'll find it a trifle difficult to show that they were locked because they were anti-Israel.

So you don't think the moderators in this forum would mind me starting a new thread about that?

[John Q. Smith]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
So you don't think the moderators in this forum would mind me starting a new thread about that?

you're one paranoid son of a bitch. I did not start this thread with the intent to rally up anti-muslim feelings. it's titled "BLOW UP IRAN?" because if the US tried to "invade" iran using "surgical" airstrikes and high tech weaponry, like they tried in Iraq, all they would accomplish is a complete destruction of the country's infrastructure and a serious destabilisation of society, ie, it would be "blown up".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
And so they should have them. If nations like the US are proving to be like the playground buly, then damn, I'd certainly stock up on tools to hit yuou back.

Perhaps, but no one has dared to use these things in over fifty years, and for damn good reasons. There's a reason that nations -even the US- are slowly but systematically getting rid of their nuclear weapons, with the end goal being zero or minimal deployment worldwide (though a few nations, notably China, have expressed a desire to keep a few nukes on hand for 'planetary defense' against incoming meteors). Given that the nuclear powers are disarming, why should anyone else be allowed to develop nukes anew?

BUt wait a minute. Who said they had them?

Actually, in this case, nobody has said that. The whole point of this exercise is that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. Nobody is saying otherwise, not even the US.

The US? So? Iran has denied that...

They openly admit that they do not have nuclear weapons, and no one disputes this. What's disputed is the assertion that they're trying to develop them.

...and they allowed inspectors in...

Not enough to verify everything. This is, in many ways, the same thing Iraq did: token compliance but significant obstruction.

...in fact, Iran has already given assurances they are for only peaceful reasons.

There isn't even a need for peaceful nuclear development when it comes to power generation anymore, though. Note that many nations have already offered to give Iran reactors -give, as in no strings attached- so that they will have the nuclear power they need, without need to continue developing their own program. Why not save billions of dollars (or the equivalent in Iranian currency) and take them up on that offer? It does not make sense.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
So you don't think the moderators in this forum would mind me starting a new thread about that?

I'm not a mod here, so I can't lock or unlock threads here. However, if you're worried about the thread being locked, PM me the post you intend to make first, and I'll offer suggestions as to how to keep it from being deemed 'too inflammatory'. I can't control what other people write, but I can at least make sure that when you start the thread it can't be considered flamebait. You have my word that I will do this in good faith. If you want, I'll even be the one to post it, so that any heat you take for starting the thread must also fall on me, because I helped you do it.

I can't make promises that this will keep the thread unlocked; I'm not a mod here, so I cannot reopen locked threads (though I can ask that the thread be reopened, if it hasn't been spammed or become too much of a flamewar). I will do what I can, however, to keep the discussion civil, so that this should not happen. Once again, you have my word. I think this would be a good idea, both as an opportunity for debate and for self-examination, so I have an interest in making sure that the thread goes well. That's why I'm willing to put my name on the line.

If we're going to do this, though, then it probably won't be quick. I expect that we'll probably end up batting different drafts of the post back and forth, perhaps for several days, until we come up with something that sounds good to both of us. But the results, I believe, will be better than either of us could write alone. At the very least, I think it will be something that by itself could not be locked for violating any of our policies here.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Per Daily News, World and International report;

TEHRAN - Iran plans to reject any international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world yesterday to accept Iran as a member of the nuclear club.

That does not contradict what I said. Iran does not "challenge the world" by having a nuclear program. Iran is a signer of the NPT, which means it promised not to build nuclear weapons; it has every right to pursue nuclear research for peaceful purposes, and doing so means in no way to "challenge the world", outside of the sick imperialist mind of the author of that article, his racist publisher and his supremacist friends in Tel Aviv and Washington.

I hope you see this as ultimitely good and proof that the US is not alone in seeking peaceful means to disarming ends. HEEHEEHEE, I'm so against the US that I want all those who speak of Zionist destruction to have unfettered, unrestricted access to nukes...*squirm* HEEHEEHEE

That's proof of the EU states trying to mediate and avert another conflict in the Middle East that would seriously hamper their oil supplies and definitively their economy.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not enough to verify everything. This is, in many ways, the same thing Iraq did: token compliance but significant obstruction.

100% compliance. 100% cooperation. No obstruction. Get your facts straight.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/State...p2004n017.html

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...derestrict.pdf

It was difficult at the beginning but since December of last year we have seen an appreciable improvement in co-operation, access to sites, and access to information. Therefore we are now in a position to say that declared materials in Iran have not been diverted but we still have a lot of work to do with regard to possible undeclared material or activity.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Media...ise200415.html

The only hurdle relates to "possible undeclared material or activity" which has been alleged by the US and Israel, but never proven.

[rhombus]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Perhaps, but no one has dared to use these things in over fifty years, and for damn good reasons. There's a reason that nations -even the US- are slowly but systematically getting rid of their nuclear weapons, with the end goal being zero or minimal deployment worldwide (though a few nations, notably China, have expressed a desire to keep a few nukes on hand for 'planetary defense' against incoming meteors). Given that the nuclear powers are disarming, why should anyone else be allowed to develop nukes anew?

US redeveloping nuclear weapons

Russia redeveloping nuclear weapons

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Note that many nations have already offered to give Iran reactors -give, as in no strings attached- so that they will have the nuclear power they need, without need to continue developing their own program. Why not save billions of dollars (or the equivalent in Iranian currency) and take them up on that offer? It does not make sense.

That's what happened with North Korea in the 90s - but then, those reactors (promised by the US and Japan) never materialized, and NK resumed its nuclear program, this time around with the clear intent of building a nuclear deterrent... Seeing in what position NK now is, only a fool would fall in the same trap.

[Joshua]

Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran: Iranians cheer massively Mr. Bush's Inaugural speech.

Reports from across Iran are stating about the massive welcoming of President George W. Bush's inaugural speech and his promise of helping to bring down the last outposts of tyranny.

Millions of Iranians have been reported as having stayed home, on Thursday night which is their usual W.end and outgoing night, in order to see or hear the Presidential speech and the comments made by the Los Angeles based Iranian satellite TV and radio networks, such as, NITV or KRSI.

The speech and its package of hope have been, since late yesterday night and this morning, the main topics of most Iranians' conversations during their familial and friendly gatherings, in the collective taxis and buses, as well as, among groups of young Iranians who gather outside the cities on the Fridays.

Many were seen showing the " V " sign or their raised fists. Talks were focused on steps that need to be taken in order to use the first time ever favorable International condition.

Many Iranians, who were looking for the World's super power firm moral support and financial aid to credible secularist opposition groups, are now becoming sure that Mr. Bush's agenda is indeed to help them to gain Freedom, Secularity and Democracy. They do believe correctly that such way will avoid an unnecessary US invasion or military strike against Iranian facilities which will help the Mullahcracy to consolidate its illegitimate and unpopular power, while causing heavy financial damages and human causalities.

What had always been missing in order to create a wide scale Iranian democratic revolution, such as what happened in Georgia, was till now a firm and noticeable World pressure on the Islamic regime and a trustable Opposition Council with a correct agenda.

Various reports from underground groups are stating that Iranians will be increasing the Civil Disobedience Movement by making more strikes and demos in the days ahead.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And if invasion proves necessary, what then?

As for me, I wouldn't support it yet, but if current trends continue I'm liable to change my mind. The whole reason the US was able to credibly invade is because Saddam refused to cooperate fully with the inspections officers. I hope Iran would not be so foolish.

The States still had NO RIGHT to invade Iraq. I can say this for sure. If the States continue invading countries Americans wont be safe anywhere in this world not even Canada.

[Randman]

Blow up John Q. Smith?

Yes []

Hell yes [x]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Athens:
The States still had NO RIGHT to invade Iraq. I can say this for sure.

How? Why? What system of rights is so absolute?

If the States continue invading countries Americans wont be safe anywhere in this world not even Canada.

Is that a threat?

[OreoCookie]

Well, how about finishing (or at least stabilizing) Afghanistan and Iraq first?

As far as I understand the US doesn't have enough resources and I don't think the US would have enough international support to get substantial contributions (militarily) from other countries.

So my conclusion: even if the Administration would like to, I don't think it's possible at this point in time. And: Iran is not Iraq.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Is that a threat?

What an idiotic question.

No, Athens is probably NOT going to personally go blow you up.

However, literally MILLIONS of others will be more than prepared and willing to do so.

The current US course of action as already succeeded in creating a huge number of new sworn enemies.

And as you may have noticed when a handful of people who were innocuously living within US borders and taking flying lessons managed to bring down two rather large buildings in New York, said enemies are not necessarily restricted to locations that you can carpet-bomb without much risk to your own. Including such "safe" countries as Canada, Germany, Spain and yes, even the United States.

Duh.

-s*

[Athens]

Originally posted by Millennium:
How? Why? What system of rights is so absolute?

Is that a threat?

No observations here at home during the first year of the Iraq war with some isolated incedents. But I do have many Iranian friends and they are talking about beating up Americans if they ever attack Iran. I don't support it, but I can't blame them either.

No system is absolute, but the current system of might makes right dosent mean its right. If there is overall world opistion to a invasion its a pretty good bet that its not right. Not many complained about the Afgan war did they.

And if things did ever get out of hand, whats next a 25 foot wall from the Pacific to the Atlantic along the Canada US border and the US Mexico border? The course the US is taking and if it continues will one day lead to a Israel situation on your home soil. Bombs going off at super markets. Schools being stormed by gun men. When a ppl have nothing to lose, there enemy has everything to lose.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Many people, myself included, were convinced of the legitimacy of the invasion for the reasons Bush claimed at that time. This wouldn't have been possible if Saddam had cooperated in good faith.

The inspectors knew damn well, and publicly stated, that they had seen enough to be sure that Iraq had no significant stocks of WMD.
Bush lied, and you bought it. Sucker.

[ReggieX]

No, I'd like to see my old house again at some point.