What if Iran was making nuclear weapons

what if they are lying we can't trust someone as their dictator I mean president

 

You need to relax with starting so many threads, especially on topics that are being discussed elsewhere.

Pick a couple of topics and debate them.

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack/do_not_trust_iranians.guest.html

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed101105c.cfm?RenderforPrint=1

okay I understand and respect your PM but there is no dicussion

WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAN
THESE TWO ARTICLES state that

 

All the irony of someone with "Democrat" in his screenname positively quoting Rush Limbaugh aside, there are some good points there. As much as it seems unfair we can't allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons because they're just crazy enough to actually use them. Furthermore, there's no way in hell they'd ever allow an outside source to run their nuclear facilities for them - the only way they could have their cake and eat it without having the full military might of the United States Armed Forces jammed down their throats.

So here we are at an empasse. They say they need nuclear power to supply their population with energy and that's about as legit a reason as there is; however, if we let them run the plants themselves they could easily convert their efforts into producing nuclear weapons. We can't run the plants for them because there's no way they'd afford us or any of our allies that much control over their infrastructure. And they can't just let his whole thing go because...well, it just isn't fair to them. Their people need power too.

Pretty sticky situation.

 

We are in a Cold War with Iran.

One piece of advice though: don't believe everything Rush Limbaugh says. In fact I'm suspect of anything he says.

 

I have no problem with Iran seeking nuclear energy.

 

Even though I am against war and nuclear power, but Iran with nuclear weapons is a ****ing disaster. Everyone knows that Iran are more interested in nuclear bombs than power.

 

I don't know that. They have a reasonable need for alternative energy seeing how their commodity is worth gold on the world market. Also, with India, Pakistan, United States and Israel all within strikng range, all with nuclear weapons, and some who have acted hostile towards them, I can also understand why they may even go over the line and build some to act as a deterrent. But for now, I believe we could become friends with Iran instead of our current redneck diplomatic approach. Though I suspect we are trying to provoke them into having an excuse to attack them.

 

So Iran is sitting on so much oil that they can't justify using any for themselves? Instead they burn their oil profits on what? Nuclear power?
So lets recap:
a) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
b) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the wave of the Islamic revolution will soon
reach the entire world.
c) If Iran is only constructing nuclear facilities that produce energy for his
people, why would he place much of these facilities underground?

Is there any reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would not pass off a nuclear device or two to any of his radical terrorist buddies and let them do his dirty work? If so, please do tell.

As for being friends?....WHAT?! How do you propose that we do that. So we dump the "redneck" approach. Are you suggesting the french
"@ss-kiss" approach or maybe the Chamberlain - Hitler approach. That really worked wonders. How about the Clinton - North Korea approach. Even better. Lets just give them everything they want in exchange for their "friendship" while they gasp at our naiveity.

-Castle

 

U.S., Iran reach Iraq policy consensus By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants.

ADVERTISEMENT

During a meeting that U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker described as businesslike and focused solely on Iraq, the American said Iran proposed setting up a "trilateral security mechanism" that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran. Crocker said the proposal would need study in Washington.

The U.S. envoy also said he told the Iranians their country needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants. The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as "very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles."

He added: "This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces."

The Baghdad talks were the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement with Iran is possible after more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Crocker said the Iranians wanted to propose a second session.

"We will consider that when we receive it," Crocker told reporters in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. "The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings."

Crocker said Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi did not raise the subject of seven Iranians now in American custody in Iraq.

"The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only," Crocker said.

In the course of the meeting, Ali al-Dabagh, a government spokesman, told reporters that the session was proceeding cordially.

"There are good intentions and understanding and commitment between the two countries," al-Dabagh told reporters.

The talks were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Green Zone office.

Al-Maliki did not attend the meeting, but the prime minister greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across from each other.

Before leaving the room, al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbor, a clear reference to Iran.

"We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere" that would help them deal with other issues, he said.

Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Monday the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admits its Middle East policy has not been successful.

"We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks," Mottaki said.

Monday's talks, as predicted, had a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Iran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq.

"The American side has accusations against Iran and the Iranian side has some remarks on the presence of the American forces on Iraqi lands, which they see as a threat to their government," al-Dabagh said.

But much more encumbered the narrow agenda — primarily Iran's nuclear program and Iranian fears that the Bush administration will seek regime change in Tehran as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam.

Compounding all that is Iran's open hostility to Israel.

Other issues clouding the talks included U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties over the Iranian nuclear program. The United States says Iran is trying to build a bomb; Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production.

Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies.

Iran accuses the U.S. of improperly seizing five Iranians in Iraq this spring. The U.S. military is holding the five. Iran says they are diplomats; Washington contends they are intelligence agents.

The U.S. also has complained about the detention or arrest of several Iranian-Americans in Iran in recent weeks. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that issue was not on the U.S. agenda for Monday.

You see this article it means nothing because like you I don't trust Iran

 

They do use their oil

So lets recap:
a) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. That is Western media spin pandering to the zionists. So b) and c) aren't worthy of disecting since the entire premise is a lie.

I'm not afraid of the boogymen this evil adminstration under which we suffer continues to try and propagate. I fear them, the White House and the compliant Pentagon. I fear what they may do (again?) in order to have additional Carte Blanche to continue theft of our Treasury in order to enrich their buddies. I worry why the next isolated attack is going to be used to impose Martial Law. These bastards are destroying our nation.

 

You could argue that many Western news organizations do favor Israel (NY Times for example) but others such as CNN and BBC are known to favor Palestine.

Second -- it is well documented that Ahmadinejad did in fact say that.

President Ahmadinejad, elected in June [2005], was addressing a conference in Teheran entitled "The World Without Zionism", attended by about 3,000 conservative students, who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"

He said: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map'… The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml

 

Actually Ahminabadmood never said that, as usual, his words were translated wrong by the Western Media.

In fact, he never even used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. He was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power (The Zionist REgime, running ISrael), not the deaths of every Innocent Israeli.


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html


OH and CNN does not favor Palestine. And the BBC, just gives equal time to both sides of the story. Thats what they are supposed to do. Do you think that the life of an Israeli Civilian is worth more than a Palestinian Civilian?

The Pals death rate is about ten times higher than the Israeli.

 

Fine! Keep telling yourself that Ahamadinejad was taken out of context...or whatever spin helps you keep the blinders on. Good luck with that.

You are obviously one of those who would criticize anyone that offered the possibility of Islamic terrorist attacks in the USA on 9/10/01, then offer your own preposterous conspiracy theories on 9/11/01. Nevermind the truth.

I would really prefer to be wrong here. I would feel much better if Ahamadinejad was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately he is and your BS does nothing to accomplish your goal of casting a favorable light on this Islamo-Fascist.

-Castle

 

My BS? What ArmChair General just cited is the truth. I'm sorry if you can't handle it.

You seem to mix every nation, every single action taken by anyone in that region to be some organic "Islamo-Fascist" conspiracy. How would you like if every murder, child molestation, bombing and lilling women and children elsewhere, bank robbery, smut on the screen and rap song advocating killing a cop in the U.S. was a generalized indictment against the "way Christianity is?"