ConcreteBoard

QuoteThe former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclearenergy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves."

"How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

If the U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on Iran or anyone else, I'll lose my farging mind.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 08, 2006, 01:35:40 PM
Ritter is a clown that will say anything to pimp his books and keep his speaking schedule intact.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

If the U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on Iran or anyone else, I'll lose my farging mind.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:39:47 PM
Hmm..people weren't saying that when he supported the Persian Gulf War.  They started with the brand of character disparagement you employ here only when he became critical of Bush's plan for the current war.  He said no weapons would be found, and he was right.  Go on with your bad self though, Joel.  The ad hominem rhetoric suits you.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 08, 2006, 01:51:43 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:39:47 PM
Hmm..people weren't saying that when he supported the Persian Gulf War.  They started with the brand of character disparagement you employ here only when he became critical of Bush's plan for the current war.  He said no weapons would be found, and he was right.  Go on with your bad self though, Joel.  The ad hominem rhetoric suits you.

Yeah, you're right Dio.  He's not a clown becasue in 1998 he said we should destroy Iraq, only to say four months later (after he quit/asked to resign) we were too hard on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

He's also not a clown because he predicted last February that we would attack Iran in June...of 2005.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8130.htm

So, DIO..who's next?  If Cindy Sheehan comes out and says there is a concentration camp set up in Iowa for all dissenters you gonna post that too? 

QuoteDiomedes              01:50:29 PM                Viewing the topic Churches burn. Not me, I swear.

Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on February 08, 2006, 01:53:45 PM

Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 08, 2006, 01:51:43 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:39:47 PM
Hmm..people weren't saying that when he supported the Persian Gulf War.  They started with the brand of character disparagement you employ here only when he became critical of Bush's plan for the current war.  He said no weapons would be found, and he was right.  Go on with your bad self though, Joel.  The ad hominem rhetoric suits you.

Yeah, you're right Dio.  He's not a clown becasue in 1998 he said we should destroy Iraq, only to say four months later (after he quit/asked to resign) we were too hard on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

He's also not a clown because he predicted last February that we would attack Iran in June...of 2005.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8130.htm

So, DIO..who's next?  If Cindy Sheehan comes out and says there is a concentration camp set up in Iowa for all dissenters you gonna post that too? 

In Dio's defense....he didn't post this.  :P

QuoteThe only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, "It's a partisan issue." He said the problem is oneparty government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans.

Most of Ritter's hour-long speech focused on Iraqi weapons programs from shortly before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. He also discussed the weapons-inspections process during that time.

Ritter was in charge of U.N. weapons inspections until he resigned in 1998. Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter said, he told Congress that inspections needed to continue.

He also said he was a Marine in the Persian Gulf War and was part of an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. :sly

Throughout the 1990s, Ritter said, America's real policy for Iraq was regime change -- not forcing Iraq to disarm and destroy chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. The U.S. insisted on regime change, he said, because it believes transforming the Middle East countries into democracies will help ensure American access to oil.

The policy, he said, was borne from a political problem, not a threat to national security.

Ritter said the CIA knew Iraq had no ballistic, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by 1995. "We knew there were no WMDs in Iraq," he said.

Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about national security issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said.

"It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers," he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl.

After his speech, Ritter took questions from the audience. The first questioner wondered whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were faked. Ritter, a fiery speaker, seemed irritated by the question and said the attacks were real.

Someone else asked if he was interested in running for Congress. While the question drew applause, Ritter responded, "I hate politics."

Ritter, 44, was promoting his book Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speech was sponsored by Peace Action New Mexico.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 08, 2006, 03:00:11 PM
I overheard something on NPR this morning.  They were talking to a weapons expert (sorry can't remember his name).  He said that absolutely Iran had weapons manufacture on their agenda.  The evidence?  They were trying to make uranium metal which could be molded.  He claims a) you would never need to do this for nuclear energy, metal rods of uranium aren't used in reactors, and b) they admitted to this to the UN inspectors.

Dropping a nuke on Iran is clearly unacceptable, and unlikely.  Sounds like a lot of rhetoric.  The rest of his statements seem reasonable though.  I just have no idea where Bush thinks he can find the troops to invade Iran.  We're stretched pretty thin now.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

If the U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on Iran or anyone else, I'll lose my farging mind.

Quote from: SD_Eagle on February 08, 2006, 03:12:23 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

If the U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on Iran or anyone else, I'll lose my farging mind.

We have too many interests in Iran to nuke em.

[Hindsight] Sure am glad I don't have to deal with this shtein anymore  8)

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 08, 2006, 03:00:11 PM
I just have no idea where Bush thinks he can find the troops to invade Iran.  We're stretched pretty thin now.

Quote from: SD_Eagle on February 08, 2006, 03:12:23 PM

Sure am glad I don't have to deal with this shtein anymore  8)

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 08, 2006, 03:17:15 PM

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 08, 2006, 03:00:11 PM
I just have no idea where Bush thinks he can find the troops to invade Iran.  We're stretched pretty thin now.

If you're between the ages of 18-35, you might wanna make sure your selective service information is up to date.

You can bet your ass that a draft of some sort is coming.  And it's coming fast, kids.

Quote from: Phanatic on February 08, 2006, 05:18:26 PM
Oh and if ya shoot her and your wrong the press runs with it and tells the world about the bad old military.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 08, 2006, 04:42:09 PM
Iraq is no Kuwait.  If we try to invade Iran through Iraq, we will be seriously farged.  You really think we can run supply lines from Baghdad?  We can barely protect the Green Zone.

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 08, 2006, 12:58:42 PM
Israel already destroyed one nuclear research facility in the region.  I'm astounded they haven't taken out Iran's as of yet.   More than astounded, actually.  Dumbfounded might be a more accurate description.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 05:32:19 PM

Quote from: Phanatic on February 08, 2006, 05:18:26 PM
Oh and if ya shoot her and your wrong the press runs with it and tells the world about the bad old military.

That pesky media, telling the world about soldiers killing civilians!  The nerve!!  Who said free speech was Good, anyway?  Lynch that guy!

Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 08, 2006, 06:27:59 PM
Plus Russia just ok'd a huge sale of air defense weapons for Iran :yay

Quote from: SD_Eagle on February 08, 2006, 03:20:04 PM
You're delusional if you think they'll ever impose another draft. I'm telling you, it won't happen. Think of invading Iran from a strategic standpoint, we've already invaded and occuppied their neighboring country, so a foothold in the region has already been established. The U.S. has the capibility to take Iran down as fast as it did Iraq. Only reason Iraq fell so fast is because we obliterated them 10 years earlier.

QuoteIf and when the Congress and the President reinstate a military draft, the Selective Service System would conduct a National Draft Lottery to determine the order in which young men would be drafted.

The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called.

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 08, 2006, 07:08:39 PM

Quote from: SD_Eagle on February 08, 2006, 03:20:04 PM
You're delusional if you think they'll ever impose another draft. I'm telling you, it won't happen. Think of invading Iran from a strategic standpoint, we've already invaded and occuppied their neighboring country, so a foothold in the region has already been established. The U.S. has the capibility to take Iran down as fast as it did Iraq. Only reason Iraq fell so fast is because we obliterated them 10 years earlier.

A few things...

First, I'm 40 years old so the chance of me being drafted is nil.  If they start calling old motherfargers up like me, chances are we'll be used to bury the millions of dead on our own soil after a nuclear attack.

Second, if you don't think a draft is remotely possible, explain to me why the selective service system is still in place.  If I'm so delusional, why are there congressmen calling for the draft to be re-instituted?

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm wrong, my man.  I think I'm dead-on considering the absolute insane course of action the neocon chimp @ 1600 has taken since 9/11.    No, it's not a matter of if it's going to happen, SD;  It's a matter of when.  Considering you just hung 'em up, it's likely you'll be first to be called back.  For that, I'm truly sorry.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 08, 2006, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: MURP on February 08, 2006, 12:54:42 PMThen, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

If the U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on Iran or anyone else, I'll lose my farging mind.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on February 08, 2006, 07:28:39 PM
I just have to say that the picture of the Director of Selective Service does not instill a whole lot of confidence in me.

(http://www.sss.gov/images/Chatfield175%20.jpg)

Quote from: EJ72 on February 09, 2006, 12:07:41 AMHe sure doesn't seem as though he's interested in what anyone thinks.

Quote from: EJ72 on February 09, 2006, 12:07:41 AMI'm 50, so I won't be going either way.

QuoteStrategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 09, 2006, 08:57:24 AM
I'm smart, so I won't be going either way.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on February 12, 2006, 01:03:07 PM
I think if the US allows other countries in Europe to participate in strategic bombings it will look less like an invasion. 

QuoteAhmadinejad: Israel 'will be removed'

Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.

Addressing a mass demonstration in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust "fairy tale".

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," the ultra-conservative president said. He once again called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and said Europeans have become hostages of "Zionists" in Israel.

He also accused Europeans for not allowing "neutral scholars" to investigate in Europe and make a scientific report on "the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust."

"How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said.

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless," Ahmadinejad said.

The president said that the results of the parliamentary elections in Palestine and the victory of the Hamas group "clearly showed what the people really want."

"You (the West) want democracy but do not respect the outcome," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the election results in Iraq and Palestine.

"It seems that you (the West) only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies," he said.

Ahmadinejad once again called on the West to adopt the "simple option" and allow Palestinians to voice their political will through a referendum.

Mass demonstrations organized by the state were held throughout Iran on Saturday as the nation commemorated the 27th anniversary of the revolution that established the Islamic Republic in Iran.

According to state media, hundreds of thousands of people came into the streets to show their solidarity with the government over pursuing the country's nuclear programmes and voice their protest against publication of cartoons deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.

While chanting "Death to America", "Death of Israel" and "Nuclear energy is our undisputable right", the crowd walked toward the Azadi (Freedom) Square in Tehran where Ahmadinejad held his annual speech.

In his speech the Iranian president warned that in case of harsh measures against Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme, the country would revise its commitment toward the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"The policy of Iran has so far been pursuing nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said.

"But if you (the West) continue efforts to deprive the Iranian nation from this (nuclear) right, then we would reconsider this policy," he warned.

Ahmadinejad asked the crowd in the Azadi square to tell the world its message and show its willingness to continue the nuclear programmes despite Western pressure.

"The era of military force is over, today is the era of nations, logic and worshippers of God," the president said.

He also referred to remarks by United States President George W. Bush who had said that the Iranian people were different from the Islamic government in Tehran, saying there was no distinction.

"Look, this is the third generation standing here and they are even more religious, more informed, more enthusiastic and more resistant (than the first generation) to defend the ideals of the revolution," Ahmadinejad said.

The president also referred to the cartoons and called it a "Zionist plot" against not only Muslims but also those genuinely committed to Christianity and Judaism.

"Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes," he said.

The crowd replied to his remarks with "Death to Denmark" slogans.

Quote"You (the West) want democracy but do not respect the outcome," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the election results in Iraq and Palestine.

"It seems that you (the West) only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies," he said.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 13, 2006, 11:43:18 AM

Quote"You (the West) want democracy but do not respect the outcome," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the election results in Iraq and Palestine.

"It seems that you (the West) only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies," he said.

Again, he's spot on.

Quote from: Phanatic on February 13, 2006, 01:01:41 PM
If he doesn't want war he sure is going about things the wrong way. The way he is pushing might even get the EU to lead the effort. If that happens he is actually doing the US a favor. I'm wondering if he is just being reactionary and not calculated at all. Kind of seems that way.

Quote
INTERNATIONAL   | February 16, 2006
France Says Iran's Atomic Program Is a Military Cover
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
"No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program," the foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said today.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran doesn't ''want to have the bomb.''

Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy's comments were likely to increase pressure on Iran amid the international dispute over its nuclear activities. Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful but European and U.S. leaders fear it is aimed at building atomic weapons.

''No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program,'' Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. ''The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us.''

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 4 over suspicions about its nuclear activities. France, Britain and Germany have led European negotiations that have failed to persuade Iran to suspend parts of its nuclear program.

Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel for reactors and further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

''Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran,'' Douste-Blazy said.

Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani rejected the French minister's comments, saying, ''We want civil nuclear energy, we don't want to have the bomb.''

''Concerning nuclear arms, we are a responsible country,'' he said on France-Inter radio from Tehran. ''The propaganda suggests that we want the bomb, but this is not the truth.''

''We want to be in this camp'' of countries that have nuclear energy technology but no nuclear weapons, such as Brazil and Japan, he said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United States will ''walk a fine line'' in seeking international sanctions against Iran.

Rice detailed a two-track approach to Iran -- concerted international pressure to deter the Iranians from building a bomb, and a newly robust attempt to sew democratic change within the country with aid for broadcasts and dissidents.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 16, 2006, 12:51:50 PM
Ok, so now France says that the Iranians ARE working to build nukes, but what will they do?

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 13, 2006, 12:44:32 PM
If that happens, there will be another true crusade - christianity/judaism vs. muslim.
This HAS to be resolved diplomatically.  I repeat, Ahmadinejad is not likely trying to get Iran into a war.  He wants something, we need to figure out what the hell it is.  And if it's not unreasonable, give it to him.
And we need to keep our bullshtein religions out of their bullshtein religion.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 08:19:33 AM
So.....how's that different from the radical Christians we have in office?

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 08:19:33 AM
So.....how's that different from the radical Christians we have in office?

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 09:40:12 AM
We have Christians calling for assisination of world leaders (Robertson re: Chavez).  We have Christians indiscriminately killing Muslims with missiles and bombs, guns and tanks.  We have Christians torturing and kidnapping Muslims.

Do you need more examples, or is this sufficient?

Muslims and Christians are the same.  Murderous idealogues.  Go ahead and pretend your side is better, it looks good on you.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 17, 2006, 09:47:07 AM...nationalist blather...Ann Coulter soundbytes...call out the dissenter as un-American..blah, blah, blah...

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 17, 2006, 10:01:23 AM
Asserting that this administration isn't a de facto theocracy is laughable.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 10:12:20 AM
Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map, and does nothing.  America says "terrorism" (except for its own brand, of course) should be annihilated, then proceeds to wipe two Islamic countries off the map.
 

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 10:43:33 AM
Oil currently runs the world, but it doesn't need to be that way. We could've been off the tit (for everything but air travel) 5-10 years ago, if the money'd been spent on alternatives. Instead, we waste billions in the Middle East in military effort, not to mention how many have died over it, that could've been spent on better things.

I'm not saying we are "crusading" in the Middle East. But if we allow Israel to attack Iran (and we'd have to "allow" it by letting them fly through Iraqi airspace) we'd be creating an "us v. them" war of a much greater magnitude than we have now.

I don't like the idea of a Middle East where even the token support we're getting now for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt is lost. That frightens me.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 10:43:33 AM
Oil currently runs the world, but it doesn't need to be that way.  We could've been off the tit (for everything but air travel) 5-10 years ago, if the money'd been spent on alternatives.  Instead, we waste billions in the Middle East in military effort, not to mention how many have died over it, that could've been spent on better things.

I'm not saying we are "crusading" in the Middle East.  But if we allow Israel to attack Iran (and we'd have to "allow" it by letting them fly through Iraqi airspace) we'd be creating an "us v. them" war of a much greater magnitude than we have now.

I don't like the idea of a Middle East where even the token support we're getting now for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt is lost.  That frightens me.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 10:50:26 AM
Attack Dio, attack Dio, attack Dio.  It's quite an argument you have there, Christian Terrorist lover.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 17, 2006, 11:11:12 AM
You two should make out. Somewhere else.

QuoteChristianity is as bloodied as Islam.  If you cannot accept this point, you aren't worth talking to.

Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map, and does nothing.  America says "terrorism" (except for its own brand, of course) should be annihilated, then proceeds to wipe two Islamic countries off the map.

Bush is a born again Christian who has called his campaign a "crusade."  The world is quite right to see America as a better funded Christian terrorism machine, with more PR budget. 

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 01:55:03 PM
Christians aren't exaclty a humor loving bunch, either.

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 17, 2006, 01:58:19 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 01:55:03 PM
Christians aren't exaclty a humor loving bunch, either.

Sure they are.

Have you ever heard a Christian not laugh at a gay/racist/misogynist joke?

QuoteWe have Christians calling for assisination of world leaders (Robertson re: Chavez).  We have Christians indiscriminately killing Muslims with missiles and bombs, guns and tanks.  We have Christians torturing and kidnapping Muslims.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 01:55:03 PM
I don't know that Muslims have much in the way of humor.  God knows they can't take a joke.  Christians aren't exaclty a humor loving bunch, either.

Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 17, 2006, 02:02:06 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 01:55:03 PM
I don't know that Muslims have much in the way of humor.  God knows they can't take a joke.  Christians aren't exaclty a humor loving bunch, either.

Yep, the next time that i see a cross soaked in Urine or a jacked up picture of Christ all in the name of "Art" or "free speach" boy oh boy, I'm gonna fire bomb something!

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 02:06:01 PM

Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 17, 2006, 02:02:06 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 17, 2006, 01:55:03 PM
I don't know that Muslims have much in the way of humor.  God knows they can't take a joke.  Christians aren't exaclty a humor loving bunch, either.

Yep, the next time that i see a cross soaked in Urine or a jacked up picture of Christ all in the name of "Art" or "free speach" boy oh boy, I'm gonna fire bomb something!

I didn't know you lived in Alabama......


I work on the south side of Chicago which is close sometimes!! :-D

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 02:07:22 PM
Oh, and one more point.  I've said it before, Ahmadinejad was inspired to have a holocaust cartoon contest.  If free speech is free speech, then the Danes should publish those too.  They've admitted the whole point was to incense Islam with the Mohammad cartoons.  How is this any different?

Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 17, 2006, 02:00:29 PM

QuoteWe have Christians calling for assisination of world leaders (Robertson re: Chavez).  We have Christians indiscriminately killing Muslims with missiles and bombs, guns and tanks.  We have Christians torturing and kidnapping Muslims.

The first point is dead on, Robertson is a wacko, but at least he had the sense to at least publicly appologize for his remarks. Iran's Pres, instead of backing down calls for a Cartoon contest about the holocaust.

I can only imagine you are talking about our armed forces when mentioning the missles and bombs, I've never heard any solider praise god after an attack, or bomb run and jump up and down chanting "Jesus is great, death to the dirty muslims". Once again torture and kidnapping would be referencing our Soldiers i'll assume, you know the funny thing is and i am not down playing the torture part of this, but I find it strange that there is only outrage towards our government when our soldiers are killed by IED, or car bombs. What about the civilians Iraqi and non-Iraqi that are killed everyday by these terrorists? no we would rather focus on a couple of idiots who abused some prisoners at Abu Grab, that werent killed but humiliated, we won't worry about the death count of civilians at the hands of terrorits.

Quote
Terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Quote
Terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

QuoteInsurgent

• Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
• Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

QuoteInsurgency

n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 17, 2006, 02:14:11 PM
Believing in stuff is farging boring.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 02:05:20 PM
C'mon, mic, you know that's not the point.  We went into Iraq with a moral imperative.  Therefore, we MUST maintain a high moral standard to have any efficacy at all.  Torturing prisoners, humiliating, whatever, only makes us look like liars and hypocrites.

I think we're all horrified by the civilian body count, no matter who's to blame.  But right now we're losing the real war, the war for the minds of the Iraqi people.  We can't convince the insurgents we mean well, but we damn well better convince everyone else.  And dropping bombs which kill innocents along with insurgents doesn't do that.

Quote
"Whoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get $1 million from the association of the jewelers bazaar, 1 million rupees ($16,700) from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees ($8,350) and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward," Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

"This is a unanimous decision of by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophets deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize."

QuoteStop with that shtein already. Anyone who knows anything about the rules of war, has miltary expirience, or bothers to educate themselves know that those fighting our forces in Iraq aren't terrorists in the sense you want to imply.  The majority of the people fighting our forces there are Iraqi, fighting who they believe to be an invader of their country. There are an amount of insurgents who are backed by terrorist organizations, but still, they do not fit the definition of a "terrorist."

QuoteYou can't seriously believe in that.

Quote from: rjs246 on February 17, 2006, 02:22:25 PM

QuoteYou can't seriously believe in that.

I certainly can. And do.

Nothing is more boring that listening to other people talk about the shtein they believe in. Keep it to yourself. No one farging cares what you think or believe.

QuoteWhoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get $1 million from the association of the jewelers bazaar, 1 million rupees ($16,700) from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees ($8,350) and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward," Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

"This is a unanimous decision of by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophets deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize."

Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 17, 2006, 02:11:52 PM

Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 17, 2006, 02:07:22 PM
Oh, and one more point.  I've said it before, Ahmadinejad was inspired to have a holocaust cartoon contest.  If free speech is free speech, then the Danes should publish those too.  They've admitted the whole point was to incense Islam with the Mohammad cartoons.  How is this any different?

I agree that the danes should post the cartoons, also if the NY times and other U.S. papers will post pictures of Abu Grab, post the Muhammed cartoons.

Quote
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
Mar 8, 12:15 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to seek Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."

John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iran's comments showed how much of a menace it was.

"Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," he told The Associated Press in a phone call from Washington.

Bolton classified the Iranian comments as "reflecting their determination to acquire weapons."

Wednesday's meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and the nations opposing its enrichment plans sticking to their positions.

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

He did not elaborate but suggested Iran was awaiting additional American moves.

But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon.

Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India.

At an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Iran petroleum minister Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh deflected questions about Iran's threat, saying: "Ask the one who said that."

He later sought to ease worries about Iran's oil plans, telling reporters: "So far there's no reason to reduce exports. Iran has no intention whatsoever of reducing its oil exports."

Oil supplies are tight worldwide and prices already are high. Although the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, any Iranian effort to tighten world supplies would effect oil prices in the United States.

Iran also has leverage with extremists in Iraq, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Islamic militant group Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in January. Both groups are classified by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations.

On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq.

Iran's statement was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

"Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran. "We have made our choice."

Iran also attacked "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. It also suggested America was vulnerable, despite its strength.

"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," the statement said. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."

It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies."

Earlier, U.S. delegate Gregory Schulte insisted in comments to the board that "the time has now come for the Security Council to act." He said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons if enriched.

He ticked off Iran's decision to curtail agency inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions.

Schulte listed Tehran's possession of plans that could only be used to make nuclear warheads, links between its nuclear programs and the military, and its determination to develop a large-scale enrichment program that could be misused to make nuclear arms.

"IAEA inspectors have no doubt this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components," Schulte said of documents showing how to form fissile material into warheads.

Separately, France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, the European statement said.

Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested Security Council involvement was not needed.

The Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement.

Quote
Military force can't destroy our atomic program: Iran
Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:08 AM ET

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN (Reuters) - Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday.

"You know very well ... we can enrich uranium anywhere in the country, with a vast country of more than 1 million 600 square kilometers," said Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran," he told a panel discussion on the possible use of military force to destroy what the West fears is Iran's atomic bomb program.

Soltaniyeh said that after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981, then Iraqi-leader Saddam Hussein bombed Iran's Bushehr plant.

The Security Council then passed a resolution condemning the attacks and making it illegal for countries to strike nuclear facilities.

But Soltaniyeh said those U.N. documents were "just pieces of paper" today to the United States and Israel.

Soltaniyeh said Iran was hiding nothing from the world and that all of its nuclear fuel facilities were known to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But he hinted that threats of possible military action against Tehran could change that.

"Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," he said, adding that Iran would never give up its enrichment program.

A retired U.S. Air Force colonel and well-known war gaming expert told the conference the United States was under increasing pressure to use military force to destroy Iran's atomic sites and would make a decision on this option soon.

Iran has completed a 164-machine "cascade" of centrifuges to enrich uranium at its Natanz plant and is expected to begin testing it soon, diplomats in Vienna say. Operating such a cascade would not enable it to fuel any atomic weapons but would enable Iran to master the difficult art of uranium enrichment.

"I think we may be looking at a (U.S.) decision in six to nine months," said Sam Gardiner, a military strategy expert who has taught at the U.S. Army's National War College.

"I say before the November elections there will be a serious decision made in the United States," he said.

Gardiner said that while Washington supported European and Russian efforts to use diplomacy to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program, U.S. officials were skeptical about the efficacy of sanctions or other diplomatic weapons.

Washington also believes the U.N. Security Council will fail to agree on a course of action against Tehran, he said.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful generation of electricity. However, it hid its uranium enrichment program, which could produce fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons, from U.N. inspectors for nearly two decades.

Gardiner said a U.S. operation aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would take less than a week and would not use any of the forces currently stationed in Iraq.

"This is an operation that would not take more than five evenings to do," he said, adding that it would probably use Stealth bombers to bomb the facilities.

But Gardiner said all his war-gaming and analysis had led him to the conclusion that Ambassador Soltaniyeh was right and the military solution would not destroy Iran's nuclear program as the know-how would remain.

"I don't think U.S. policymakers understand that the military option won't work," he said, adding that continued diplomacy was the only way to resolve the issue.

Quote from: Diomedes on February 09, 2006, 08:57:24 AM

Quote from: EJ72 on February 09, 2006, 12:07:41 AMHe sure doesn't seem as though he's interested in what anyone thinks.

He and Bush have a lot in common.  Both religious zealots.  Both don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.  Yay!!

Quote from: MURP on April 09, 2006, 03:38:22 AM
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html)

Quote from: Geowhizzer on April 09, 2006, 12:28:59 PM
Speaking of nuclear strikes in any form scares the devil out of me.

It would open up that proverbial Pandora's box:  they used a nuke, why can't we?

Quote from: mussa on April 09, 2006, 01:23:25 PM
i highly doubt they would need to use any type of nuke.  why is the US preparing for another war? isn't israel capable of handling them?  it all sounds like a game of poker w/ some bluffing going on. isn't that what nukes are for anyway? those crazy basterds from the middle east seem crazy enough to use one if they ever develop them, which is cause for enough concern.  why can't we all get along?

Quote from: Geowhizzer on April 09, 2006, 12:28:59 PM
Speaking of nuclear strikes in any form scares the devil out of me.

It would open up that proverbial Pandora's box:  they used a nuke, why can't we?

Quote
Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
Apr 14 12:34 PM US/Eastern

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran


The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."

Quote
Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Tony Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.

Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.

But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."

Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.

"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."

While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.

The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.

"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."

However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.

In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."

Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.

"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.

Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.

Quote.the simple gall exhibited by the Bush folks never stops amazing me

Quoteagain a holy war that we need not be involved in....

Quotebefore we went into iraq.....the whole world was on the same page regarding saddam.....the world had an interest in keeping him in check and it was doing a pretty good job of it.....this is where iran is right now.....the other arab states dont want iran getting punchy with the bomb.....the entire world wants to keep them in check.....even russia.....if we go in first it will completely ruin that consensus....as it did when we invaded iraq

Quoteretaliation is one thing but to preemptively attack a country....in order to protect israel.....seems like a death wish

Quotethe world had an interest in keeping him in check and it was doing a pretty good job of it.....this is where iran is right now

QuoteIn a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 17, 2006, 12:52:55 PM
Maybe Daulton wasnt so wrong.  2012 sounds about right

QuoteIran's UN ambassador said it was "absolutely ridiculous" that Israel was elected to be a vice-chair of the UN Disarmament Commission...

Quote
Russia and China warn UN not to antagonise Iran
By Daniel Dombey in Sofia
Published: April 27 2006 17:45 | Last updated: April 27 2006 17:45


Russia and China on Thursday warned against escalating the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme. The call came on the eve of an eagerly awaited report on whether the country has met United Nations demands.

The US and the European Union believe Friday's report by Mohamed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will set the stage for a UN Security Council resolution, since there is little chance that Tehran will meet the council's demand for "full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment, which can produce weapons-grade material.

But on Thursday Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, warned against too great an intervention by the Security Council – a path Moscow feels could lead to confrontation.

"We think that the IAEA must continue to play a key role and it must not shrug off its responsibilities to resolve such questions and shift them on to the UN Security Council," he said at a summit with Angela Merkel, German chancellor.

European officials argue that, far from sidelining the IAEA, any action by the council would seek to bolster its authority.

The Chinese government also called for restraint. Moscow and Beijing, which have growing energy and economic links with Iran, fear that a UN resolution might be used to justify military action at a later stage.

The US has stepped up efforts to assuage such concerns. "Forcible change of the Iranian regime is not the objective of American policy," Philip Zelikow, a top adviser to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, told the Financial Times.

"Right now, we haven't completed implementing a diplomatic strategy. That diplomatic strategy involves underscoring to the Iranian regime the costs of its behaviour."

US and EU diplomats hope to win Security Council backing for a resolution on Iran by mid-June. Such a resolution would not involve sanctions but would probably set out a new deadline for Iran to halt nuclear enrichment.

Mr ElBaradei has been pushing Iran for a "technical break" in uranium enrichment to allow negotiations over the nuclear programme to resume.

Quote
(Jerusalem-AP, April 27, 2006) - An Israeli military official says Iran has missiles that can reach Europe.
Israel's military intelligence chief says they are surface-to-surface missiles made in North Korea.

A report in the Haaretz daily says the BM-25 missiles have a range of 1,550 miles and can carry nuclear warheads.

The paper says Iran has taken delivery on its first batch of the new missile.

The report came as UN members consider slapping sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment.

The United States, Israel and other Western countries say Iran is trying to get nuclear arms, but the Islamic regime says its atomic program is for civilian purposes only.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on April 28, 2006, 12:32:10 PM
Bah, it's only France........

Quote from: Diomedes on April 28, 2006, 02:50:22 PM
They certainly don't hesitate to launch missiles into refugee camps.

Quote from: The Waco Kid on May 01, 2006, 09:41:27 AM
Any combination of a Russian/Chinese attack on Israel is a sign of the beginning of the end times. 

Quote from: ice grillin you on May 02, 2006, 01:27:35 PM

this is probably best for the world right now...end everyone and start over

Quote from: ice grillin you on May 02, 2006, 01:27:35 PM
Iran attacks Israel & Western Europe.  We immediately launch an all-out assault on Iran.  Russia, China, & NK see this and launch against us in retaliation (use 'em or lose 'em).   We empty our ICBM silo's and ballistic missile submarines in retaliation.

Game over.


this is probably best for the world right now...end everyone and start over

Quote from: Cerevant on May 03, 2006, 10:31:20 AM
"The only winning move is not to play"
(http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/91/47/10m.jpg)

QuoteWINNER: NONE

Quote
Peres says that Iran 'can also be wiped off the map'

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added.

Peres' vehement expressions came the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly wrote to US President George W. Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Teheran, which has a US interests section, Elham told a press conference.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Monday that the Iranian president's letter to Bush could create a "new diplomatic opening," but also warned that the letter did not reflect a softening in Iran's position.

Ali Larijani refused to give details of the letter's content, but said, "Perhaps it could lead to a new diplomatic opening. It needs to be given some time."

"There is a need to wait before disclosing the content of the letter, let it make its diplomatic way," Larijani said in an interview with Turkey's NTV television.

Larijani added, however, that the "tone of the letter is not something like softening."
He also warned against any US attack against Iran.

"If they have a little bit of a brain, they would not commit such a mistake," he said. "Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a weak country, it did not have a legitimate government. Iran is a powerful country."

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his US counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the US Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

Quote from: MURP on May 08, 2006, 02:32:49 PM
can we atleast put the end of the world on hold until the Eagles actually win a SB.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on May 09, 2006, 12:50:57 PM
The only scenario I can envision that would be worse than US unilateral attack on Iran would be Isreali unilateral attack on Iran.

Quote from: MURP on May 09, 2006, 04:25:51 PM
Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/index.html)

worth a read. 

Quote
More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran
May 12 11:09 AM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria

The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the traces match others established to have come from abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.

Iran's refusal to give up enrichment ambitions has led to involvement by the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions but remains split on how firmly to pressure Tehran.

Key U.N. Security Council members agreed Tuesday to postpone a resolution that would have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to re-evaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Iran's hard-line president said Friday that his country was not afraid of possible U.S. military action over its enrichment program, but added that he thought any such strikes were very unlikely. Washington has said it favors a diplomatic end to the dispute, but it hasn't ruled out military force.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also told a local TV station that Iran would cooperate with the Security Council if it makes a decision on the escalating standoff as long as the world body acts "in line with international rules."

The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan.

The origin of the samples now under perusal created some concern in that regard.

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian. The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35- nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question.

Ahmadinejad's remarks on possible U.S. military action were made in Jakarta during a discussion with Indonesian Islamic leaders.

Asked whether his country was prepared to face an attack by the United States, he said "that is very unlikely because they know the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strong country."

"They are trying to frighten our country by waging a propaganda campaign using strong words. The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," he said to applause from the audience.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on May 12, 2006, 03:49:47 PM
Again, it can't be unilateral action.  shtein like this has to get broad UN support, or it's going to get real farging ugly.

QuoteDoubts have been raised about how technically advanced Iran's nuclear programme is, after it emerged Tehran may have used material from China.

Western diplomatic sources told the BBC the material used in Iran's recent uranium enrichment experiments probably came from materials supplied in 1991.

That was before China joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and before it was bound by its export controls.

Iran recently announced it had been able to produce enriched uranium.

This was despite calls from Western powers to suspend the programme because of fears it could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon.

Iran may have used stocks of high-quality uranium gas - or uranium hexafluoride gas - from China to speed up a breakthrough in enrichment, diplomats say.

This allowed them to proclaim Iran's enrichment programme was under way.

'Impure' material

Nuclear experts say Iran has had some problems with impurities in its own production of the material.

So it would be logical to use the good quality Chinese material to test out its enrichment machinery, says the BBC's Jonathan Marcus.

The Iranian move had great propaganda value, but it may also have had a clear political purpose: to demonstrate that the Iranian enrichment programme was a reality, our correspondent says.

It may also have put down a marker that in the event of any future deal, Iran's right to conduct at least some enrichment activity would have to be acknowledged, he adds.

Quote from: ice grillin you on May 24, 2006, 09:39:40 AM
bush and his warmongers better be receptive and at least sit down and talk with them

Quote from: ice grillin you on May 24, 2006, 09:39:40 AM
iran reached out big time to the us yesterday...first time in like 30 years...sincere or not...bush and his warmongers better be receptive and at least sit down and talk with them

Quote from: Larry on May 13, 2006, 07:12:54 PM
I've glanced through some rather interesting articles claiming that it isn't Iran's potential nuclear capability that Bush & Co. fear, but rather, their intent to undercut the dollar by opening an oil trading exchange based on the Euro.

Quote from: Diomedes on May 25, 2006, 10:43:27 PM
Leave Alaska alone.  Jesus farg!!

Quote from: Diomedes on May 25, 2006, 10:43:27 PM
Leave Alaska alone.  Jesus farg!!

Quote from: MadMarchHare on May 26, 2006, 03:58:13 PMfarg oil.  How about we spend some real dollars developing energy sources that don't pollute and destroy the environment at both the time of harvest and use.  Novel, I know..

Quote from: Diomedes on May 26, 2006, 04:08:14 PM
  Has the oil industry ever shown themselves to be capable of farging a virgin and leaving her hymen intact?  No.

Quote from: Phanatic on May 26, 2006, 05:15:21 PM
I think it would take 12 years to start seeing oil come out of ANWR. I would hope alt fuel cars are on the road and kicking by then...

Quote
SPIEGEL Interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"We Are Determined"

In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discusses the Holocaust, the future of the state of Israel, mistakes made by the United States in Iraq and Tehran's nuclear conflict with the West.


SPIEGEL: Mr. President, you are a soccer fan and you like to play soccer. Will you be sitting in the stadium in Nuremberg on June 11, when the Iranian national team plays against Mexico in Germany?

Ahmadinejad: It depends. Naturally, I'll be watching the game in any case. I don't know yet whether I'll be at home in front of the television set or somewhere else. My decision depends upon a number of things.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Ahmadinejad: How much time I have, how the state of various relationships are going, whether I feel like it and a number of other things.

SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not important. I didn't even understand how that came about. It also had no meaning for me. I don't know what all the excitement is about.

SPIEGEL: It concerned your remarks about the Holocaust. It was inevitable that the Iranian president's denial of the systematic murder of the Jews by the Germans would trigger outrage.

Ahmadinejad: I don't exactly understand the connection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?

Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn't surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...

Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

Quote
SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?

Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That's just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject.

Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today's youth play in World War II?

SPIEGEL: None.

Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can't do anything about it. But there is a sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our fathers or grandfathers.

Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held legally responsible?

QuoteSPIEGEL: Not legally but morally.

Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that they have grappled critically with their past.

Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that.

Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody's hostage; SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany's past and the Germans' crimes. We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?

Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region finally. But don't you share that responsibility?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust won't bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That's not what we said, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.



SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we're talking about the Holocaust because we want to talk about the possible nuclear armament of Iran -- which is why the West sees you as a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a threat. Of course you're free to make your own judgment.

SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?

SPIEGEL: We're here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring country, for example, told SPIEGEL: "They are very keen on building the bomb." Is that true?

Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries, including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now look at what's happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is one side of this matter.

Quote
SPIEGEL: IAEA doesn't quite share your view of this matter.

Ahmadinejad: But the other side is that there are a number of countries that possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that they are worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic energy. We say that these powers are free to monitor us if they are worried. But what these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the nuclear fuel cycle because deviation from peaceful use might then be possible. What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and unsustainable.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, the key question is: How dangerous will this world become if even more countries become nuclear powers -- if a country like Iran, whose president makes threats, builds the bomb in a crisis-ridden region?

Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nucleaar-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.

SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.

We stand by our statements because we're honest and act legally. We're no fraudsters. We only want to claim our legitimate right. Incidentally, I never threatened anyone - that, too, is part of the propaganda machine that you've got running against me.

SPIEGEL: If this were so, shouldn't you be making an effort to ensure that no one need fear your producing nuclear weapons that you might use against Israel, thus possibly unleashing a world war? You're sitting on a tinderbox, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to say two things. No people in the region are afraid of us. And no one should instill fear in these peoples. We believe that if the United States and these two or three European countries did not interfere, the peoples in this region would live peacefully together as they did in the thousands of years before. In 1980, it was also the nations of Europe and the United States that encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack us.

Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel its right to existence.

Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want. In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have the right to their own state, but in our view the Israelis naturally have the same right.

Ahmadinejad: Where did the Israelis come from?

SPIEGEL: Well, if we tried to work out where people have come from, the Europeans would have to return to east Africa where all humans originated.

Ahmadinejad: We're not talking about the Europeans; we're talking about the Palestinians. The Palestinians were there, in Palestine. Now 5 million of them have become refugees. Don't they have a right to live?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, doesn't there come a time when one should accept that the world is the way it is and that we must accept the status quo? The war against Iraq has put Iran in a favorable position. The United States has suffered a de facto defeat in Iraq. Isn't it now time for Iran to become a constructive power of peace in the Middle East? Which would mean giving up its nuclear plans and inflammatory talk?

Ahmadinejad: I'm wondering why you're adopting and fanatically defending the stance of the European politicians. You're a magazine, not a government. Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that the winners of World War II would remain the victorious powers for another 1,000 years and that the German people would be humiliated for another 1,000 years. Do you think that is the correct logic?

SPIEGEL: No, that's not the right logic, nor is it true. The Germans have played a modest, but important role in post-war developments. They do not feel as though they have been humiliated and dishonored since 1945. We are too self-confident for that. But today we want to talk about Iran's current mission.

Ahmadinejad: Then we would accept that Palestinians are killed every day, that they die in terrorist attacks, and that houses are being destroyed. But let me say something about Iraq. We have always favored peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces. Fortunately, the Germans haven't been involved in this. We want security in Iraq.

Quote
SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.

SPIEGEL: What are you trying to say?

Ahmadinejad: We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job. They have sent us messages several times asking us for help and cooperation. They have said that we should talk together about Iraq. We publicly accepted this offer, although our people do not trust the Americans. But America has responded negatively and insulted us. Even now we're contributing to security in Iraq. We will hold talks only if the Americans change their behavior.

SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy provoking the Americans and the rest of the world now and then?

Ahmadinejad: No, I'm not insulting anyone. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Bush was polite.

SPIEGEL: We don't mean insult, but provoke.

Ahmadinejad: No, we feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense. Why is there war when there is reason as well?

SPIEGEL: Is your letter to the president also a gesture toward the Americans that you wish to enter into direct negotiations?

Ahmadinejad: We clearly stated our position in this letter on how we view the problems in the world. Some powers have befouled the political atmosphere in the world because they consider lies and fraud to be legitimate. In our view that is very bad. We believe that all people deserve respect. Relationships have to be regulated on the basis of justice. When justice reigns, peace reigns. Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not criticize them.

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept. 11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented without the coordination with secret and security services or without the far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

SPIEGEL: In this letter you also write that Western liberalism has failed. What makes you say that?

Ahmadinejad: You see, for example you have a thousand definitions of the Palestian problem and you offer all sorts of different definitions of democracy in its various forms. It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice. Iran and the West agree on this.

SPIEGEL: What role can Europe play in the resolution of the nuclear conflict, and what do you expect of Germany?

Ahmadinejad: We have always cultivated good relations with Europe, especially with Germany. Our two peoples like each other. We're eager to deepen this relationship.

Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't want to see that happen.

SPIEGEL: What will happen now in the conflict between the West and Iran?

Ahmadinejad: We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some European countries are opposed to us. I sent out a message on the nuclear issue, asking why the Europeans were translating the Americans' words for us. After all, they know that our actions are aimed toward peace. By siding with Iran, the Europeans would serve their own and our interests. But they will suffer only damage if they oppose us. For our people is strong and determined.

The Europeans risk losing their position in the Middle East entirely, and they are ruining their reputation in other parts of the world. The others will think that the Europeans aren't capable of solving problems.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we thank you for this interview.

Quote from: mussa on May 31, 2006, 10:17:03 AM
yea lets destroy and occupy our 3rd middle eastern country in 5 years! go hitler!

Quote from: MURP on May 31, 2006, 09:58:44 AM
Iran's military plans for invasion by U.S. (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060531-121559-6573r.htm)

Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2006, 11:09:05 AM

The Washington Times has about as much credibility as the New York Post or Fox News.

Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2006, 12:15:25 PM
You're right.  All of the news is lies.  Only Limbaugh can be trusted.

Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2006, 12:15:25 PM
You're right.  All of the news is lies.  Only Limbaugh can be trusted.

Quote from: Butchers Bill on May 31, 2006, 12:53:11 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on May 31, 2006, 12:15:25 PM
You're right.  All of the news is lies.  Only Limbaugh can be trusted.

And Al Franken...you forgot about him.

Quote from: mussa on May 31, 2006, 02:33:09 PM
I'm thinking about making t-shirts that say I'm an Infidel. 

Quote from: mussa on May 31, 2006, 03:34:30 PM
Im totally making them. Iron on's.  If you want one IM me. HAHA

Quote from: mussa on May 31, 2006, 02:33:09 PM
I'm thinking about making t-shirts that say I'm an Infidel. 

Quote from: Phanatic on May 31, 2006, 05:04:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_45

Looks like Iran just wants a fight.

Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on May 31, 2006, 04:53:31 PM

Quote from: mussa on May 31, 2006, 02:33:09 PM
I'm thinking about making t-shirts that say I'm an Infidel. 

Too late.

(https://boffensive.floridaserver.com/mm5/graphics/00000034/infidel.gif)


Link
(http://www.boffensive.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=boffensive&Product_Code=rlin)

Quote from: Phanatic on May 31, 2006, 05:04:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_45

Looks like Iran just wants a fight.

Quote from: mussa on June 01, 2006, 03:31:39 PMBoy I hope our leaders still realize that terrorist have done more harm to us in the now than any country.

Quote from: mussa on June 01, 2006, 03:31:39 PM
Ahh if we go to war with China, I'd pretty much call that WW3.  I'd pretty much have to bet all men would be going to war. I'd pretty much have to bet it could lead to nuclear warfare. I'd pretty much have to say it would be the end of our kosher lives here in the US.  I just hope we have people in office who choose to talk and reason rather than throw stones before it gets to that. 

Boy I hope our leaders still realize that terrorist have done more harm to us in the now than any country.

Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 01, 2006, 04:54:29 PM

Quote from: mussa on June 01, 2006, 03:31:39 PM
Ahh if we go to war with China, I'd pretty much call that WW3.  I'd pretty much have to bet all men would be going to war. I'd pretty much have to bet it could lead to nuclear warfare. I'd pretty much have to say it would be the end of our kosher lives here in the US.  I just hope we have people in office who choose to talk and reason rather than throw stones before it gets to that. 

Boy I hope our leaders still realize that terrorist have done more harm to us in the now than any country.

Talk and reason until there military is bigger and badder then ours, then they hit us and people bitch that we didn't do anything sooner. Sometimes you have to be proactive when it comes to enemies, I am not saying you need to go out and attack China, but talking isn't the answer to every conflict.

Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 01, 2006, 04:54:29 PM

Quote from: mussa on June 01, 2006, 03:31:39 PM
Ahh if we go to war with China, I'd pretty much call that WW3.  I'd pretty much have to bet all men would be going to war. I'd pretty much have to bet it could lead to nuclear warfare. I'd pretty much have to say it would be the end of our kosher lives here in the US.  I just hope we have people in office who choose to talk and reason rather than throw stones before it gets to that. 

Boy I hope our leaders still realize that terrorist have done more harm to us in the now than any country.

Talk and reason until there military is bigger and badder then ours, then they hit us and people bitch that we didn't do anything sooner. Sometimes you have to be proactive when it comes to enemies, I am not saying you need to go out and attack China, but talking isn't the answer to every conflict.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 01, 2006, 05:01:41 PM

Too late. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops)

Quote from: Butchers Bill on June 01, 2006, 05:09:04 PM

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 01, 2006, 05:01:41 PM

Too late. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops)

Yeah, but half of them are armed with pitch-forks.  I still remember seeing a training video of their "Army" from the late 1960's where they would ride their horses into a nuclear battlefield.

Quote from: hbionic on June 01, 2006, 03:51:44 PM

Quote from: mussa on June 01, 2006, 03:31:39 PMBoy I hope our leaders still realize that terrorist have done more harm to us in the now than any country.

What do you mean by that?

Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 06, 2006, 03:26:24 PM
Unfarging believable, thats what we get for dealing with China/Russia and the fargin EU :boom Everything right along on line though, we talk cause the UN wants us to, nothing happens to Iran and they get to build nuke's in secret then were screwed. Fargin idiot's

Quote from: phillymic2000 on June 27, 2006, 10:45:10 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran

they want nothing to do with our offers, I guess that Bush's fault though ::)

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2006, 09:25:36 AM
hezbollah kidnapped two more isreal soldiers....isreal is now into lebanon....once syria gets in its gonna be on!!

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2006, 04:17:59 PM
rules of warfare

oxymoron

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 13, 2006, 10:18:15 PM
Your wrong, it's only half off. There are only rules for us, everyone else can do what they want to who they want.

QuoteST. PETERSBURG, Russia -        President Bush promised Lebanon's leader Friday that he would urge        Israel to avoid civilian casualties and damage as it steps up attacks on its neighbor.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Bush's promise to Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora fell short of the Lebanese leader's request for pressure for a cease-fire, according to an account from Saniora's office. The White House confirmed the call, but would provide no details of the discussions.

"President Bush affirmed his readiness to put pressure on Israel to limit the damage to Lebanon as a result of the current military action, and to spare civilians and innocent people from harm," the statement said.

Bush's call to Saniora as he flew here from Germany was part of a round of telephone diplomacy aimed at quelling the flare-up in violence in the Mideast. The president also spoke with allies Egyptian President        Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II to discuss the violence in their neighborhood, the White House said.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 14, 2006, 08:59:09 AM
Here is a good example of the rules going one way:

actually an example of going one way would be tanks planes and ships vs people with guns

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 14, 2006, 08:59:09 AM
Here is a good example of the rules going one way:

actually an example of going one way would be tanks planes and ships vs people with guns

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on July 14, 2006, 09:21:13 AMPart two they start firing towards the troops, what happens then?

Quote from: rjs246 on July 14, 2006, 09:24:43 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 14, 2006, 08:59:09 AM
Here is a good example of the rules going one way:

actually an example of going one way would be tanks planes and ships vs people with guns

This is what I was talking about. Of course these countries can't compete with the military powers of the world. So they've found a new way to fight the war. It's archaic to think that tanks and planes and ships will somehow beat down this type of guerilla warfare or that the countries with the large arms advantage somehow have an actual tactical advantage. Their mission isn't to fight and win military battles on a large scale. They know they can't do that. Their mission is to impart fear on a large scale. To let the powers that be know that they can infiltrate and attack whenever and whereever they want without regard to themselves or who they kill. It's a terrifying concept. An invisible enemy, consisting of an extremely small number of people who have no regard for their lives and who could literally strike anywhere they please because large militaries have not adjusted their tactics and think they are still fighting the Germans in 1945.

Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2006, 09:29:27 AM

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on July 14, 2006, 09:21:13 AMPart two they start firing towards the troops, what happens then?

If you're Israel, you unload into the crowd.   Then you throw all the survivors into prison.  Then you scramble F-16s to bomb refugee camps and other "terrorist" "strongholds."  Next, you roll the tanks into whatever neighborhood the people came from and destroy their houses.  Finally, you send the bill to the U.S. and put in a replenishment order to replace all those bullets and bombs.

Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2006, 09:12:45 AM
The scale of Israel's attack is simply not acceptable.  There are a lot of people in Lebanon.  A complete air and sea blockade is outrageous overkill.

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on July 14, 2006, 09:41:41 AM
You may not think the US cares, but if they didn't, don't you think the way the war is being fought right now would be much different? I know it would be, there would be much more indiscriminate killings.

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:14:11 AM...they are taking out infastructure and means of transporting...

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:19:07 AMnone of our soldiers that have been captured have had anyo f those things given to them...

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:30:47 AM
exactly, they can't move, isn't that the idea? to stop the enemy from moving, Hezbollah uses the public to shield itself. The people put the leadership into place in 2000, the leadership has allowed hezbollah to do what it wants.

QuoteThe Israeli reaction is outrageous.   They ought to be bitch slapped by the world, including the U.S.

Quote from: Philly Crew on July 14, 2006, 10:44:33 AM
I'm torn on this because I don't want a full regional war but wouldn't be opposed to Israel knocking out Syria and taking out Iran's nuclear capability (if it can be found and reached).  Otherwise, I can't see Israel's end-game.  So they damage Lebanon and attempt to retrieve bodies, how does this prevent future missle attacks from Lebanon or Gaza?

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:45:33 AMThe fact that you continue to throw "we are the civilized ones" argument up to defend the horrendous things that happen

QuoteIt's alright with you for the Israel to punish the innocent people of an entire country for the sake of a few dead soldiers and two kidnapped?  That's terrorist logic.  It's the same logic Osama used (remember him??) to take down the WTC.  Punish the people for what the government does.  Brilliant.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 14, 2006, 09:40:49 AM
for real...they invaded an entire friggin country...shooting up a crowd of a few innocent civilians wouldnt even blip the radar

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:54:25 AMi am not going to tell you this does not effedt the general public of Lebanon, it does, it is a hardship.

Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 14, 2006, 10:54:25 AM
How are the two the same?

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on July 14, 2006, 10:57:39 AMAsk the Marines at Hiawatha if they can just go in and shoot civilians with reckless abdandon.

QuoteYou call bombing out bridges, airports, and highways, blockading sea traffic, a "hardship?"  That's no real surprise coming from a guy who thinks banning torture amounts to "being PC."  But Jesus Christ, man..these people need food, water, fuel.  Bridges, airports, highways and boats are kinda key for getting those things.

Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2006, 11:17:11 AM
How about a much, much smaller military campaign?
How about an appeal to the international community to apply political pressure?
How about do nothing drastic right away and see what happens?
Who about do nothing?  Seriously.  When someone says "give peace a chance," that's not just a sound byte.  Peace hasn't been given a chance..that's why people like Jesus suggest maybe we give it a try.  Remember him, Mr. Torture supporter? Pretty sure you show up all pious at church on Sunday, why don't you ask him the next time you're there?  I'll wager he'd say "do no harm."

Nothing I offer will appease you, because you want war.  You want bombs dropping and bullies pushing.  You're an American.

Quote15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

QuoteWar is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory!..." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions.

Ayatollah Khomeini, Mohammed's birthday, 1984

QuoteThe Qur'an tells us: "not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (5:51), "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5). The Qur'an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises "If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them" (8:65).

Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society

QuoteWitnesses say a flood of people are crossing into Gaza from Egypt after Palestinians blew a hole in a border wall at the Gaza-Egypt border, The Associated Press reports.

Quote from: Diomedes on July 14, 2006, 11:52:00 AM

QuoteWitnesses say a flood of people are crossing into Gaza from Egypt after Palestinians blew a hole in a border wall at the Gaza-Egypt border, The Associated Press reports.

And "someone" said the missiles Hezbollah are firing were made in Iran, so CNN reported it.

This isn't ending soon.

QuoteDespite several countries -- including the United States and Lebanon -- contending that Lebanon doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the safe release of the soldiers.

Hezbollah, which enjoys substantial backing from Syria and Iran, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. The group holds 23 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament.

QuoteI really think Israel should be abandonded.  They are no better than the "terrorists."

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 17, 2006, 07:59:54 AM
Israeli Ground Forces Enter Lebanon To Attack Hezbollah

Quote from: MURP on August 20, 2006, 11:46:13 AM

Iran says it won't halt atomic work (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060820/2006-08-20T103802Z_01_BLA026520_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-DC.html)

Quote from: phillymic2000 on August 20, 2006, 09:56:50 PM
didn't you hear? we are Nazi Germany, and duba is hitler. we are just picking on poor little Iran

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
None of this matters anyway unless we find a way to stop illegals from taking over America.

If the illegal Mexican population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is, they will outnumber whites and blacks combined within 40 years.  Imagine you're injured in a car accident and it's not your fault - half the time you won't have a lick of recourse.  Doctors and surgeons will be triaging illegals when you take your critically-injured child to the E/R.  Etc etc etc.

Until we elect a President and Congress with the balls to make stricter laws and do what is necessary to stop illegal immigration, the U.S. is going to get farged from the inside long before the Muslim extremists or North Koreans have any significant impact on our quality of life as a nation.

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 02:49:01 PM
I'll avoid overtly stating most the obvious things wrong with your post, but I am curious as to why you use the word 'illegals' as such, with the quotes.  Are there not Mexican people here legally, as well as the many here illegally?  Wouldn't you have to agree that there is a distinct difference between the two?

My only simple request is that if people move into this country, they find a way to do so legally, pay taxes, register and insure their vehicles, and generally just stop smelling as badly as you do.  What's wrong with that?

Quote from: hbionic on August 22, 2006, 02:39:12 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
None of this matters anyway unless we find a way to stop illegals from taking over America.

If the illegal Mexican population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is, they will outnumber whites and blacks combined within 40 years.  Imagine you're injured in a car accident and it's not your fault - half the time you won't have a lick of recourse.  Doctors and surgeons will be triaging illegals when you take your critically-injured child to the E/R.  Etc etc etc.

Until we elect a President and Congress with the balls to make stricter laws and do what is necessary to stop illegal immigration, the U.S. is going to get farged from the inside long before the Muslim extremists or North Koreans have any significant impact on our quality of life as a nation.

Horrible. It's minutemen fargs like you that should be getting stabbed in the throat as you sleep. If you think 'illegals' from mexico are your biggest problem in this country, do us all a favor and kill your ugly wife and children if you have any and then kill yourself so there's no chance of any of your genes being passed down to anyone.

Go Eagles!

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 02:52:41 PM
Never shtein a shteinter.  You are correct, Demon.

P.S.  1 out of 12 illegals entering the U.S. from Mexico has a violent criminal record.

Quote from: MadMarchHare on August 22, 2006, 03:06:00 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 02:52:41 PM
P.S.  1 out of 12 illegals entering the U.S. from Mexico has a violent criminal record.

Meaning that >90% don't.  Which is probably equivalent to the number of legal Americans who have a violent criminal record.

I agree that something needs to be done about the utterly porous border issue.  But that statistic is meaningless.

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 22, 2006, 03:03:00 PM
yeah, but they are the best workers you'll ever find. Ill hire them every day all day.

'they' arent the best workers

poor people who have more to lose without a job and more to gain with one are the best workers...'they' just happen to fit that profile more often than not

Quote from: Wingspan on August 22, 2006, 03:32:36 PM
so we're sending mexican's into iran now?

Quote from: rjs246 on August 22, 2006, 02:58:28 PMMexicans eat tequitos and can fit all 13 of their cousins into a rimmed-out Civic.

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
If the illegal Mexican population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is, they will outnumber whites and blacks combined within 40 years.

Quote from: Cerevant on August 22, 2006, 05:27:16 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
If the illegal Mexican population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is, they will outnumber whites and blacks combined within 40 years.

Mexican Population: 107,029,000
US Population: 299,102,661

If all the Mexican's moved to the US tomorrow (illegally) the citizens would still outnumber them 3 to 1.

Quote from: Cerevant on August 22, 2006, 05:27:16 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on August 22, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
If the illegal Mexican population keeps increasing at the rate it currently is, they will outnumber whites and blacks combined within 40 years.

Mexican Population: 107,029,000
US Population: 299,102,661

If all the Mexican's moved to the US tomorrow (illegally) the citizens would still outnumber them 3 to 1.

Quote from: General_Failure on August 22, 2006, 08:19:58 PM
Starfish Troopers?

QuoteThe planned attack here stunned Germans who thought the country's vehement opposition to the Iraq war would insulate it from becoming a terror target almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York.

QuoteWho would win a debate on world issues between President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad?

Bush  37% 35579 votes
Ahmadinejad  63% 59574 votes

Total: 95153 votes

Quote from: Diomedes on August 29, 2006, 09:22:34 PM
The current poll at CNN.com:

QuoteWho would win a debate on world issues between President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad?

Bush  37% 35579 votes
Ahmadinejad  63% 59574 votes

Total: 95153 votes

Ha. 

QuoteBush Urges Nation To Be Quiet For A Minute While He Tries To Think

August 30, 2006 | Issue 42•35

WASHINGTON, DC—In a nationally televised address Monday, President Bush urged all citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or political affiliation, "to quiet down for just one minute" so he could have "a chance to think."
Enlarge ImageBush

In a televised address to the nation, Bush called for "a little peace and quiet."

"Every American has an inalienable right to free speech and self-expression," Bush said. "Nonetheless, I call upon the American people to hold off on it for, say, 60 seconds. Just long enough for me to get this all sorted out in my head."

"Please," Bush added.

While the president said achieving a unilateral peace and quiet "would not be easy," he hoped that citizens would respect his wish and work toward a temporary cease-talk so that he could can hear his own thoughts "for once."

"Make no mistake: It will take patience and sacrifice," Bush said. "But such drastic measures could lead to a better tomorrow for all of us, especially for your commander in chief."

Bush then closed his speech by exhaling sharply, tightly closing his eyes, and massaging his temples. "I just—Christ, I just need a goddamn minute, you know?" he said.

The presidential call for national silence came as little surprise following weeks of rumors from White House sources that Bush appeared increasingly distracted and wearied by the ever-pervasive noise. Excerpts from an unedited videotaped meeting made public last Thursday revealed a frustrated Bush rhetorically asking Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan how "the leader of the free world was supposed to get any work done around here with all this volume."

Assuring the public it "can make as much noise as [it] wants" as soon as the Bush-proposed national minute of silence concludes, Chief Of Staff Josh Bolten said that the White House was making "every effort" to accommodate Bush's wishes.

"Currently, the president's calls are being bounced back to the West Wing call center, and all televisions and radios on White House property have been switched off," said Bolten, who added that staffers moved Bush family dog Barney from the Oval Office after Bush called the Scottish terrier's heavy panting "intolerable."
Enlarge ImageBush

Several world leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chinese President Hu Jintao, reacted to Bush's speech by openly wondering if Bush's request pertained to them.

"I think he meant everyone, allies or not," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "So, please, whether you are the prime minister of India or the German chancellor, try to tone it down. Also, if you are an Iraqi insurgent, a leader of Hezbollah, a member of al-Qaeda, or a general enemy of the U.S., hush."

Bush's plea was backed by leading Republicans, who urged their constituents to comply with the president's request to "be quiet for seriously, like, two seconds."

"In these trying times for our president, we must show respect for his office, even if it means turning our car radios down, shushing our children, and turning off all fans," Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said. "Heck, the man just needs one measly minute."

Capitol Hill Democrats, however, have criticized Bush's call for silence, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) calling it "yet another example of Bush's inability to connect with everyday Americans, many of whom rarely, if ever, receive a moment to themselves."

"Where's their moment to think?" Pelosi said.

While Bush deemed the attempts at quiet "helpful and encouraging," he called for "literally one more second" of complete silence, saying he was "very close to getting it together and almost had it" before being interrupted by the sound of a car alarm moments ago.

Quote from: Diomedes on August 30, 2006, 01:21:09 PM
You're talking about Kyra Phillips?  I did hear it, and she did not talk about banging a married guy.  She was complaining that her brother's wife is a bitch, and that it's hard to find a "compassionate" man.

youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF6n5alsG8M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewonkette%2Ecom%2F)

QuoteTop Ten Kyra Phillips Excuses Presented by CNN Anchor Kyra Phillips:

10. "Still haven't mastered complicated On/Off switch."

9. "Larry King told me he does this all the time."

8. "How was I supposed to know we had a reporter embedded in the bathroom?"

7. "I honestly never knew this sort of thing was frowned upon."

6. "Couldn't resist chance to win $10,000 on 'America's Funniest Home Videos."'

5. "I was set up by those bastiches at Fox News."

4. "Oh, like YOU'VE never gone to the bathroom and had it broadcast on national television!"

3. "I just wanted that hunky Lou Dobbs to notice me."

2. "OK, so I was drunk and couldn't think straight."

1. "You have to admit, it made the speech a lot more interesting."

Quote from: Diomedes on December 04, 2006, 09:44:12 AM
John Bolton is a loser.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/04/bolton.resignation.ap/index.html

Quote from: FFatPatt on January 07, 2007, 10:58:40 AM
I was just about to post this.

I shudder to think about the worldwide repercussions if nuclear weapons are launched anywhere.

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on January 07, 2007, 04:06:35 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on January 07, 2007, 10:58:40 AM
I was just about to post this.

I shudder to think about the worldwide repercussions if nuclear weapons are launched anywhere.

A tactical nuclear/bunker buster is entirely different from a straight up nuclear missile.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on January 07, 2007, 04:12:23 PM

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on January 07, 2007, 04:06:35 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on January 07, 2007, 10:58:40 AM
I was just about to post this.

I shudder to think about the worldwide repercussions if nuclear weapons are launched anywhere.

A tactical nuclear/bunker buster is entirely different from a straight up nuclear missile.

Just the word "nuclear" attached would make it a monumental disaster.

Quote from: hbionic on January 08, 2007, 12:18:24 AM
End of World.

Better start buying bottled water, tents, water purifiers, instant food and check out 'how to live with radiation' at your local library.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on January 16, 2007, 05:47:37 AM
Guess who's supplying arms to Iran? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_surplus_stings)

Quote from: hbionic on January 08, 2007, 12:18:24 AM
End of World.

Better start buying bottled water, tents, water purifiers, instant food and check out 'how to live with radiation' at your local library.

Quote from: Event Horizon on January 16, 2007, 02:55:50 PM
Iran and Syria are taking delivery of Russian made anti-aircraft missiles which are able to shoot down Israeli or American aircraft from beyond their borders. Briton is sending mine sweepers to the region. The U.S. has more carriers in the region since forever. Iran claims to have downed a U.S. spy drone. Seems like a war is inevitable. Then again, there's always the possibility that America could back down and play for time. Throw the Arabs a bone (Israel), and hope to satiate their hunger for awhile. 

Quote from: Geowhizzer on January 16, 2007, 05:25:49 PM

Quote from: Event Horizon on January 16, 2007, 02:55:50 PM
Iran and Syria are taking delivery of Russian made anti-aircraft missiles which are able to shoot down Israeli or American aircraft from beyond their borders. Briton is sending mine sweepers to the region. The U.S. has more carriers in the region since forever. Iran claims to have downed a U.S. spy drone. Seems like a war is inevitable. Then again, there's always the possibility that America could back down and play for time. Throw the Arabs a bone (Israel), and hope to satiate their hunger for awhile. 

That would definitely start something nasty.  If you think the Israelis would go down quietly, you're greatly mistaken.

QuoteIran has converted one of its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep's clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.

Quote from: Diomedes on January 26, 2007, 01:09:48 PM
There's no doubt the U.S. is more than capable of defending itself.  The problem is the latter parts of your comment.

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 26, 2007, 01:59:23 PM
see the thing is tho we like to kill people more than we like to save them

QuoteThe Iranian news agency said an upcoming dramatic announcement on Iran's nuclear "rights" would be made on February 11. The report was accompanied by a series of announcements heralding alleged Iranian technological and medical breakthroughs, including an "AIDS cure."

Quote"The Iranian president also reiterated that February 11 is the day when the Iranian nation's inalienable right to access and use nuclear technology will be established," the agency added.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 23, 2007, 10:52:45 AM
if he nukes anyone, I will lose my mind

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on March 23, 2007, 11:43:24 AM
2 crazy people have a hard time talking im thinking

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on March 23, 2007, 11:58:00 AM
Ahmandinejad is losing his own country

QuoteMOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

Quote from: rjs246 on March 28, 2007, 11:46:38 AM(since this will never be approved by the Senate)

QuoteHe said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

Quote from: Diomedes on March 28, 2007, 12:10:51 PM
Bush needs to be face punched.

QuoteCaptived British sailors seen on Iranian-run TV
Tony Blair's government protests showing as 'completely unacceptable'
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press

Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Faye Turney, 26, the only woman among the British sailors seized by Iran, appears in this image made from an Iranian state-run television station broadcast.

AP/APTN, courtesy of Al-Alam
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iranian state TV showed video today of the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive who wore a white tunic and a black head scarf and said the British boats "had trespassed" in Iranian waters.

The British government protested Iran's broadcast of the captured crew as "completely unacceptable." The British military had earlier released what it called proof that its boats were in the territorial waters of Iraq -- not Iran -- when they were seized.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," British sailor Faye Turney said on the video broadcast by Al-Alam, an Arabic-language, Iranian state-run television station that is carried across the Middle East.

"They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression," she said.

Turney, 26, was shown eating with sailors and marines. At another point, she was seen sitting in a room with a floral curtains, smoking a cigarette.

"My name is leading sailman Faye Turney. I come from England. I have served in Foxtrot 99. I've been in the navy for nine years," she said.

Turney was the only person to be shown speaking in the video.

It also showed what appeared to be a handwritten letter from Turney to her family. The letter said, in part, "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering their waters."

The video also showed a brief scene of what appeared to be the British crew sitting in an Iranian boat in open waters immediately after their capture.

Before the video was broadcast, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said any showing of British personnel on TV would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

"It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television," the British Foreign Office said in a statement after the broadcast. "There is no doubt our personnel were seized in Iraqi territorial waters."

The statement also demanded that British diplomats be given immediate access to them as a "prelude" to their release.

Britain earlier said it was freezing most contacts with Iran until it freed all the crew members.

Britain's military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized the sailors and marines on Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries.

Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday -- a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters -- a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates.

Quote
Mottaki said that if the alleged entry into Iranian waters was a mistake "this can be solved. But they have to show that it was a mistake. That will help us to end this issue."

"Admitting the mistake will facilitate a solution to the problem," he said late Wednesday night in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he was attending an Arab summit.

It was the first time that Iran has publicly suggested a way to resolve the crisis, but British acquiescence appeared unlikely as the country has been insisting since the crisis began that its troops were in Iraqi waters and released a GPS readout on Wednesday to back up the claim.

Britain's military said the readout proved the Royal Navy personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. But in the interview, Mottaki said Iran had GPS devices from the British boats that showed they were in Iranian territory

Quote from: mussa on March 29, 2007, 09:45:06 AM
hmmm, ya think a warning over the radio would of been a better way to handle things. fargin iranians.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 29, 2007, 11:00:28 AM

Quote from: mussa on March 29, 2007, 09:45:06 AM
hmmm, ya think a warning over the radio would of been a better way to handle things. fargin iranians.

do you really think the Brits would have simply issued a warning over the radio?  gimme a break...they'd have done the same....and you'd be saying 'farging iranians should've stayed in their own water'

what's good for the goose....

Quote from: Diomedes on March 29, 2007, 11:36:04 AM
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/story.iran.sailor.alalam.jpg)

suits her well

Quote from: mussa on March 29, 2007, 11:35:35 AM
no i meant iranians. instead of capturing the brit soldiers, they could of at least warned them.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on March 29, 2007, 11:37:04 AM
All this is just a power grab by the Iranian president.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 29, 2007, 11:39:41 AM

Quote from: mussa on March 29, 2007, 11:35:35 AM
no i meant iranians. instead of capturing the brit soldiers, they could of at least warned them.

do you really think that, if the situation was reversed, the Brits would have issued a warning?  hell no.  they'd do the same thing. 

so how can you expect the iranians to issue a warning? 

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on March 29, 2007, 11:53:11 AM
I dont think for a second that the brits were in their waters. 

QuoteWednesday, Mar. 28, 2007
What Iran Wants with the Sailors
By Jumana Farouky/London
The warning sign is now clearer — in retrospect. On Thursday March 22, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei gave a speech pointedly telling the West that if it resorted to lawlessness, Iran would answer in kind. The next morning, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps seized 15 British Marines for allegedly straying into Iranian territorial waters. "The radicals are totally energized by what is going on right now," says a professor of political science in Iran who wishes to remain anonymous because of his ties to government officials. "The moderates have all scattered and gone quiet."

In London, any hope that this was a simple misunderstanding is all but gone. Britain has always insisted that the eight sailors and seven marines were "well inside" Iraqi waters and the Ministry of Defence today released their coordinates as proof. But, in a clear response, Iranian state television broadcast an interview with captured British sailor Faye Turney in which she appears to admit that she and the 14 other servicemen were trespassing. Prime Minister Tony Blair in a statement called the seizure of the British servicemen "completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal." He added: "It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure in order to make sure the Iranian government understands their total isolation on this issue."

But some analysts in Tehran believe it has been the failure of diplomacy that has led to the current stand-off. The Iranian leadership believed that restrained diplomacy combined with Russian and Chinese backing at the Security Council would eventually extricate the country from confrontation with the West. "Both those assumptions have failed spectacularly," says Saeed Laylaz, a former government official turned political commentator. "And now Iran is back to its familiar brand of offensive politics. It's behaving like a cornered cat that is ready to lash out."

Laylaz and others say that Tehran's detention of the British marines reflects the growing sense of threat felt by Iranian officials. "The American chokehold — political, economical, and military — is growing tighter and more effective by the day," says Laylaz. The professor of political science agrees. "This is all designed to make Iran feel vulnerable," he says. American maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, and the detention of Iranian envoys to Iraq by the U.S. military, have upset Iran's top military leaders, the professor says, and encouraged them to seek more influence over foreign policy. "They are convinced the U.S. is pursuing a regime change policy," he said. "And if the U. S. is bent on a military confrontation, the thinking goes, why let the Americans set the timing? We can take the initiative ourselves."

What does Iran want out of the standoff? "Iran is hoping to use these captives as a winning card with the West," says Laylaz. "If it releases them, it expects to be appreciated and rewarded for its good behavior. If it holds onto them, it will retain leverage."

The British are not amused at being so leveraged. In a statement to the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett announced that, on top of the stiffer U.N. sanctions agreed last Saturday, Britain will halt all other bilateral relations with Iran until the sailors and marines are released. "No one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events," she declared.

Iranians say that seizure of the Marines has raised the tension in the Persian Gulf to a level not seen since the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. However, few insiders in the Tehran regime expect a full-blown confrontation with the West. Says Laylaz: "The worst that's being imagined is an oil installation or two being hit."

What is more ominous internally is that the government may use the crisis to crackdown on domestic opposition to its brand of nuclear diplomacy. In an interview posted on the website of the state-owned newspaper Hamshahri, Minister of Information Mohsen Ejei warned that the activites of "domestic agents of the enemy" had not gone undetected by the government. Said Ejei: "The enemy is presently trying, with the aid of its domestic agents and fifth column inside the country, to wage psychological warfare." Some Iranians are probably hoping the Marines will be freed quickly.

Quote from: mussa on March 29, 2007, 11:52:19 AM
i don't care either way. i just want apocalypse now.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 29, 2007, 03:27:31 PM
this from the guy who loaded his pickup bed with snow for the traction imparted by the added load, forgetting that he parks it in a heated garage.

yeah, you'll do well at End Times.

Quote from: Diomedes on March 29, 2007, 03:27:31 PM
this from the guy who loaded his pickup bed with snow for the traction imparted by the added load, forgetting that he parks it in a heated garage.

yeah, you'll do well at End Times.

Quote from: phattymatty on March 30, 2007, 10:00:40 AM
quote from georgie at the tv and radio correspondents dinner last night:

"A year ago, my approval ratings were in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, my vice president had shot someone. [Two-beat pause] Ah, those were the good ol' days."

Quote
The e-mail came from Fort McPherson, Ga., from an Army colonel who has served in Iraq and now travels back to that land regularly. In the e-mail, the colonel griped about press coverage of the war. Samples:

— "The three-minute media blasts from so-called experts with a microphone are crippling us."

— "Wake up, America. Question what you hear from the media. It is not true merely because you see it on television."

— "Our nation is losing the stomach and the backbone to see this fight through, because the media and the liberal politicians are pandering to America's fears!"

But the author isn't Just Another Colonel. He's West Point graduate Will G. Merrill III, and he lives in O'Fallon, Mo.

But not for much longer. Merrill is back in the Regular Army after a 14-year break in the Army Reserve. He was home this week to help his wife pack for a move to Fort McPherson.

I invited him to sit down and spell out his gripes against the media. He agreed.

As you might imagine from the quotes above, Merrill calls himself a conservative. Even so, he fires his wrath across the political spectrum.

"I sat in Iraq and watched things happen and then saw it on TV a few hours later," he says, "and it was totally different. CNN is the worst, but even Fox News is bad."

Merrill tells of the Fox News crew that saw one poorly aimed rocket-propelled grenade hit a palm tree outside Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, the lodging for a horde of American journalists.

"And the reporter is on the roof of the hotel telling about 'a rocket attack and an undetermined number of casualties.' And then the camera zooms in on the burning tree.

"The impression is that the hotel is aflame and that a lot of people have been killed.

"They didn't say that. But they left that impression."

Well, television is a visual medium. What about print journalism? Do we do a better job?

"I really don't trust the media," Merrill says. "The press only covers the bad news. There are a thousand good-news stories in Iraq, but they never get into print. Nobody wants to hear about American soldiers painting an Iraqi school."

Well, I tell him, by definition, papers write about the unusual and extraordinary, not the usual and ordinary. When the lights work, that's usual. When trucks don't blow up, and when aircraft land safely, that's ordinary.

"Yeah," he agrees. "But I don't like the slant."

So why sit down with me?

Merrill says, "I'm a hometown guy, and I thought you wouldn't slander me too bad."

Then he flashes an infantryman's grin and adds, "Anyway, I know where to find you."

QuoteIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that he was freeing the 15 British sailors and marines captured on March 23. He announced the pardon minutes after he gave medals of honor to the Iranian coast guards who intercepted the Britons, saying Iran will never accept trespassing of its territorial waters.

QuoteLONDON, England (CNN) -- The 15 British military personnel captured by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf were subjected to "psychological pressure" and kept in isolation during their detention, the group's officers said on Friday.

Lt. Felix Carman of the British Royal Navy, addressing a news conference at a military base in Chivenor, southwestern England, said the sailors and marines were well outside Iranian waters when the incident occurred -- despite previous statements to the contrary while in Iranian custody.

"Irrespective of what has been said in the past, when we were detained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ... I can clearly state we were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters," Carman said. (Read the full statement)

The sailors and marines, who were seized from patrol boats on March 23, returned to the UK on Thursday after 13 days in Iranian captivity.

Lt. Carman said they were kept in isolation, interrogated and blindfolded, and subjected to "aggressive questioning and rough handling."

Members of the group had been presented with two options, said Lt. Carman: To admit having strayed into Iranian waters or face up to seven years in prison in Iran.

Capt. Christopher Air of the British Royal Marines said they had "feared the worst" during their captivity when they had been bound, blindfolded and lined up against a wall while they heard the sound of weapons being cocked. "There was a lot of trickery and mind games being played," he said. (Watch the sailors describe their experiences in captivity )

Several of the captives appeared on Iranian state television during their detention to apologize for their actions. They were also filmed meeting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and receiving gifts prior to their return to the UK. (Watch how Iran's PR plan unfolded )

Faye Turney, the one woman among the captives, had been singled out and "used as a propaganda tool," Carman said.

Iranian authorities had released several handwritten letters, allegedly by Turney, in which she said the group had been captured in Iranian waters.

Air praised Turney for maintaining her dignity after she had been separated from the 14 men. He said she had been told the rest of the group had been freed and she was the only one still being held.

Air said a "conscious decision" had been taken not to engage the Iranians who took them captive. (Watch the sailors' denial that they were in Iranian waters )

"It was clear they arrived with a planned intent," said Air. "Had we resisted there would have been a mighty fight that we could not have won and with consequences that would have major strategic impacts."

Air said some of the Iranian sailors had been "deliberately aggressive and unstable."

"They rammed our boats and turned their heavy machine guns, RPG, and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized that our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway. Nor were we able to calm some of the individuals down... They boarded our boats, removed our weapons, and steered the boats towards the Iranian shore."

Able Seaman Arthur Batchelor said the 15's treatment by the Iranians had been "humane" but they had not been allowed to communicate with each other.

UK suspends boarding operations
Meanwhile, military sources said on Friday that Britain had suspended boarding operations in the Persian Gulf and launched a review into the circumstances that led to the 15's capture and detention.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said a "detailed inquiry" was under way and that debriefings of the group would continue, the UK's Press Association reported.

First Sea Lord Jonathon Band, the head of the Royal Navy, confirmed boarding operations involving British forces had been suspended.

"For the moment we have stopped UK boarding operations," Band told BBC radio. "We will obviously do a complete review."

Band said the review of the incident would consider intelligence, equipment and procedures as well as examining the rules of engagement for British forces operating in the area.

He also defended the conduct of the 15 during their captivity, commenting that their "confessions" to Iranian state media appeared to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."

"From what I have seen of them on the television and I met them personally when they returned to their families yesterday, I think they acted with considerable dignity and a lot of courage," Band said.

He also rejected suggestions that the patrol had been "spying" and said there was "absolutely no doubt" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We are certainly not spying on them," he said. "The Iranians in that part of Iraqi territorial waters are not part of the scene."

Quote..the U.S. military spokesman said.

Quote from: Diomedes on April 11, 2007, 02:01:54 PM

Quote..the U.S. military spokesman said.

They've got about as much credibility as Iran has, so I'll pass on this little propaganda jag.

QuoteIs Bush Planning to Nuke Iran?
Paul Craig Roberts

    "It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."

    General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Press Club, February 17, 2006.

    "They will be held accountable for the decisions they make. So they should in fact not obey the illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction."

    General Peter Pace, CNN With Wolf Blitzer, April 6, 2003

The surprise decision by the Bush regime to replace General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been explained as a necessary step to avoid contentious confirmation hearings in the US Senate. Gen. Pace's reappointment would have to be confirmed, and as the general has served as vice chairman and chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the past 6 years, the Republicans feared that hearings would give war critics an opportunity to focus, in Defense Secretary Gates words, "on the past, rather than the future."

This is a plausible explanation. Whether one takes it on face value depends on how much trust one still has in a regime that has consistently lied about everything for six years.

General Pace himself says he was forced out when he refused to "take the issue off the table" by voluntarily retiring. Pace himself was sufficiently disturbed by his removal to strain his relations with the powers that be by not going quietly.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page interpreted Pace's removal as indication that "the man running the Pentagon is Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. For that matter, is George W. Bush still President?"

The Wall Street Journal editorial writers' attempt to portray Pace's departure as evidence of a weak and appeasing administration does not ring true. An administration that escalates the war in Iraq in the face of public opposition and pushes ahead with its plan to attack Iran is not an appeasing administration. Whether it is the war or Attorney General Gonzales or the immigration bill or anything else, President Bush and his Republican stalwarts have told Congress and the American people that they don't care what Congress and the public think. Bush's signing statements make it clear that he doesn't even care about the laws that Congress writes.

A president audacious enough to continue an unpopular and pointless war in the face of public opinion and a lost election is a president who is not too frightened to reappoint a general. Why does Bush run from General Pace when he fervently supports embattled Attorney General Gonzales? What troops does Bush support? He supports his toadies.

There are, of course, other explanations for General Pace's departure. The most disturbing of these explanations can be found in General Pace's two statements at the beginning of this article.

In the first statement General Pace says that every member of the US military has the absolute responsibility to disobey illegal and immoral orders. In the second statement, General Pace says that an order to use weapons of mass destruction is an illegal and immoral order.

The context of General Pace's second statement above (actually, the first statement in historical time) is his response to Blitzer's question whether the invading US troops could be attacked with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Pace's answer does not restrict illegal and immoral only to Iraqi use of WMD. It is a general statement. It applies to their use period.

Despite the illegality and immorality of first-use of nuclear weapons, the Bush Pentagon rewrote US war doctrine to permit their use regardless of their illegality and immorality. For a regime that not only believes that might is right but also that they have the might, law is what the regime says.

The revised war doctrine permits US first strike use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. We need to ask ourselves why the Bush administration would blacken America's reputation and rekindle the nuclear arms race unless the administration had plans to apply its new war doctrine.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a number of neoconservatives, prominent Jewish leaders such as Norman Podhoretz, and members of the Israeli government have called for a US attack on Iran. Most Republican presidential candidates have said that they would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

Allegedly, the US Department of State is pursuing diplomacy with Iran, not war, but Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns gives the lie to that claim. On June 12 Burns claimed that Iran was not only arming insurgents in Iraq but also the Taliban in Afghanistan. Burns' claims are, to put it mildly, controversial in the US intelligence community, and they are denied not only by Iran but also by our puppet government in Afghanistan. On June 14, Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told the Associated Press that Burns' claim has no credibility.

But, of course, none of the administration's propagandistic claims that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq had any credibility either, and the lack of credibility did not prevent the claims from deceiving the Congress and the American people. As the US media now function as the administration's Ministry of Propaganda, the Bush regime believes that it can stampede Americans with lies into another war.

The Bush regime has concluded that a conventional attack on Iran would do no more than stir up a hornet's nest and release retaliatory actions that the US could not manage. The Bush regime is convinced that only nuclear weapons can bring the mullahs to heel.

The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts General Pace's departure in a different light. How can President Bush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order is "illegal and immoral" and that everyone in the military has an "absolute responsibility" to disobey it?

An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.

Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Iran, thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" (NSPD-51 AND HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May 9. Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush declares a national emergency, he can take over all functions of government at every level, as well as private organizations and businesses, and remain in total control until he declares the emergency to be over.

Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power?

What is the necessity of such a sweeping directive subject to no check or ratification?

What catastrophic emergency short of a massive attack on the US with nuclear ICBMs can possibly justify such a directive?

There is no obvious answer to the question. The federal government's inability to respond to Hurricane Katrina is hard evidence that centralizing power in one office is not the way to deal with catastrophes.

A speculative answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, the directive could be triggered by a US nuclear attack on Iran. The use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A US nuclear attack would send Russian and Chinese ICBMs into high alert. False flag operations could be staged in the US. The US media would hype such developments to the hilt, portraying danger everywhere. Fear of the regime's new detention centers would silence most voices of protest as the regime declares its "national emergency."

This might sound like a far-out fiction novel, but it is a scenario that would explain the Bush regime's lack concern that the shrinking Republican vote that foretells a massive Republican wipeout in the 2008 election. In a declared national emergency, there would be no election.

As implausible as this might sound to people who trust the government, be aware that despite his rhetoric, Bush has no respect for democracy. His neoconservative advisors have all been taught that it is their duty to circumvent democracy, as democracy does not produce the right decisions. Neoconservatives believe in rule by elites, and they regard themselves as the elite. The Bush regime decided that Americans would not agree to an invasion of Iraq unless they were deceived and tricked into it, and so we were.

Indeed, democracy is out of favor throughout the Western world. In the UK and Europe, peoples are being forced, despite their expressed opposition, into an EU identity that they reject. British PM Tony Blair and his European counterparts have decided on their own that the people do not know best and that the people will be ignored. As former French PM Valery Giscard d'Estaing told the French newspaper, Le Monde, "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly." Giscard d'Estaing is referring to the resurrection of the rejected EU constitution camouflaged as a treaty. Giscard d'Estaing acknowledges that 450 million Europeans are being hoodwinked. Why should Americans be surprised that they have been and are being hoodwinked?

Americans might have more awareness of their peril if they realized that their leaders no longer believe in democratic outcomes.

Quote from: Geowhizzer on June 24, 2007, 08:54:02 AM
What if you don't trust any media?

Quote from: MURP on August 21, 2007, 08:59:42 PM
Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_CIA_agent_US_to_attack_0821.html)

Quote from: Jerome99RIP on August 21, 2007, 09:59:25 PM
The only explanation I can offer for this administration attacking Iran would be that they've totally lost their minds or they really do want to bring about the extinction of the planet.

Do they really believe Russia & China wouldn't retaliate on behalf of Iran if we attacked?

Jesus. . . 

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 22, 2007, 08:43:16 AM
we should have put 250,000 troops shoulder to shoulder in southern afghanistan and marched up thru hindu kush until every last member of al queda (and the taliban if they intereferred) was killed...end of story

Quote from: Philly Crew on August 22, 2007, 09:16:44 AM
I certainly don't want an attack on Iran, but I don't think Russia and China would retaliate.  They would howl and scream at the U.N. and send money and weapons to Iran.

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on August 22, 2007, 09:18:19 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on August 22, 2007, 08:43:16 AM
we should have put 250,000 troops shoulder to shoulder in southern afghanistan and marched up thru hindu kush until every last member of al queda (and the taliban if they intereferred) was killed...end of story

The TRUTH...Problem is would that have looked worse in the minds of Muslims? 

Quote from: Diomedes on August 22, 2007, 06:38:40 AM
you're farging crazy. 

Quote from: Drunkmasterflex on August 22, 2007, 10:43:16 PMYou are just figuring this out now.

Quote from: Father Demon on September 04, 2007, 08:23:49 AM
Good. 

"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

QuoteThe website is very busy at the moment.

Please try again in a few minutes.

In the meantime we apologise for the disruption.

Quote from: ice grillin you on October 17, 2007, 09:16:07 AM
no way is there enough time for bush to invade in his time left

QuoteCongress's 'Virtual Iran War Resolution'
by Rep. Ron Paul

Statement on House Congressional Resolution 362 before the US House of Representatives, June 28, 2008

Today the Dow Jones Average was down 350-some points, gold was up $32, and oil was up another $5. There is a lot of chaos out there and everyone is worried about $4 gasoline. But I don't think there is a clear understanding [of] exactly why that has occurred.

We do know that there is a supply and demand issue, but there are other reasons for the high cost of energy. One is inflation. In order to pay for the war that has been going on, and the domestic spending, we've been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve and they create new money, and in the last three years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and the banking system, has created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy and $4 per gallon gasoline.

But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight, and that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the fear factor dealing with our foreign policy. In the last several weeks, if not for months, we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple. It is just the thought of it right now that is helping to push these energy prices up. And that is a very real thing going on right now.

But to me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle. And I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran!

Leaders on both sides of the aisle, and in the administration, have all said so often, "No options should be taken off the table – including a nuclear first strike on Iran." The fear is, they say, maybe someday [Iran is] going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA's National Intelligence Estimate has said that the Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they're enriching uranium, but they have no evidence whatsoever that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the non-proliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and El Baradei has verified that in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the Iranian nuclear structure and they have never been found to be in violation. And yet, this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war – starting bombing for this reason, without negotiations, without talks.

Now the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension. It will be expected to be passed easily. It probably will be. And it is just more war propaganda, just more preparation to go to war against Iran.

This resolution, H.J. Res 362 [listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we're telling the President what he must do:

"This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials."

This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children – 500,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.

And it is not true today about the severity [of the need to attack Iran]. But they say, "Yeah, but Ahmadinejad – he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence." But you know what? Us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must look at this carefully. We just can't go to war again under these careless, frivolous conditions.

Quote from: FastFreddie on July 14, 2008, 09:32:32 AM
Bush admin looking to pull troops from Iraq, likely redeploy to Afghanistan. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/13military.php)

QuoteSPECIAL REPORT: Kuwait Readying for War in Gulf?
By CLAUDE SALHANI (Editor, Middle East Times)Published: August 11, 2008
Leading the U.S. and British naval battle groups, and a French hunter-killer submarine, headed for the Gulf is the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (shown here) with its 80-plus combat planes. (Photo by CVN 71 via Newscom).
TOOLBAR
Print Story
Add Comments
The small oil-rich emirate of Kuwait – situated between Iraq, Iran and an un-enviable geographic hard place on the northern end of the Persian Gulf – has reportedly activated its "Emergency War Plan" as a massive U.S. and European armada is reported heading for the region.

Coming on the heels of Operation Brimstone just a week ago that saw U.S., British and French naval forces participate in war games in the Atlantic Ocean, the object of which was to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran, the joint task force is now headed for the Gulf and what could easily turn into a major confrontation with Iran.


The naval force comprises a U.S. Navy super carrier battle group and is accompanied by an expeditionary carrier battle group, a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

Leading the pack is the nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two; besides its 80-plus combat planes the Roosevelt normally transports, it is carrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, currently in dry dock.


Also reported heading toward Iran is another nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan and its Carrier Strike Group Seven; the USS Iwo Jima, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and a number of French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste.


Once the naval force arrives in the Gulf region it will be joining two other U.S. naval battle groups already on site: the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu; the Lincoln with its carrier strike group and the latter with an expeditionary strike group.


Telephone calls to the Pentagon were not returned by publication time.


This deployment is the largest naval task force from the United States and allied countries to assemble in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf since the two Gulf wars.


The object of the naval deployment would be to enforce an eventual blockade on Iran, if as expected by many observers, current negotiations with the Islamic republic over its insistence to pursue enrichment of uranium, allowing it, eventually, to produce nuclear weapons yields no results.


Adding to the volatility is the presence of a major Russian navy deployment affected earlier this year to the eastern Mediterranean comprising the jewel of the Russian fleet, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov with approximately 50 Su-33 warplanes that have the capacity for mid-air refueling. This means the Russian warplanes could reach the Gulf from the Mediterranean, a distance of some 850 miles and would be forced to fly over Syria (not a problem) but Iraq as well, where the skies are controlled by the U.S. military, and the guided missile heavy cruiser Moskva. The Russian task force is believed to be composed of no less than a dozen warships as well as several submarines.


However, Russia is unlikely to get involved in a military showdown in the Persian Gulf, particularly at this time when it is engaged in a major confrontation with the Republic of Georgia in South Ossetia.


For Iran however, a naval blockade preventing it from importing refined oil would have devastating effects on its economy, virtually crippling the Islamic republic's infrastructure. Although Iran is a major oil producer and exporter, the country lacks refining facilities having to re-import its own oil once refined.


Iran's oil – both the exported crude as well as the returning refined product – passes through the strategic Straits of Hormuz, controlled by Iran on one side and the Sultanate of Oman – a U.S. ally – on the other. The strait is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest point, making it easy to control, but at the same time placing Western naval vessels within easy reach of Iran's Revolutionary Guards fast moving light crafts that could be used by Iranian suicide bombers.


Although Kuwait is on the opposite end of the entrance to the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, Kuwait City is less than 60 miles from Iran – and with good reason to worry.


"Kuwait was caught by surprise last time, when Iraqi troops invaded the small emirate and routed the Kuwaiti army in just a few hours," a former U.S. diplomat to Kuwait told the Middle East Times.

Quote
Israel is monitoring two Iranian warships about to pass through the Suez Canal for Syria and warn they might act.

The Israeli Navy will be tracking the two warships as they cross the Suez Canal for the Mediterranean Sea, according to defense officials.

Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a statement that it had alerted "friendly nations" about the warships, Reuters reports.

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says that "Israel cannot ignore these provocations," according to ynetnews.com.

"Unfortunately, the international community is not ready to deal with Iran's repeated provocations," Lieberman said, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Lieberman added that the warships were "a provocation that proves Iran's nerve and self-esteem is growing from day to day."

The Egyptian body that runs the Suez Canal denied the claim.

Ahmed el-Manakhli, head of the canal operations room, said warships must get permission 48 hours before crossing, and "so far, we have not been notified."

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an e-mailed statement that "Israel is closely following the movements of the Iranian ships and has updated friendly states on the issue. Israel will continue to follow the ships movements."

Meanwhile, Iran has announced plans to deploy warships near Israel and dock at a Syrian port for a year, IsraelNationalNews.com reports.

A senior Israeli official tells the site that "Israel will know how to deal with it."

Intelligence officials believe that the Iranian warships might be involved in supplying radical Islamic groups in Yemen with weapons, according to UPI.com.

Quote from: ice grillin you on February 17, 2011, 09:19:37 AM
shtein might get interesting....

Quote
Israel is monitoring two Iranian warships about to pass through the Suez Canal for Syria and warn they might act.

The Israeli Navy will be tracking the two warships as they cross the Suez Canal for the Mediterranean Sea, according to defense officials.

Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a statement that it had alerted "friendly nations" about the warships, Reuters reports.

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says that "Israel cannot ignore these provocations," according to ynetnews.com.

"Unfortunately, the international community is not ready to deal with Iran's repeated provocations," Lieberman said, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Lieberman added that the warships were "a provocation that proves Iran's nerve and self-esteem is growing from day to day."

The Egyptian body that runs the Suez Canal denied the claim.

Ahmed el-Manakhli, head of the canal operations room, said warships must get permission 48 hours before crossing, and "so far, we have not been notified."

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an e-mailed statement that "Israel is closely following the movements of the Iranian ships and has updated friendly states on the issue. Israel will continue to follow the ships movements."

Meanwhile, Iran has announced plans to deploy warships near Israel and dock at a Syrian port for a year, IsraelNationalNews.com reports.

A senior Israeli official tells the site that "Israel will know how to deal with it."

Intelligence officials believe that the Iranian warships might be involved in supplying radical Islamic groups in Yemen with weapons, according to UPI.com.

QuoteISMAILIA, Egypt — The Suez Canal has been told that plans by two Iranian naval ships to cross the waterway were canceled, an official said on Thursday, removing a potential policy headache for Egypt's new army rulers.

QuoteCAIRO — Egypt has agreed to let two Iranian naval vessels transit the Suez Canal, a move that comes despite expressions of concern by Israeli officials, the Egyptian-government's MENA news agency reported Friday.

Quote from: Mad-Lad on February 08, 2006, 01:25:31 PM
the Mayan calendar ends in what, 2012?  I can only hope the Eagles win a championship before then.

Quote from: Rome on December 28, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/irans-navy-chief-says-it-would-be-easy-to-close-strait-of-hormuz-strategic-passage-for-oil/2011/12/28/gIQA3fg6LP_story.html

This shtein is going to end ugly for Iran.  I can only hope it doesn't end up being the spark that ignites WWIII.

QuoteAn Iranian military commander said that his country has detailed contingency plans to strike nearly three dozen U.S. military bases in the region should Iran be attacked, local media reported Wednesday.

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 06, 2012, 08:53:40 AM
the irony is that more than maybe any other muslim country iranian citizens really like and look up to the US....probably because its one of the few weve never bombed or based troops in

i actually want iran to get nucleur nuclear weapons...it pretty much guarantees we will never have a war with them...no better deterrent to war than nukes...in fact since the advent of nucleur nuclear weapons no two countries have ever warred and had nukes

Quote from: shorebird on September 16, 2012, 09:17:12 AM

Quote from: ice grillin you on July 06, 2012, 08:53:40 AM
the irony is that more than maybe any other muslim country iranian citizens really like and look up to the US....probably because its one of the few weve never bombed or based troops in

i actually want iran to get nucleur nuclear weapons...it pretty much guarantees we will never have a war with them...no better deterrent to war than nukes...in fact since the advent of nucleur nuclear weapons no two countries have ever warred and had nukes

I don't know about that, but I've always wondered why the U.S. government thinks it's up to them to decide who get nukes and who doesn't. What gives us the right? It's ironic that the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons on an enemy is supposed to be the country who decides what countries can have them.

Quote from: shorebird on September 16, 2012, 09:17:12 AM
I don't know about that, but I've always wondered why the U.S. government thinks it's up to them to decide who get nukes and who doesn't. What gives us the right? It's ironic that the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons on an enemy is supposed to be the country who decides what countries can have them.

Quote from: Eagaholic on September 16, 2012, 09:40:02 PM
As for Iran getting nukes as a deterrent, worst idea ever. Basing an idea on logic is irrational when dealing with people who are insane. Same goes for N Korea.

Quote from: Rome on August 02, 2013, 08:29:39 AM
That is what passes for "moderation" in Iranian leaders.

Quote"In our region, a sore has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world for many years, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. This day is in fact a reminder of the fact that Muslim people will not forgot their historic right and will continue to stand against aggression and tyranny."

Quote from: SD on February 08, 2014, 10:41:00 PM
Our Captain was laughing at them on the bridge, we could have sank both ships before they knew what happened.

Quote from: MURP on May 08, 2006, 02:32:49 PM
can we atleast put the end of the world on hold until the Eagles actually win a SB.

Quote from: Diomedes on October 11, 2023, 08:32:12 PMOooh boy.

Hamas is not Palestine/the Palestinian people.  Hamas is a gang.  Gangs flourish in ghettos.  Gaza is a ghetto.  Israel makes sure of that.

Quote"The rapid and unimpeded access of relief via a humanitarian corridor is essential to address the urgent needs of civilians in Gaza," Trudeau said in a statement. "Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people nor their legitimate aspirations. Canada fully supports Israel's right to defend itself in accordance with international law. We continue to call for the immediate release of all hostages and demand that they be treated in accordance with international law."