The Iran Thread

[Gilpesh]

I have money on a good late august start. That way it is close enough to bring up 9/11 and mumble something about terrorists and how Iran had a hand in 9/11 and all that.

[The Senator]

As far as I'm concerned, Iran's nuclear program is something which should be dealt with by the Israelis. They're the ones who have the most to lose if Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Although I think Israel would feel much safer...how is a Nuclear Attack on Israel even fathomable considering they have more Nukes (including Hydrogen and Nuetron Bombs) than anybody else in the MIddle East?

Also if Iran did have the nuclear capability, wouldn't the fall out hit Arab nations around Israel?

To me, this is all about US strategic goals, that is, to secure OIL (Iran has a huge supply) and prevent fundamentalist Iran from becoming more powerful and a global player.

[The Senator]

Although I think Israel would feel much safer...how is a Nuclear Attack on Israel even fathomable considering they have more Nukes (including Hydrogen and Nuetron Bombs) than anybody else in the MIddle East?

Also if Iran did have the nuclear capability, wouldn't the fall out hit Arab nations around Israel?

To me, this is all about US strategic goals, that is, to secure OIL (Iran has a huge supply) and prevent fundamentalist Iran from becoming more powerful and a global player.

I'd love to play conspiracy theorist, but my point stands as this and I will not discuss it further:

1) Ahmadinejad has made numerous anti-Israel comments, even stating that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map

2) Even if his comments are irrelevant to this incident, in my knowledge of nuclear power (which I do know a thing or two about), the way Iran's nuclear program is set up is done so in a way which reeks of suspicion. They don't need 95% enrichment for energy purposes; every country which has enriched uranium to that extent has built nuclear weapons.

3) I'm not saying anything about the hypocrisy of other nations; this is irrelevant to my point. My point is that this is a military issue which should be left to the Iranians and the Israelis.

4) Finally, an attack on Israel is fathomable considering all it takes is one nuclear weapon. If Iran has one nuclear weapon, and they detonate it on Israeli soil, then it doesn't matter how many nukes Israel may or may not have. The Iranians still detonated a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad and the Ayotollahs-- which have shown support for Ahmadinejad's remarks about seeing Israel wiped off the map-- do not have to act rationally; if they believe the Muslim world will benefit from destroying Israel, then they will not think about the other nations in the Middle East and the fallout which will ensue.

So, to repeat, I believe this is a military issue which should be left to the Israelis and the Iranians, because they are the only ones who matter in this scenario. If the U.S. wants to be involved diplomatically, fine; but we do not have the necessary resources to fight a war in Iran right now.

Now, I am done discussing this topic, as it has been discussed on this forum before and I do not wish to discuss it again.

[Hobgoblin]

Although I think Israel would feel much safer...how is a Nuclear Attack on Israel even fathomable considering they have more Nukes (including Hydrogen and Nuetron Bombs) than anybody else in the MIddle East?

Also if Iran did have the nuclear capability, wouldn't the fall out hit Arab nations around Israel?

To me, this is all about US strategic goals, that is, to secure OIL (Iran has a huge supply) and prevent fundamentalist Iran from becoming more powerful and a global player.

Those are all things that would keep a sane person from launching some nukes. But Amanutjob wants to bring about the appearance of the 13th Imam, and thus the final conflict between Islam and the rest of the world, in which Islam will triumph over evil. (His beliefs, not mine.)

The deaths of fellow Muslims due to the attack on Israel and the resulting Israeli counter attack is irrelevant in his mind.

As for Israel or the US actually bombing Iran by the end of this year...meh, I doubt it. If it were to happen, we would be hearing more about the run up to the bombing in the media. As for bombing the nuclear sites sometime in the future, well...thats more of a possibility.

EDIT
Just found this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in%2C-John-Bolton-predicts.html

[Marx]

Ok we all know that Israel has been playing wargames and the US has been making threats and there are rumours that President Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office.

So the question is, who's going to do it, why will it happen? Is this a good move and what is at stake here? Also, does big Oil play a motive?

--

Let the countdown begin!

How could you honestly believe that bombing Iran and STARTING ANOTHER WAR is a good idea? Iraq has been a disaster and Afghanistan is falling apart.

Starting another war just screams "responsibility." Doesn't it? :whatever:

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I can't stand the thought of starting another war (which is what bombing Iran would cause) when our military is already stretched beyond its limit!

[hippie_hunter]

If Iraq were a more successful campaign, then yes I think that Iran would have been the next nation that Bush would try to topple. But considering that it hasn't along with problems going on in Afghanistan thanks to Bush's neglect, there's no way in hell that it's going to happen.

Frankly I'm starting to think that this war with Iran is just another crazy leftist rumor like the US government being behind the attacks on 9-11 that has no real basis.

[Kelly]

My bet is that Israel will do it before us, but we will still get blamed for it by Iran.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I don't think so. Iran is strong enough to fight back,if anything I think Iraq was a failed rush of anger by the right wingers. Which is why they are the only ones who support it still..

[Handsome Rob]

Honestly, the only "bombing" I see coming Iran's way is a surgical strike on their nuclear facilities, and I'd wager that it will be the Israeli Air Force that carries it out. They did it to Iraq in 1981--I'm sure they won't hesitate to do it, again.

[kane9321]

its gonna happen soon..reallllll soon

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think so. Iran is strong enough to fight back,

That too. I can't believe I forgot the most obvious reason.

[Hobgoblin]

Honestly, the only "bombing" I see coming Iran's way is a surgical strike on their nuclear facilities, and I'd wager that it will be the Israeli Air Force that carries it out. They did it to Iraq in 1981--I'm sure they won't hesitate to do it, again.

Thats what I'm thinking would happen. I suppose from a military standpoint its the best option but its still pretty damn dangerous. Iran isnt going to sit by and let itself be attacked. They will retaliate, against both Israel and the US. Iran is the #1 supporter of terrorists on the planet so they could screw with us any number of ways, including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments. That would really hurt.


That is, if Israel actually targets Iran's nuke programs.

[Kelly]

I don't think so. Iran is strong enough to fight back,if anything I think Iraq was a failed rush of anger by the right wingers. Which is why they are the only ones who support it still..

Iran could fight Israel, but they wouldn't win. Israel would kick their ass efficiently and completely, and unfortunately, the US would be blamed for the entire thing. Why? because we train their fighter pilots, we have sold them plenty of "bunker busters" etc, etc, etc. If they do it while Bush is still in office, we will say "don't do it", and do nothing. I cannot say what our next president might do, or not do.

Israel does have the capability of targeting and hitting exactly what they want to hit.

[Matt]

What scares me about the notion of Israel bombing Iran, is while Iran may not have full on nuclear war heads, they are more than capable of producing a dirty bomb and I do believe, if their power was threatened, they would use it on the "infadel state," and the scary part about that is, Israel has second strike capabilities.

[DACrowe]

I think it is just conspiracy theorists who believe the US will initiate a war with Iran in the next several months. Quite frankly we are stretched so thin as it is we've basically ****ed up Afghanistan and no one cares, except the troops that the media has become complacent about.

But I wouldn't rule out a war occurring. Now this is just my hypothesis and I'm no expert, but I think if it comes down to war it will be Israel who pulls the trigger. I could see Israel sometime before the end of this year launching a campaign into Iran. In which case the US would secure the Iraq/Iran border (and likely take out anti-aircraft in that area) and possibly provide arial support. But I don't see us occupying or putting troops much beyond the border in Iran. We may have airmen trying to bomb the **** out of it. But it will be Israel's call in the end, which ultimately is not a representative of US politics, despite what some people to think.

How would this affect US politics? I dunno. I think if there is heavy fighting many could want to rally around McCain as he is "Military Man," but this could fall into Obama's stance of "politics as usual" and push for diplomacy and a war-tired nation may rally behind him. It could go either way.

[Midnyte_Sun]

I think you guys are missing one important point..if Iran is going to be bombed and Israel is going to do the dirty work...it would be with the help of American intelligence and Ameircan made bombs. It will always be a joint strike.

Iran bombing the US in retaliation to Israeli bombings doesn't sound like a good idea. I don't think they want to provoke the US in bombing campaigns since US has bases of operation in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Iraq (all neighbors to Iran) AND certainly not least, in the Persian Gulf.

At the most they could do is start sending out more weapons to Hezbollah and other *****e militia groups via Syria, and possibly making dirty deals with the Taliban in Afghanistan.


The question is, if Iran does retalitate back, will the US stand idly by? I just can't see that happenning.

Just know whenever Israel or US strike, expect Gas speculators to kill us at the pump yet again.

[Matt]

Iran does not have the capabilities to bomb the US. They do have the capablities to sneak a dirty bomb into Israel and if they do that, Israel has second strike capabilities, Israel would have to nuke them and if Israel nuked Iran...well, that is a scary scenario.

[Midnyte_Sun]

I should be mores specific when I mean US, in that US bases in the Middle East bordering it (ie. Afghanistan, Iraq).

[Midnyte_Sun]

I should be more specific when I mean US, in that US bases in the Middle East bordering it (ie. Afghanistan, Iraq).

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm

[lazur]

Iran and Israel will wind up pulling the entire world into a world war on a scale we have never seen.

I hope Bush keeps his finger OFF the button for his remaining time and allows the next President to handle this mess.

[StorminNorman]

I personally fear what Israel may do to Iran - though I can't condemn them either.

The next leader of Israel is going to be a Conservative one. He will be likely to support military action in Iran which will then create a war between Israel and the Middle East as a whole. That is a war America WILL be dragged into, while at the same time gas prices will go sky rocketing and the world wide economy will be dragged into even more trouble.

With the statements of the Iranian leader who is seeking a nuclear bomb though, I can hardly blame Israel for wanting to strike first.

Its an incredibly difficult issue.

[Hobgoblin]

Iranian officials harden their position.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iran-nuclear_26jun26,0,7189799.story

[Hobgoblin]

Double post.

[DACrowe]

****'s not looking good is it? :)

[BlackLantern]

I think if someone does something to Iran, it will be one of her neighbors or Israel

[Marx]

I think if someone does something to Iran, it will be one of her neighbors or Israel

And Iran will retaliate with the power of a thousand suns! It is not a wise decision to mess with Ahmedinijad and Iran.

[BlackLantern]

Ahmedinijad just needs to be given enough rope and someone will get tired of his crap....I have an odd feeling some type of revolt could happen within Iran in the next couple years

[Marx]

Ahmedinijad just needs to be given enough rope and someone will get tired of his crap....I have an odd feeling some type of revolt could happen within Iran in the next couple years

I would not be surprised to see some sort of uprising in Iran. Ahmedinijad has approval ratings similar to Bush.

[Raiden]

I would not be surprised to see some sort of uprising in Iran. Ahmedinijad has approval ratings similar to Bush.

I hope so, but like Ahmedinijad Bush hasn't retreat from his policies nor rhetorics despite his low approval rating.

[Marx]

Report: US 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html




(At some point, this has to stop.)

[Midnyte_Sun]

70,000 Strong Iranian exile community group support armed opposition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7479681.stm

[Hobgoblin]

Report: US 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html




(At some point, this has to stop.)

Well, thats a pretty definite period of time, isn't it? (Fighting to be started by the end of Bush's term.) I cant see how a war with Iran could be pulled off. We barely have Iraq under control with the 100,000+ troops we have there. How are we supposed to fight Iran when we are so thinly stretched already?

At the very least, we will know if this reporter is full of crap in a few months.

[Alex The Great]

i just hope Canada don't get involved in this ****.

It's America's War (and kinda there fault) so why should we help em?
sure there are allies and junk but really. Has Canada EVER had a terrorist attack/invasion? If i can recall. No. oh well.

If the US does Bomb Iran then this won't end well....really.

[Marx]

Bush moves to downplay rumors of war
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/bush-moves-to-downplay-rumors-of-war/

[Hobgoblin]

And the international smack talk continues.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/09/iran.missiles/index.html

[Lightning Strykez!]

How could you honestly believe that bombing Iran and STARTING ANOTHER WAR is a good idea? Iraq has been a disaster and Afghanistan is falling apart.

Starting another war just screams "responsibility." Doesn't it? :whatever:

I apologize for the sarcasm, but I can't stand the thought of starting another war (which is what bombing Iran would cause) when our military is already stretched beyond its limit!

Agreed. :up: Good point.

It would be absolutely STUPID of Bush to try something like this on his way out the door...but then again, we are talking about George W. Bush. :rolleyes:

[Marx]

Agreed. :up: Good point.

It would be absolutely STUPID of Bush to try something like this on his way out the door...but then again, we are talking about George W. Bush. :rolleyes:

Another war with a country like Iran would spell disaster for this country. I would really like to believe that Bush wouldn't pull something like this so close to the end of his term. (As much as I can't stand him or this administration, and as reckless and irresponsible as they have been...if he went through with it I would honestly be shocked.)

Even if it is something as "simple" as a tactical missle strike, Ahmedinijad will react, and with full force claiming that any attack on his country was a declaration of war.

[Hobgoblin]

You're probably getting tired of this, but it continues. An Iran War would be terrible for America, but it may not have a choice if Israel gets really nervous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7500342.stm

[Superman4ever]

I just saw this interview and thought I'd resurrect this thread:

nRWX53-Ofqc

BTW, when the hell was Mr. Sparkle banned?

[The Senator]

hahaha do you take like a course in Jingoism?
do you actually know of the US relationship with the SAME EXACT nutjobs that you now decry, the active relationship that financed their wars and the fact that the US pretty much put them in power, not only that, but after seeing what these cats were capable of doing during the Afghan war when it came to foreigners on their soil?

they put military bases all over the damned middle east.
and, while we are talking about "responsibility" did you know that the US was instrumental in pushing back democracy in Iran, so much so that Madeleine Albright admitted in 2000 that the US/CIA financed and planned "operation Ajax" what was operation Ajax you ask? why the plan to overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran, to install a Pro-west ( and we all know that this doesn't mean pro-Mexico) Dictator, that's right, the US super-awesome bastion of freedom and democracy admits to having installed a dictator, a move which has been credited as a more than considerable contribution to the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran.

so while YOU not knowing history might not be ready to " accept responsibility" those of us that actually read about stuff that happened in the past (that's history BTW) know better.
see, it's not just about the Koran, if any other superpower removed a democratically elected official and replaced him with a pro-them dictator you would be calling for their heads on a platter.
let's see how objective you can be about this.

btw the reason for operation Ajax ( for those of you at home, the removal of the elected official and the installment of a dictator) was OIL!

oh Mr Sparkle, there you go again with your paranoid delusions right?
except both the British and the Americans agreed that this was about Iran nationalizing their oil production, so in effect the US was instrumental in removing the only democratic government the region ever had just so the Brits could have their oil concession back.

yay history.

you'll notice the Koran and the Virgins had nothing to do with it.:cwink:



This is one of the best posts written in this forum.

Oh Mr Sparkle, where does the time go? :csad:

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack. Some western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon's Shia movement Hizbollah to strike at the US.

"It's over ten years since Hizbollah's last terror strike outside Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos Aires [killing 85 people]", said one official. "There is a large Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hizbollah supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action".

Even if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission.

"The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of an uranium enrichment plant.

In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US.

Several high-level Israeli officials have hinted over the last two years that Israel might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans.

Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis.

Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear programme in the dying weeks of Bush's term.

During Saddam Hussein's rule in 1981, Israeli aircraft successfully destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was due to start operating.

Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.

In contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, which are officially described as intended only for civilian purposes, are dispersed around the country and some are in fortified bunkers underground.

In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded. In a speech to the Knesset the following day he confined himself to telling Israel's parliament: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests".

Three weeks after Bush's red light, on June 2, Israel mounted a massive air exercise covering several hundred miles in the eastern Mediterranean. It involved dozens of warplanes, including F-15s, F-16s and aerial refueling tankers.

The size and scope of the exercise ensured that the US and other nations in the region saw it, said a US official, who estimated the distance was about the same as from Israel to Natanz.

A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

The exercise and Mofaz's comments may have been designed to boost the Israeli government and military's own morale as well, perhaps, to persuade Bush to reconsider his veto. Last week Mofaz narrowly lost a primary within the ruling Kadima party to become Israel's next prime minister. Tzipi Livni, who won the contest, takes a less hawkish position.

The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option.

The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters.

Looks like things might settle down after all. Its the highlighted part that concerns me. Is it likely? I dont know.

[Superman4ever]

This is one of the best posts written in this forum.

Oh Mr Sparkle, where does the time go? :csad:

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

:waa:

[The Overlord]

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

:waa:


Likely because he broke the rules and got banned, no offense to Mr. Sparkle, but he was a bit too full of himself sometimes and tended to be pretty rude to anyone who dared to disagree with him.

[The Senator]

It's ownage on epic scales. What happened to Mr. Sparkle?

:waa:

He told Super Kal and Moviefan that they were homosexuals because they were not currently involved in heterosexual relationships, basically arguing against the idea that homosexuals choose to be gay, since heterosexuals obviously don't make a choice to be straight.

That apparently was the straw which broke the moderators' back.

[Hobgoblin]

The past few days have seen some conflicts over the state and quality of Iran's nuclear program. We have had Sec Gates say that the Iranian regime is not close to nuclear weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5201Y920090301


By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

Gates' comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN's "State of the Union" that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

"We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen said.

Mullen had been asked about a watchdog report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month that said Iran had built up a stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The reported stockpile of 1,010 kg would be enough -- if converted into highly-enriched uranium -- to make a bomb, analysts have said.

The United States suspects Iran of trying to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran insists it is purely for the peaceful generation of electricity.

Gates said there has been "a continuing focus on how do you get the Iranians to walk away from a nuclear weapons program" in the Obama and Bush administrations.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration favors diplomatic engagement with Tehran to defuse the dispute over its nuclear intentions, but has called Iran's nuclear program an "urgent problem" the international community must address.

The challenge, Gates said, is finding a balance between sanctions to pressure Iran and incentives for engagement with the United States and Europe. A sharp decline in oil prices since last year increases the chances for a resolution. "There are economic costs to this program; they (the Iranians) do face economic challenges at home."

MULLEN TALKS OF 'VERY BAD OUTCOME'

U.S. spy agencies believe Iran lacks enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb, but cannot rule it out, Adm. Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told Congress last month.

"Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material but (we) still judge it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon," he said. "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad or will acquire in the future a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon."

He reiterated a view that Iran was undertaking two of three activities needed for a nuclear arms program -- developing uranium-enrichment technology and nuclear-capable ballistic missile systems. U.S. intelligence agencies have said Iran suspended developing a nuclear warhead, the third activity.

"Iran having nuclear weapons, I've believed for a long time, is a very very bad outcome -- for the region and for the world," Mullen said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta last week declined to discuss any possible new U.S. policies being considered in this area, saying this is classified.

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen; Editing by Randall Mikkelsen and Doina Chiacu)

And we've had some more alarming statements from Adm. Mike Mullen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mullen_iran


Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer – Mon Mar 2, 12:29 am ET

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a "very, very bad outcome" should Tehran move forward with a bomb.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the assessment when questioned in a broadcast interview about a recent report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the state of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can create nuclear fuel and may be sufficiently advanced to produce the core of warheads.

Mullen was asked if Iran now had enough fissile material to make a bomb. He responded, "We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I've believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

Mullen's spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said Mullen was referring only to the International Atomic Energy Agency's finding that Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

Experts differ on whether that stockpile is enough to allow Iran to further refine the material and arm one weapon, should it choose to do so. Experts also disagree about how long it would take Iran to make the leap to a deployable weapon. Iran is continuing an accelerated nuclear development program.

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

"There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government" on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, "We just don't know" exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

"We are concerned they are getting close" to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are "not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time" for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report "confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program."

Iran, now subjected to various penalties by the U.N., the U.S. and others over its nuclear program, denies it wants to build a bomb. It asserts its program is intended to provide the country with the homegrown ability to generate electricity from nuclear reactors.

So far, the U.S. has not relented in its claims that Iran has ambitions to join the club of nuclear-armed nations. Mullen seemed to restate that position in his remarks on CNN's "State of the Union." He was not asked to elaborate.

Under an international nuclear treaty it has signed, Iran has the right to develop a civilian program for the nuclear generation of electricity. But any such program must be open to international inspection. Iran has balked at that after it became known in past years that the country had hidden portions of its nuclear effort that could be linked to a weapons program.

At issue now is Iran's uranium enrichment efforts. The Bush administration insisted that was a precursor to making weapons-grade materials. President Barack Obama has sought to change course with Iran, offering diplomatic engagement in a bid to prove Tehran has more to lose by ignoring the wishes of other countries than it has to gain through its nuclear efforts.

"The question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us and so on if they walk away from that program," Gates said. "Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home."

Days after Obama announced his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Mullen and Gates made clear their support for the commander in chief's approach.

Mullen said he was comfortable with the decision, while noting he was reluctant to talk about "winning and losing" in Iraq. Rather, he said, the conditions are in place for the Baghdad government to successfully take control of the country.

Mullen said Obama listened extensively to the American military leadership and U.S. commanders in Iraq before announcing withdrawal. Under the president's order, the 142,000 U.S. forces in Iraq would be drawn down to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by the 2010 date. All forces would be withdrawn by the last day of 2011.

Gates said he thought it was "fairly remote" that conditions in Iraq would change enough to alter significantly the Obama plan. He said the president has said he retains the authority to change a plan if it's in the national security interests of the United States.

"Our soldiers will be consolidated into a limited number of bases in order to provide protection for themselves and for civilians who are out working in the Iraqi neighborhoods and countryside as well," Gates said. "The risk to our troops will be substantially less than certainly was last year, and it has, has gradually declined."

Gates appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," while Mullen also was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."


So, how real is the threat? Is this just another round of what we saw leading up to invading Iraq?

[Paradyme]

I think once again the threat won't be realized until after they've given or dropped the nuke themselves on Israel or within the US.

We sit back and do nothing but send them angry letters and impose sanctions that they could care less about.

Plus with the backing of Russia they know that they are untouchable. They probably think even if they do drop a nuke they'll still be untouchable.

I think the threat is real. I think it is there. The mans rhetoric should make that abundantly clear.

[Hobgoblin]

-Being allied with the Russians certainly gives them a confidence boost. -Persistent rhetoric should always be taken seriously.
-We've been hearing forever that they've been working on a nuclear program. Shortly after we invaded Iraq, I read that Iran's nuke testing hours were far and away more numerous than Iraq's.

Still, what can we do about it? Its a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. A strike at the nuclear facilities would result in the closing of the Straights of Hormuz, amount other retaliatory actions. Without oil, the teetering economy would fall apart. If we dont remove the threat, we can kiss Israel goodbye.

So whats the best course of action?

[The Incredible Hulk]

I think once again the threat won't be realized until after they've given or dropped the nuke themselves on Israel or within the US.

We sit back and do nothing but send them angry letters and impose sanctions that they could care less about.


Did I miss the last time we did nothing and someone got nuked? :confused:

[Paradyme]

Did I miss the last time we did nothing and someone got nuked? :confused:

It takes that type of thinking for it to occur. There is a first time for everything.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

[Paradyme]

-Being allied with the Russians certainly gives them a confidence boost. -Persistent rhetoric should always be taken seriously.
-We've been hearing forever that they've been working on a nuclear program. Shortly after we invaded Iraq, I read that Iran's nuke testing hours were far and away more numerous than Iraq's.

Still, what can we do about it? Its a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. A strike at the nuclear facilities would result in the closing of the Straights of Hormuz, amount other retaliatory actions. Without oil, the teetering economy would fall apart. If we dont remove the threat, we can kiss Israel goodbye.

So whats the best course of action?

Well, if we are going to go by the good 'ol U.N. guidelines I suppose we need to try to get more nations to back our objectives. I think Obama delaying the missle shield in Europe might be a wise idea to get Russia on our side with Iran.

Obviously, the president of Iran seems crazy enough to not care if they lost Russia as an ally but at least if we realized Sanctions wouldn't work then we could use some type of military intervention with little resistance. I'm not sure what they would do about the Straights of Hormuz but it might end up being a reconstruction of Iranian Government. If you know what I'm getting at.

I don't know the whole scenario because I'm not Obama. So, I'm just speculating and saying what I feel should be done based on the facts I have.

[Ahura Mazda]

The President of Iran is not deciding anything in Iran. The Supreme Leader makes such decisions. The President is just implementing what the Supreme leader decides. The Supreme Leader is Khamanei and he has his position for life.

The situtation is very scary when you think the person in power is a cleric who holds his position until he dies and he has absolute power.

[Paradyme]

The President of Iran is not deciding anything in Iran. The Supreme Leader makes such decisions. The President is just implementing what the Supreme leader decides. The Supreme Leader is Khamanei and he has his position for life.

The situtation is very scary when you think the person in power is a cleric who holds his position until he dies and he has absolute power.

I see what your saying I know the President doesn't make the decisions but what I am saying is the rhetoric that he spews doesn't make me believe that he wouldn't go rogue and launch a nuke anyways just because he wants Israel gone.

About the the cleric holding his position until he dies. This is why term limits and democracy are good things.

[The Incredible Hulk]

It takes that type of thinking for it to occur. There is a first time for everything.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’


I realize that but you were speaking in past tense as if these things had happened before.

[Paradyme]

I realize that but you were speaking in past tense as if these things had happened before.

I didn't really proofread my post, so I apologize.

[Ahura Mazda]

I see what your saying I know the President doesn't make the decisions but what I am saying is the rhetoric that he spews doesn't make me believe that he wouldn't go rogue and launch a nuke anyways just because he wants Israel gone.

About the the cleric holding his position until he dies. This is why term limits and democracy are good things.

I don't disagree with you but I was just saying that he cannot launch anything but the cleric definitely can and I am more afraid of that.

And yes, absolute dictatorship is not a good thing when you have such people in power.

It just makes me kind of laugh (but not with any humour) when I think they overthrew a King to get a religious leader with more powers and a life time rule.

[November Rain]

The only countries i'm scared of using Nuclear weapons are the western ones.

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't think anything can be done about Iran. Apart from actually going to war with them, which I hope doesn't happen.

I would imagine that as soon as hostility is shown towards Iran, they'll just fire off a few nukes.

[Ahura Mazda]

I don't think anything can be done about Iran. Apart from actually going to war with them, which I hope doesn't happen.

I would imagine that as soon as hostility is shown towards Iran, they'll just fire off a few nukes.

They do not have a few nukes but war with iran would be a quagmire that would likely be too costly.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but if they have nukes (when they get em) I don't think they would hesitate in firing them off. They just come across as that sort of country.

[Ahura Mazda]

It is not the Country but the people in power. :(

[Ace of Knaves]

It is not the Country but the people in power. :(

Well yea that's what I mean. Their President is a scum bag. If anything, he should just be secretly assassinated by the SAS or something.

[Paradyme]

Well yea that's what I mean. Their President is a scum bag. If anything, he should just be secretly assassinated by the SAS or something.

I like the SAS idea.

The only countries i'm scared of using Nuclear weapons are the western ones.

We are more then likely the last ones to use nuclear weapons. After our country saw what type of devestation it caused on Hiroshima I doubt we'll use them other then in retaliation for another nuclear attack. Which, in my opinion, is a given.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

[Ahura Mazda]

Well you know who put Khomeini in power? ........ It was the US, GB and France. They then realised their error.

I have had dreams where the whole current government was overturned and Khamenei (Khomeini's successor) and his whole clique put through great hardships. But the likelyhood of it happening is unfortunately very small. The current president is just a pawn and totally unimportant. Killing him would do very littlle.

[Hobgoblin]

The only countries i'm scared of using Nuclear weapons are the western ones.

Why is that? Are developed nations more violent than developing nations?

[Paradyme]

Israel is seriously considering taking unilateral military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a report by top US political figures and experts released Wednesday.


The report also says Israel's time frame for action is growing shorter, not only because of Iranian advances, but because Teheran might soon acquire upgraded air defenses and disperse its nuclear program to additional locations.

The report, "Preventing a Cascade of Instability," was put out by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). It also argues that international sanctions against Iran need to be intensified urgently for the engagement the Obama administration is planning with Teheran to be effective.

An early draft of the report was endorsed by Dennis Ross before he withdrew upon joining the Obama administration, in which he is serving as a special adviser dealing with various countries in the region, including Iran. Senator Evan Bayh of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Congressman Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, were among the signatories.


The bipartisan group also recommended increasing security guarantees and the supply of missile defenses and other protective measures to allies in the Middle East, both to reassure them of America's commitment to them and to dampen the perceived effectiveness, and hence appeal, of nuclear weapons for Iran.
But the report, several of whose authors met with high-level Israeli officials to assess their perspective, notes that Israel is not interested in becoming part of an American nuclear umbrella, even as Gulf countries want more assurances on that front.


"A declared US guarantee would clarify a situation of ambiguity that may already work to Israel's advantage," the report notes. Also, "many Israelis fear that a declared US guarantee could come at the price of circumscribing Israel's freedom of action in confronting existential dangers."

"It's quite serious in acting on its own about a nuclear-armed Iran," former US ambassador to the United Nations Nancy Soderberg, one of the task force members who traveled to the region to research the report, said at a WINEP event held Wednesday on the report's release.
She noted that the timetable for an Israeli attack might be "significantly" moved up if Jerusalem believed Russia was going to make good on its pledge to supply Iran with the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which would greatly complicate any Israeli attack.

If the delivery does occur, the report recommends more arms sales to Israel, such as more modern aircraft, so it can maintain its military edge.

Later, she said that the aim of the report was to come up with strategies where neither the United States nor Israel was at the point of launching military action.

"You've kind of lost the ballgame at that point," she said.

To that end, the 10-page document urges more international sanctions and expanding financial pressure taken by the US Treasury, by creating similar programs at the US Commerce and State Departments.

The study stresses the importance of having a united global front and pushes for intensified diplomacy with Russia to both make sanctions more effective and to persuade the Russians not to deliver the S-300 system.

"Iran does not want to be isolated on the international stage: It is not North Korea. The broader the international consensus, the better. The repeated shows of unanimity by the UN Security Council seem to have impressed Iran more than the limited economic or security impact of the sanctions imposed thus far," the report states, in making the case for more sanctions.

At the same time, it contends that aggressive engagement is needed because "another important goal is to show the Middle East and the world that the United States will go the extra mile to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Some circles in countries friendly to the United States now wonder - without reason - if Washington is as much an obstacle to resolving the nuclear impasse as is Teheran."

Even if engagement, sanctions and other measures prove ineffective, the report warns against sanctioning a "fallback" policy where Iran is allowed to have some, even if limited, capacity to enrich uranium in its territory.

"Iran's having a latent capability to quickly make nuclear weapons could lead to much the same risk of cascading instability as an Iran with an actual weapon," it reads, pointing to the risk for nuclear proliferation, Iranian regional hegemony and more.

The report makes no mention of the presidential elections in Iran this June, which could see the more moderate Muhammad Khatami replace fiery current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some analysts have suggested that the Obama administration wait to either engage or press for further sanctions until after the campaign, so as not to increase the likelihood of Admadinejad winning.

But the task force calls for immediate action, arguing that the president is less important than Iran's supreme leader, Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, in making decisions and that the top priority should be creating leverage heading into negotiations.

An Iranian professor in the audience at Wednesday's WINEP conference, however, said that increasing pressure would increase extremism and Iranian hard-line leaders' sticking to the nuclear program.

WINEP executive director Robert Satloff, who presided over the conference, responded that the report's recommendations also included many incentives for Iran should it cooperate with the United States.

He also said Iran was already beginning to reap some of the rewards of influence just by having been successful in advancing its nuclear program, and that this report was intended to stanch that progress.

"Even without testing a nuclear weapon or declaring the ability to do so, Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons capability is already having a substantial impact on the Middle East," it says. "Time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236103158937&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Hobgoblin]

Interesting that this article came from an Israeli news source. That gives its more credibility, imo. Its coming from the horse's mouth.

Either way, it sounds like something will have to be done and will be done in fairly short time. More diplomacy with Russia and Iran or military action. I gotta say that the arms sales discussion reminded me of the Cold War. Russia sends air defense tech to Iran so the US sends more military hardware to Israel.

Diplomacy with the Russians would be the best bet, if only Putin werent so set on making Moscow a world power again. Sure, Russia would be an independent world power...if it always caves to US diplomacy. Thats what I'm thinking his reasoning will be.

[Paradyme]

Interesting that this article came from an Israeli news source. That gives its more credibility, imo. Its coming from the horse's mouth.

Either way, it sounds like something will have to be done and will be done in fairly short time. More diplomacy with Russia and Iran or military action. I gotta say that the arms sales discussion reminded me of the Cold War. Russia sends air defense tech to Iran so the US sends more military hardware to Israel.

Diplomacy with the Russians would be the best bet, if only Putin werent so set on making Moscow a world power again. Sure, Russia would be an independent world power...if it always caves to US diplomacy. Thats what I'm thinking his reasoning will be.

I'm sure they'll eventually get there but currently they are acting like a bunch of two year olds saying its 'not fair, wah, wah, we aren't a superpower anymore so we are going to screw with you, wah, wah'.

At least that is how they are appearing to me.

[Hobgoblin]

I'm sure they'll eventually get there but currently they are acting like a bunch of two year olds saying its 'not fair, wah, wah, we aren't a superpower anymore so we are going to screw with you, wah, wah'.

At least that is how they are appearing to me.

That may be true, but they are a whiny two year old with a lot of power and influence that are defending an unstable Middle Eastern government. Not a good combo.

[Paradyme]

That may be true, but they are a whiny two year old with a lot of power and influence that are defending an unstable Middle Eastern government. Not a good combo.

Couldn't agree more.

[NotFadeAway]

Iran has always been the biggest threat from the Middle East. The only thing that stood out about Iraq was it had a face in the form of Saddam Hussein. Hell, Saddam hated the Al-Quieda(sp) and the Taliban, him being there kept Iran out of reach for those cells.

In my opinion, Iran has yet to be punished for the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. They are a threat, and ask yourself, would the world not be better off without Iran? What do they contribute to the world?

[Hobgoblin]

Iran has always been the biggest threat from the Middle East. The only thing that stood out about Iraq was it had a face in the form of Saddam Hussein. Hell, Saddam hated the Al-Quieda(sp) and the Taliban, him being there kept Iran out of reach for those cells.

In my opinion, Iran has yet to be punished for the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. They are a threat, and ask yourself, would the world not be better off without Iran? What do they contribute to the world?

Oil, gas and not blowing us up thank you very much. :o

Seriously, Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. I'm reading the 9-11 Commission Report and it says that Saddam and al Qaida at best had polite meetings where they agreed that they both hated America. Al Qaida actually got training and materials from Iran. War isnt the option but neither is inaction and diplomacy is a shaky option. Thats the conundrum.

[NotFadeAway]

Oil, gas and not blowing us up thank you very much. :o

Seriously, Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. I'm reading the 9-11 Commission Report and it says that Saddam and al Qaida at best had polite meetings where they agreed that they both hated America. Al Qaida actually got training and materials from Iran. War isnt the option but neither is inaction and diplomacy is a shaky option. Thats the conundrum.

I know Iran was and is a bigger threat than Iraq could have been on Saddam's best day. It's a country we should have put down decades ago, and now thats not an option, as you said. Iran is nothing but a danger to the United States.

The saddest part is, Iran truly views the American people as weak and cowardly, and the sad part is, this country has become, for one reason or another, weak and cowardly.

[Addendum]

But it's a danger that the US helped create along with Britain because Iran had the nerve to nationalize it's own oil. Mosaddeq the duly elected prime minister was overthrown (read about Operation Ajax) in 1953 and the Shah took power. He was subsequently overthrown in the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

If Operation Ajax never took place, the last 50 years of Iranian history would have been very different, and subsequently the world.

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, Iran is another example of world powers sticking their nose where it doesnt belong. Thats beside the point. What are we going to do about it now?

[bell110]

I think what we are going to do about it now is stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

[Addendum]

So do the same thing and expect a different outcome?

Real smart

[psychocheeseman]

-Persistent rhetoric should always be taken seriously. But it shouldn't be taken out of context - It's the political hyperbole of middle eastern politics.


-We've been hearing forever that they've been working on a nuclear program. Shortly after we invaded Iraq, I read that Iran's nuke testing hours were far and away more numerous than Iraq's.
are you opposed to them having nuclear power? it's a cheap efficient form of power that could revolutionize and enrich the lives of thousands of Iranians - i think you might be confusing the two

Still, what can we do about it? Its a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. A strike at the nuclear facilities would result in the closing of the Straights of Hormuz, amount other retaliatory actions. Without oil, the teetering economy would fall apart. If we dont remove the threat, we can kiss Israel goodbye.

So whats the best course of action?

Iran is not going to attack Israel. Israel is a nuclear power - they aren't stupid.

This hype about Iran having nuke's, when we know they don't, does nothing but invoke fear in the minds of the suspicious, and fuel those set on war for financial gain. If anything Iran is in far greater danger of a pre-emptive strike FROM Israel....

Iran has always been the biggest threat from the Middle East. The only thing that stood out about Iraq was it had a face in the form of Saddam Hussein. Hell, Saddam hated the Al-Quieda(sp) and the Taliban, him being there kept Iran out of reach for those cells.

In my opinion, Iran has yet to be punished for the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. They are a threat, and ask yourself, would the world not be better off without Iran? What do they contribute to the world?
Typical narrow bigoted Red neck response...
How exactly has Iran been the biggest threat from the middle east. They certainly don't produce the most "terrorists". Egypt and Saudi Arabia produce far more. They haven't attacked any other nations lately, Israel has that honour. They have a stable government - Iraq doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, Iran does some horrible things, they still allow the death penalty for people under 18, and arrest peaceful human rights activists, and there are widespread discrimination against women (although no where near as extreme as many other Middle eastern nations at this time)

I know Iran was and is a bigger threat than Iraq could have been on Saddam's best day. It's a country we should have put down decades ago, and now thats not an option, as you said. Iran is nothing but a danger to the United States.

The saddest part is, Iran truly views the American people as weak and cowardly, and the sad part is, this country has become, for one reason or another, weak and cowardly.
Dude, you're saying that like there's something brave and noble about bombing the **** out of small town's and cities, murdering thousands of innocent civilians...

I'd rather be weak and cowardly thank you sir.


Iran is not a danger to the US. They don't have the capacity, and even if they did, they would not be stupid enough to pick on the worlds only super power. You have more to worry about from fundamentalists outside the political realm, and sociopaths from within your own borders.

[Hobgoblin]

But it shouldn't be taken out of context - It's the political hyperbole of middle eastern politics.
How is "The Great Satan" and The Little Satan" and "Israel should be wiped off the map" taken out of context?


are you opposed to them having nuclear power? it's a cheap efficient form of power that could revolutionize and enrich the lives of thousands of Iranians - i think you might be confusing the two
Nuclear power? No prob. Nuclear weapons? Big problem. The fact is that we dont know for absolutely sure what they will do with nuclear tech. If they werent such a fervent supporter of terrorism, no one would be concerned.


Iran is not going to attack Israel. Israel is a nuclear power - they aren't stupid.

I think you over estimate how much the mullahs care for their own people. They use suicide bombers in Palestine, through Hezbollah. The president, I wont try to spell his name, has invoked the 13 Mullah that will bring about the end of the world in a global war. Thats a good window into his mind set.


This hype about Iran having nuke's, when we know they don't, does nothing but invoke fear in the minds of the suspicious, and fuel those set on war for financial gain. If anything Iran is in far greater danger of a pre-emptive strike FROM Israel....
I would say the danger is equal. But Israel would be acting defensively, while Iran would be acting aggressively.





Iran is not a danger to the US. They don't have the capacity, and even if they did, they would not be stupid enough to pick on the worlds only super power. You have more to worry about from fundamentalists outside the political realm, and sociopaths from within your own borders.

Yes, we have nut jobs in the US but that doesnt mean we dont have to worry about the nut jobs from outside. I'm not advocating war with Iran. I just think its a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

[psychocheeseman]

How is "The Great Satan" and The Little Satan" and "Israel should be wiped off the map" taken out of context? It happens just as easily as i mistook your claim that Iran was the biggest threat to the US, and that they "should have been put down" or your rhetoric "They are a threat, and ask yourself, would the world not be better off without Iran? What do they contribute to the world?" for some sort of agressive warmongering stance against Iran, when in your latest post you have firmly claimed that you are not advocating war...

It's not a huge shock for a middle eastern country to be calling the US "the great Satan" it's been happening for years due to deep seeded resentment over years of neglectful foreign policy on the part of the US. Whether this indicates a wish to attack the US is a very different matter. I'm Sure you resent some people in your life, and perhaps brag about how they're evil, but that would hardly be seen as you planning on murdering them, nor, importantly in this scenario, enough for them to murder you preemptively in self defense.

It is no secret that Iran is opposed to the current Israeli run Palestine, as is much of the arab world. But nuking holy sites of the muslim faith would hardly be in Iran's best interests either. Neither would Funding terrorist organisations (not publicly anyway...although pakistan got away with it for years...)


Nuclear power? No prob. Nuclear weapons? Big problem. The fact is that we dont know for absolutely sure what they will do with nuclear tech. If they werent such a fervent supporter of terrorism, no one would be concerned. Personally, i don't think they should have either - i'm anti nuclear power because of the very problem you outline here. I don't think any nations should use it - because it leads to suspicion and may quickly lead to arms races between nations.

However, there's no international law against nuclear power - Nor is there against nuclear weapons unless said nation is already a signatory to international treaties banning them. (which is voluntary)

However, Iran is not the Greatest supporter of terrorist groups financially (that's soudi arabia) nor for being suspected of hiding them (that would be Pakistan - who also happens to be a nuclear power.... why aren't you scared of them?)

I think you over estimate how much the mullahs care for their own people. They use suicide bombers in Palestine, through Hezbollah. The president, I wont try to spell his name, has invoked the 13 Mullah that will bring about the end of the world in a global war. Thats a good window into his mind set.
In Iran "Mullah" usually refers to a story teller telling of mohammed's grandson.... I'm not sure how a story teller invokes a global war...nor why anyone would want the end of the world either... could you perhaps clarify this story with a link - cause it sounds like the bogus dribble of a man in the pub...

i think perhaps you mean Ayatollah, which doesn't make sense eitehr as Hezbollah doesn't have one...

Hezbollah interestingly enough has a long history of having secular communist suicide bombers - willing to die, not for supernatural reward, but to ensure a separate state for the palestinians..

Hezbollah is not run by Iran. I wouldn't be suprised if many iranians did fund Hezbollah, but i'm sure many other individuals from othe rnations do as well.

I would say the danger is equal. But Israel would be acting defensively, while Iran would be acting aggressively.
Wait? WTF? There's aggression on both sides. How would Israel be morally jusfied in murdering the civilians of a nation, just because it's leaders were dumb and didn't watch what they said? I spose Hitler was Acting defensively when he gassed all those jews, cause they hated him after he took their stuff.... if he hadn't done it one day they might have attacked him..

Yes, we have nut jobs in the US but that doesnt mean we dont have to worry about the nut jobs from outside. I'm not advocating war with Iran. I just think its a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
we agree on something finally. It is a serious problem and it does need addressing. But It needs addressing with a rational, diplomatic, series of dialogues between the nations, publicly for the world to witness.

[Hobgoblin]

It happens just as easily as i mistook your claim that Iran was the biggest threat to the US, and that they "should have been put down" or your rhetoric "They are a threat, and ask yourself, would the world not be better off without Iran? What do they contribute to the world?" for some sort of agressive warmongering stance against Iran, when in your latest post you have firmly claimed that you are not advocating war...
That was another poster. Not me.


It's not a huge shock for a middle eastern country to be calling the US "the great Satan" it's been happening for years due to deep seeded resentment over years of neglectful foreign policy on the part of the US. Whether this indicates a wish to attack the US is a very different matter. I'm Sure you resent some people in your life, and perhaps brag about how they're evil, but that would hardly be seen as you planning on murdering them, nor, importantly in this scenario, enough for them to murder you preemptively in self defense.

Yes, US foreign policy has been at fault for some of the trouble in the Middle East. As was the post colonial state the region was in. As are the Muslims themselves, for the rampant corruption in their governments.


However, Iran is not the Greatest supporter of terrorist groups financially (that's soudi arabia) nor for being suspected of hiding them (that would be Pakistan - who also happens to be a nuclear power.... why aren't you scared of them?)

Its certainly one of the major contributors. How do you know I'm not worried about Pakistan? Are you psychic? The fact that al Qaida has been allowed to move into the tribal areas worries me. The fact that bin Laden is so popular in the major Pakistani cities worries me. The fact that Pakistan is nearly a failed state worries me. How do we know that nukes wont get into the hands of al Qaida? We dont.


In Iran "Mullah" usually refers to a story teller telling of mohammed's grandson.... I'm not sure how a story teller invokes a global war...nor why anyone would want the end of the world either... could you perhaps clarify this story with a link - cause it sounds like the bogus dribble of a man in the pub...

Dont ask me. I dont think he will end the world. Ask the Iranian President.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945

i think perhaps you mean Ayatollah, which doesn't make sense eitehr as Hezbollah doesn't have one...
I was referring to Iran.


Wait? WTF? There's aggression on both sides. How would Israel be morally jusfied in murdering the civilians of a nation, just because it's leaders were dumb and didn't watch what they said? I spose Hitler was Acting defensively when he gassed all those jews, cause they hated him after he took their stuff.... if he hadn't done it one day they might have attacked him..
You're comparing Israel to Hitler? Really? Israel's existence is threatened by Iran. Iran's existence is not under threat from Israel. No one wants innocent Iranians killed, believe it or not. But innocent Israelis? I guess they had it coming.

we agree on something finally. It is a serious problem and it does need addressing. But It needs addressing with a rational, diplomatic, series of dialogues between the nations, publicly for the world to witness.

Agreed. Hopefully Pres Obama's reconciliatory tone will make that possible.

[psychocheeseman]

That was another poster. Not me. Sorry dude, my bad.

Yes, US foreign policy has been at fault for some of the trouble in the Middle East. As was the post colonial state the region was in. As are the Muslims themselves, for the rampant corruption in their governments.

Its certainly one of the major contributors. How do you know I'm not worried about Pakistan? Are you psychic? The fact that al Qaida has been allowed to move into the tribal areas worries me. The fact that bin Laden is so popular in the major Pakistani cities worries me. The fact that Pakistan is nearly a failed state worries me. How do we know that nukes wont get into the hands of al Qaida? We dont. Another reason i'm all for nuclear disarmament.


Dont ask me. I dont think he will end the world. Ask the Iranian President.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945

Thanks for the links dude, I did not know about the Hojjatieh. Seems like an interesting secret society.... pitty they're crazy.


You're comparing Israel to Hitler? Really? Israel's existence is threatened by Iran. Iran's existence is not under threat from Israel. No one wants innocent Iranians killed, believe it or not. But innocent Israelis? I guess they had it coming. Iran is not yet a serious threat, To take action now would be an act of aggression in my books. If Iran did have Nukes, and was likely to use them, then and only then, could Israel pre-emptively attack on the basis of self preservation.

Agreed. Hopefully Pres Obama's reconciliatory tone will make that possible.

I think i should clarify a few things. I really don't like Ahmadinejad, but he doesn't have that much power even in his own country - let alone on a global scale. He's not the Supreme Leader of Iran, And Khameni (who is) although himself not a great leader in many ways, and strongly anti-what he-see's-as America's desire for global dominance, believing western civilisation to e a corrupting influence on good islamic society, does not however approve of violence, and strongly condemed the september 11 attacks on the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1549573.stm). saying "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned" he said "wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be".. Furthermore, he himself issued a Fatwa (http://web.archive.org/web/20051016053118/http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0508104135124631.htm)Against the production, use, or stockpilling of Nuclear weapons -

[moraldeficiency]

This is not that worrisome, they can't even make an atomic bomb yet, let alone a hydrogen bomb. It's a long and costly proceedure that has to be done perfectly or it becomes a dud (look at russia). People are worrying about the possibility of this or that but the actuality of the matter is they're years from coming close to making one single atomic bomb. I don't think we should be even entertaining the idea of violence at this stage, their weapons capability and tech is just too primative to be relevant at this time.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=551399

Lawyer: Iran convicts US journalist of spying
TEHRAN, Iran, Sat Apr 18, 12:31 PM


An American journalist jailed in Iran has been convicted of spying and sentenced to eight years in prison just days after she was tried behind closed doors, her lawyer said Saturday, dashing any hopes for her quick release.

Roxana Saberi's Iranian-born father said his daughter was tricked into making incriminating statements by officials who told her they would free her if she did.
It was the first time Iran has found an American journalist guilty of spying, and it was unclear how it would affect recent overtures by the Obama administration for better relations and engagement with Washington's longtime adversary.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was "deeply disappointed" by the conviction.

Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But earlier this month, an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation, charging her with spying for the United States.

She appeared before an Iranian court behind closed doors on Monday in an unusually swift one-day trial. Her lawyer was permitted to attend, but had declined to discuss any details.

The Fargo, North Dakota native had been living in Iran for six years and had worked as a freelance reporter for several news organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp.

"Saberi has been sentenced to eight years in jail. I'll definitely appeal the verdict," lawyer Abdolsamad Khorramshahi told The Associated Press.
Reza Saberi told NPR his daughter denied the incriminating statements she made when she realized she had been tricked but "apparently in the case they didn't consider her denial."

He said his daughter was convicted Wednesday, but the court waited until Saturday to announce the verdict to the lawyers. He is in Iran but was not allowed into the courtroom to see his daughter, who he described as "quite depressed."

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan called on the Iranian government to "show compassion" and release Saberi. "This is a shocking miscarriage of justice," the Democrat said in a statement issued Saturday.

Clinton said in a statement the U.S. is working with Swiss diplomats in Iran to get details about the court's decision and to ensure Saberi's well-being. She said the U.S. will "vigorously raise our concerns" with the Iranian government.

The United States has called the charges against Saberi baseless and has demanded her release, and the conviction and prison sentence could put strains on efforts to improve ties.

President Barack Obama has said it wants to engage Iran in talks on its nuclear program and other issues — a departure from the tough talk of the Bush administration.

Iran has been mostly lukewarm to the overtures, but Iran's hard-line president gave the clearest signal yet on Wednesday that the Islamic Republic was also willing to start a new relationship with Washington.
In a speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was preparing new proposals aimed at breaking an impasse with the West over its nuclear program.

But it was uncertain how Washington would react to Saberi's conviction. On Thursday, the State Department said Saberi's jailing was not helpful and that Iran would gain U.S. good will if it "responded in a positive way" to the case.

Some conservative Iranian lawmakers played down Saberi's conviction, saying the verdict would not affect any ongoing efforts to build trust between Washington and Iran.

"Although there is a wall of mistrust between Iran and the United States, the judicial verdict won't affect possible future talks between the two countries. The verdict is based on evidence," said lawmaker Hosseini Sobhaninia.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after its 1979 Islamic revolution and takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Relations deteriorated further under the former President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran as part of the so-called "Axis of Evil" along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea.

Iran's judiciary is dominated by hard-liners, which some analysts say are trying to derail efforts to improve U.S.-Iran relations.

Saberi's conviction comes about two months ahead of key presidential elections in June. Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election, but the hard-liner's popularity has waned as Iran's economy struggles with high-inflation and unemployment. The June 12 vote is pitting the hard-liners against reformists — led by a former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi — who support better relations with the U.S.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution." But they were never put on trial and were eventually released from prison.

Journalist watchdog groups criticized the conviction. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement on Saturday that her trial "lacked transparency."

"We call on the Iranian authorities to release her on bail pending her appeal," Mohamed Abdel Dayem, the group's Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, said in the statement.

NPR released a statement saying it was "deeply distressed by this harsh and unwarranted sentence."

Iran has released few details about the charges against Saberi. Iranian officials initially said she had been arrested for working in the Islamic Republic without press credentials and she had told her father in a phone conversation that she was arrested after buying a bottle of wine.
An Iranian investigative judge involved in the case charged that Saberi was passing classified information to U.S. intelligence services.
Her parents, who traveled to Iran from their home in Fargo in a bid to help win their daughter's release, could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.

Saberi's father has said his daughter, who was Miss North Dakota in 1997, had been working on a book about the culture and people of Iran, and hoped to finish it and return to the United States this year.
"I'll bet my bottom dollar she has not been spying," said Marilyn McGinley, president of the Miss North Dakota pageant, who said she has kept in touch with the journalist through telephone calls and e-mails.

"She is not a spy. She loved the people over there and her intention of going over there was to learn about her culture," she said.

[Kelly]

This is crazy......I hope the administration speaks out as strongly about this as the previous administration did the 2 Baylor University girls that were imprisoned in Afghanistan in 2001.

And I don't mean, speak out in the press........I mean speak out through the established means and do it swiftly and strongly. I don't need to hear that its being done, I just want it DONE.

[DACrowe]

This is shockingly wrong and ridiculous. Our government needs to pressure Iran into dropping this farce, this woman is being held in prison for spying?! What a sickening anti-American piece of posturing.

[Kelly]

They better do something and do something quick. My hope that as Obama is shaking hands with Chavez.....he's kicking Iran's ass behind the scenes....

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30277964

[X-Ray]

Hopefully, by some miracle, her appeal works out for her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30277964

Aw ****. I'm reading the Breaking News headline of a Maryland family found dead. :csad:

[Raiden]

I hope the American will be brought home after some diplomatic negotiation behind the scene. But this is just Iran doing it to peeve the U.S.

[Kelly]

Well, I hope our discussion is more than "we are disappointed" behind the scenes....

[StorminNorman]

Obama has to have a strong reaction to this, not only for this situation - but to show to Israel that they will not take any shenanigans from Iran. Obama's perceived weakness in Foreign Relations may convince Israel they can no longer put trust in America, forcing them to be overly aggressive with Iran.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama has to have a strong reaction to this, not only for this situation - but to show to Israel that they will not take any shenanigans from Iran. Obama's perceived weakness in Foreign Relations may convince Israel they can no longer put trust in America, forcing them to be overly aggressive with Iran.

I can see this as likely, especially with Netanyahu in charge.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Honestly...I'm expecting this type of thing to happen more and more.

I'm expecting the same thing to happen to the two U.S. Journalists in North Korea to be sentenced too.

I just think more and more people are thinking it's fairgame to this. Even though it's wrong.

[StorminNorman]

The problem is that no one fears Obama. This is going to continue until Obama gives the world a reason to fear him. The Iraq War may of lost America respect in the eyes of liberal allies, but it bolster America's position when dealing with Rogue Nations.

[Marx]

OBAMA CALLS FOR RELEASE OF IRANIAN AMERICAN REPORTER INPRISONED IN IRAN
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/obama-calls-release-iranian-american-reporter-imprisoned-iran/

President Obama said Sunday he's "gravely concerned" about the safety and well-being of a U.S. journalist jailed in Iran. He's confident she is not involved in espionage against Tehran.

At the Summit of the Americas, Obama said Sunday that he's working to ensure the safety of Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen. She was sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison on charges of spying for the United States.

Saberi's case has been an irritant in U.S.-Iran relations at a time when Obama is offering to start a dialogue.

"She is an Iranian American who was interested in the country which her family came from. And it is appropriate for her to be treated as such and to be released. We are going to be in contact with -- through our Swiss intermediaries -- with the Iranian government and want to ensure that we end up seeing a proper disposition of this case," Obama said.

[Matt]

Obama has spoken out against it, good. Now he should prepare to bomb the hell out of those ****ers if they don't release her. We should unleash the wrath of God on these people. They are holding one of our citizens captive for no reason. They either release her, or they suffer the consequences and they should be grave.

[Matt]

Agreed. Obama should not even negotiate. Negotiation implies they have a valid stance. Obama should demand she be released. He should establish a deadline of 72 hours to have this woman on a plane back to the States, otherwise we will begin bombing strategic military positions in Iran.

[SsM]

Yeah, right.

[StorminNorman]

And we all know Obama has no intention of doing anything close to that. He doesn't subscribe to the "Realist" school of International Relations.

[Matt]

Sadly, you're right. He'll negotiate and for every day he negotiates, this woman will suffer in a prison with conditions that are not fit for a rat carcass. As I said in the other thread, this is not something that should be negotiated. Negotiation implies they have a valid stance. We should demand her immediate release and set a deadline. If they do not comply, their citizens can pay the price that she is paying.

[redfirebird2008]

You guys have bought into the system just like the OWNERS want you to buy into it. Wake the hell up, people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29C_KNZ7RNs

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/diocletian.html


Don't get me wrong, Iran is being run by dictators in the same manner that the OWNERS of this country are trying to march us towards tyranny. At any rate, this is their perfect excuse to crank up a war so they can profit off of it and take more of our civil liberties away. And they'll be funding both sides of the war, just like they funded both sides of WWI, WWII, Vietnam, et al.

[BlackLantern]

an American citizen is being unlawfully detained on bogus charges.....I'd consider that a valid reason to demand her release or take action

[redfirebird2008]

an American citizen is being unlawfully detained on bogus charges.....I'd consider that a valid reason to demand her release or take action

Here's the catch though. How do we know the international banks aren't funding this little stunt by Iran in an effort to get another World War cranked up? They've done it before on multiple occasions, and what always happens is a lot of tax dollars go to the MIC/bankers, a lot of death and destruction occurs, and many of our freedoms are taken away in the process...and thus we continue the march to tyranny that's been going on ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Private bank, owned by international bankers with a globalist agenda, that prints the money for the government. Every single dollar that they print has interest attached to it. Every time a war is cranked up they profit enormously from all the interest due to money being printed for the war effort.

[BlackLantern]

if the US or any other country was going to start a war, Im sure a better reason could be produced or manufactured than a reporter being arrested for "spying for the US"....Iran is being hardassed because she's an American...plain and simple....

[redfirebird2008]

if the US or any other country was going to start a war, Im sure a better reason could be produced or manufactured than a reporter being arrested for "spying for the US"....

Uh, not really. The public has a history of being easily manipulated with the problem-reaction-solution methodology. When the very people who create the wars in the first place are also the people controlling the media and the education system, it doesn't take much critical thinking to realize that we are constantly manipulated in whatever direction they want. Here's all it would take to get a war going:

Bankers want U.S. and Iran at war so they can get a world war going in which they fund both sides and consequently gain power over both sides due to the debt that each would owe to the bankers. So, they tell Iran to take an American journalist hostage under the pretense that she's a spy. America comes back by demanding her release. In response, Iran kills her. American public is outraged by it, just like the bankers want. America declares war on Iran and before you know it, the likes of China jump in (on Iran's side) and America's allies jump in on its side.

[redfirebird2008]

Another world war would lead to more globalization of our laws. Similar to how the U.N. was founded after WWII, they would find a way to give away more of America's sovereignty during the treaty negotiations following WWIII. Now here's the thing that could screw up the bankers' plans for world government: if WWIII turns into a nuclear holocaust and the world ends, their little plan to use the war as an excuse for the nations giving up more and more of their sovereignty will be completely screwed over. But then again, they'll be funding both sides so they'll likely issue an ultimatum telling neither side to use nukes.

[BlackLantern]

China is our ally and our biggest trade partner...they probably wouldn't get involved....if I didn't know any better....Id say you want something like that to happen just so you can say "I told you so"...you seem thoroughly convinced....

if this reporter committed a legitimate crime....stealing something, killing someone, than I would say she needs to be held accountable and leave it at that...

I have an odd feeling this will get resolved in a suitable manner

[redfirebird2008]

China is our ally and our biggest trade partner...they probably wouldn't get involved....if I didn't know any better....Id say you want something like that to happen just so you can say "I told you so"...you seem thoroughly convinced....

if this reporter committed a legitimate crime....stealing something, killing someone, than I would say she needs to be held accountable and leave it at that...

I have an odd feeling this will get resolved in a suitable manner

Hell no, I don't want it to happen. I'm scared as hell that it could happen. It has a history of occurring. These people are vampires that want power over the rest of us. They've pretty much taken over control of every aspect of our lives at this point. They own the media and they own the politicians, which means they also own our government and consequently our education system. There's no coincidence behind the fact that ever since the government took over the education system, the average intelligence has been sliding downhill. John Rockefeller once said that he doesn't want an America full of thinkers, he wants an America full of workers. Well his grandson David Rockefeller is an admitted globalist who wants one world government controlling our lives. They see us as cattle. It's scary as hell and I don't want these things to happen. I hope I'm completely wrong on it, but based on the historical evidence and the fact that they own the media, it seems pretty clear that we're being manipulated toward their endgame of global tyranny.

[redfirebird2008]

And here's the thing: they've already taken away our right to talk on the phone without them listening in. Now they're wanting to have the power to shut down the Internet due to "national security." Yeah, whatever THEY deem to be a national security threat will be shut down, including anyone who speaks of these alleged "conspiracy theories." They've got this "no fly" list of alleged terrorists, many of whom are innocent American citizens. They even put a 5 year old boy on the list because his name was the same as a "suspected" terrorist. But here's the catch to that, Rahm Emmanuel has admitted that they are going to tack on a new stipulation to the "no fly" list. Everyone on the "no fly" list will also not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Wonderful, so this list is completely at their discretion. They've had over 1 million Americans falsely placed on the list and accused of being terrorists already. And now they're going to use that list as an excuse to keep people from buying guns, some of whom might be wanting to buy a gun strictly for protecting themselves from the government...which is of course why the Second Amendment was created in the first place.

[StorminNorman]

China is our ally and our biggest trade partner...they probably wouldn't get involved....if I didn't know any better....Id say you want something like that to happen just so you can say "I told you so"...you seem thoroughly convinced....

if this reporter committed a legitimate crime....stealing something, killing someone, than I would say she needs to be held accountable and leave it at that...

I have an odd feeling this will get resolved in a suitable manner

You seem to be much more assuming of people lately.

[StorminNorman]

an American citizen is being unlawfully detained on bogus charges.....I'd consider that a valid reason to demand her release or take action

It's a valid act of war.

[Matt]

It's a valid act of war.

Agreed. It was one of our citizens being held hostage (I refuse to call her a prisoner, because that makes it seem legit. She is a hostage) by another country. What Iran is doing is no different than the pirates of last week holding the ship captain hostage. Where are they? In body bags. We should set a deadline. If they do not return our citizen, we should start dropping bombs on their bases and put some of their soldiers in body bags.

[StorminNorman]

I would also like Obama to take a tougher stance against Spain for their threatening to indict some former Bushies. Inexcusable.

[BlackLantern]

If any country wants to file charges (in absentia) against US officials.....it just seems to me like Anti-US sentiment and posturing.....its not like they are going to come to the US and take them into custody

[StorminNorman]

It doesn't matter, we cannot afford to appear weak to either Iran or Israel.

[Matt]

Agreed. If we send the message to Spain that they can prosecute our leaders (even if it just in show) for political reasons and grandstanding and we will continue maintain friendly diplomatic relations with them, then we are sending message that this is okay to every country in the world. How long do you think until Iran or North Korea starts calling to prosecute our leaders? Obama should not shrug this off just because Bush is on the otherside of the political line. After all, as he said, we are not red states and blue states, we are the United States of America. And the first and foremost job of the federal government is to protect it's citizens. It is time for Obama to make good on his pretty words instead of just saying them.

I still disagree with almost all of Bush's policies, including the Iraq war. But that does not mean we should give silent consent while foreign governments make a mockery out of our 43rd president

[redfirebird2008]

Agreed. If we send the message to Spain that they can prosecute our leaders (even if it just in show) for political reasons and grandstanding and we will continue maintain friendly diplomatic relations with them, then we are sending message that this is okay to every country in the world. How long do you think until Iran or North Korea starts calling to prosecute our leaders? Obama should not shrug this off just because Bush is on the otherside of the political line. After all, as he said, we are not red states and blue states, we are the United States of America. And the first and foremost job of the federal government is to protect it's citizens. It is time for Obama to make good on his pretty words instead of just saying them.

I still disagree with almost all of Bush's policies, including the Iraq war. But that does not mean we should give silent consent while foreign governments make a mockery out of our 43rd president

LMAO, Bush and Obama are both on the same side. Wake up. It's the elites vs. the rest of us, not liberal vs. conservative.

[DACrowe]

I don't know about an entire military action. If we went to war over this, we are risking the lives of thousands. At the same time this is inexcusable and needs to be remedied immediately. I would support some backdoor pressure and covert operations coercion, of course that would negatively effect Obama's attempting to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran. Of course, if there is going to be a war...no I don't want to think of that. The most preferrable way for that to occur would be for it to happen after we are fully out of Iraq and it becomes an Israeli operation that we offer air support for. But even that is an AWFUL alternative. I just don't understand why all these situations need to end in fire and ash. Really.

[Matt]

Because what other options are there? Negotiate with these maniacs? That gives validity to their actions. Not to mention it makes Obama look weak. We need to give a deadline, they either meet, or they're bombed (not war, bombing runs. Hug difference).

[LastSunrise1981]

What's the difference Matt? Even if they drop bombs it will still be an act of war. A war that America cannot afford while still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[redfirebird2008]

If we bomb Iran I don't think the Iranians will view it as anything other than an act of war.

[LastSunrise1981]

If we bomb Iran I don't think the Iranians will view it as anything other than an act of war.

Exactly my point. So what does America do then? I simply feel there's nothing we can do in a situation like this. We're already in two wars that is costing us a fortune. Why go into another one?

[redfirebird2008]

Exactly my point. So what does America do then? I simply feel there's nothing we can do in a situation like this. We're already in two wars that is costing us a fortune. Why go into another one?

Who knows. Let's just hope this little situation clears up soon and doesn't turn into an all-out war. That's the last thing we need right now. We've got enough problems already. :(

[Matt]

What's the difference Matt? Even if they drop bombs it will still be an act of war. A war that America cannot afford while still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We dropped bombs on Iraq for years without engaging them in a war. There is a difference. Look into the Clinton administrations foreign policy dealings with Iraq, then we'll talk. Mmkay?

If we bomb Iran I don't think the Iranians will view it as anything other than an act of war.

I'm sure they will. But the fact is, we can bomb them into next week and they're not capable of doing jack to retaliate. Thus, there will be no war unless we decide to invade them, which no one is suggesting.

Besides, if Obama mans up a gives them a deadline, they will back down either before it or right after their first military base is wiped into oblivion and our citizen will be free. Unfortunately, our president lives in the land of unicorns and fairies when it comes to foreign relations so I don't think it'll happen.

[redfirebird2008]

Unfortunately, our president lives in the land of unicorns and fairies when it comes to foreign relations so I don't think it'll happen.

He's bombing the hell out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. But besides that, he's a lackey for the globalist elite who want one government ruling the world. Screw the EU, they want a WU.

[Matt]

Did you see The International, recently, firebird?

And beyond that, he is fighting wars we were already more or less in (Afgahnistan we were already fighting when he took office. As for Pakistan, we've been fighting them on Israel's behalf for years). Fighting another president's wars will not earn him respect. Taking a hard stance on our citizen being held captive will.

[redfirebird2008]

Did you see The International, recently, firebird?

And beyond that, he is fighting wars we were already more or less in (Afgahnistan we were already fighting when he took office. As for Pakistan, we've been fighting them on Israel's behalf for years). Fighting another president's wars will not earn him respect. Taking a hard stance on our citizen being held captive will.

The International? Haven't seen it.

[StorminNorman]

If America bombed Iran, Israel will love Obama for everz.

[BlackLantern]

Every time a new President takes office....it seems I always hear about "the one world government" and "global currency" and all that....when Clinton took office, I remember reading how within 2 years there was going to be global currency and the Constitution was going to be repealed or something....the same when W took office

[Ahura Mazda]

I am sad to hear what is happening and I know better then most the undetrlying reasons. I hate the current regime in Iran more then any of you can fathom having seen my family suffer tremendously but even I know that outright war is highly improbable especially given the current conflicts.

Yes the charges are bogus and this girl is caught in the middle between the judicial and the executive branch, but unfortunately she will be forced to endure certain hardships before she is freed which she will eventually be.

I wish this regime would be over turned but the only way to do it would be to manipulate internally the people rather then engage them in a war. That is how the US, France and Great Britain helped put this current regime in place initially.

[moraldeficiency]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30304767

^this should happen every time this ass clown opens his mouth.

[BlackLantern]

Iran could just "deport" her, that would allow the regime to keep face and everyone gets what they want

[Marx]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30304767

^this should happen every time this ass clown opens his mouth.

I was glad to see that response! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, I agree, I want to see that ***** dodging shoes daily. The clown gear was an inspired touch.

[Matt]

I am sad to hear what is happening and I know better then most the undetrlying reasons. I hate the current regime in Iran more then any of you can fathom having seen my family suffer tremendously but even I know that outright war is highly improbable especially given the current conflicts.

Yes the charges are bogus and this girl is caught in the middle between the judicial and the executive branch, but unfortunately she will be forced to endure certain hardships before she is freed which she will eventually be.

I wish this regime would be over turned but the only way to do it would be to manipulate internally the people rather then engage them in a war. That is how the US, France and Great Britain helped put this current regime in place initially.

Like I said, we don't need to go to war to bomb them. Just the threat and they will probably release this girl. If not, the first Iranian military base that we wipe off the face of the Earth will result in her release. At any rate, she shouldn't suffer because our president has no balls.

[Matt]

Iran could just "deport" her, that would allow the regime to keep face and everyone gets what they want

Why would they? Until Obama shows him that he is not afraid to back up his words, with actions, they are going to use this girl to humiliate the United States. She will be tortured and probably forced to confess. She is going to endure hell until we show that we are not afraid to take actions to see her released.

[Marx]

Like I said, we don't need to go to war to bomb them. Just the threat and they will probably release this girl. If not, the first Iranian military base that we wipe off the face of the Earth will result in her release. At any rate, she shouldn't suffer because our president has no balls.

If Iran is paying any kind of attention at all, they know that we are not in a position to declare war on another country.

[El_Citrus]

Why would they? Until Obama shows him that he is not afraid to back up his words, with actions, they are going to use this girl to humiliate the United States. She will be tortured and probably forced to confess. She is going to endure hell until we show that we are not afraid to take actions to see her released.

I agree due to the fact that Iran is completely out of its mind, or at least its leader is. He'd love nothing more than to push the Obama Administration's buttons like North Korea did.

[Matt]

If Iran is paying any kind of attention at all, they know that we are not in a position to declare war on another country.

How hard is it for people to understand that bomb runs (which we are more than capable of and Iran can do jack about) is not full on war? :dry:

[Marx]

How hard is it for people to understand that bomb runs (which we are more than capable of and Iran can do jack about) is not full on war? :dry:

I'm not stupid Matt, I realize what you are talking about. What I am saying is that there would be some kind of retaliation or escalation, and we are not prepared for that.

[Matt]

I'm not stupid Matt, I realize what you are talking about. What I am saying is that there would be some kind of retaliation or escalation, and we are not prepared for that.

And Iran is not capable of retaliation against us. The best they can do is attempt to retaliate on Israel, and as long as their regime is not suicidal, they won't dare.

[psychocheeseman]

maybe she is a spy.....

i mean it's highly unlikely... or is it?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The problem is that no one fears Obama. This is going to continue until Obama gives the world a reason to fear him. The Iraq War may of lost America respect in the eyes of liberal allies, but it bolster America's position when dealing with Rogue Nations.


we should invade another country.

that'll do it.

[Paradyme]

I'm just happy to hear that people walked out on Ahmadinejad's speech.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I thought the clown was entertaining as well. Nice touch.

[Paradyme]

Yeah, the clown was entertaining. What did he throw at him?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

...his red nose.

Seriously. He tossed his nose. That was the funniest part.

The only thing that would have been funnier if he had thrown his clown shoes.

[Paradyme]

The shoe thing would've been funny. I'm sure he was all happy that someone threw a shoe at Bush and if he had got hit with a clown show. Oh, how funny that would've been.

I'm not sure I agree with assaulting a foreign leader but I'm not gonna lie. I probably would've laughed.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I laughed at Bush when it happened.

I would easily laugh at Ahmadinejad too.

And, I think we can all agree. No way he would have dodged it. A clown shoe is a clown shoe. It's three times larger and round. Nobody, not even the shockingly alert and agile W. could dodge a clown shoe.

[Marx]

...his red nose.

Seriously. He tossed his nose. That was the funniest part.

The only thing that would have been funnier if he had thrown his clown shoes.

:hehe:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm still wondering how a guy with a rainbow clown afro got into a place like that.

I mean, even having a bag with that rainbow clown afro must have been a big enough bag to arouse suspcion.

Unless this...Clown agent...lol...was allowed to do what he did because of who was speaking.

Which, I suppose is plausible.

[Marx]

I'm still wondering how a guy with a rainbow clown afro got into a place like that.

I mean, even having a bag with that rainbow clown afro must have been a big enough bag to arouse suspcion.

Unless this...Clown agent...lol...was allowed to do what he did because of who was speaking.

Which, I suppose is plausible.

I doubt that.

[Paradyme]

Is the clown 'fro the new Guy Fawkes mask?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno. Maybe. I just wonder how he got in, but I suppose I'll have to find out who he was and stuff.

But still, seemed like somethings were set up. Everyone seemed agreed when exactly they would walk out.

[Paradyme]

It probably wasn't hard to organize that since its basically a 100% possibility that Ahmadinejad is going to say something radical or anti-Israel.

"Hey guys? I was thinking we should walk out if that psycho Iranian dude starts talking crap again, agreed?"

"Sure, sure, sure, agreed."

The clown guy though...he is a mystery. I wonder if he is part of Legion.

[Corpus Luteum]

It was 7am when Delara Darabi phoned home.

"Oh mother, I see the hangman's noose in front of me," she garbled. "They are going to execute me. Please save me." Moments later a prison official snatched the handset away. "We will easily execute your daughter and there's nothing you can do about it," he barked at the parents. Then, with a chilling click, the line went dead.

The desperate couple rushed to the Central Prison in Rasht, Iran, wailing at the guards to let them see their 22-year-old. As they prostrated themselves, an ambulance emerged, most probably with Delara's corpse inside.

"They took Delara to the gallows with nobody around her," Mohammad Mostafaei, one of her lawyers, said in a letter distributed to human rights groups. "They put the rope on her delicate neck. I do not know who the cruel person was to pull the chair from under her feet."

Ms Darabi – dubbed The Prisoner of Colours for the love of painting she developed whilst on death row – was convicted for murdering her father's wealthy cousin in September 2003, when she was just 17. Although she initially confessed to the crime, she later said she had been persuaded to take the blame by her older boyfriend Amir Hossein. It was in fact Mr Hossein who had killed the rich relation, she said, to get the money.

The 19-year-old allegedly told Ms Darabi that she could save him from the gallows by confessing and that would be no risk to her own life because she was still a minor. The young woman complied. Her boyfriend was sentenced to 10 years in prison for complicity to murder; she was sentenced to death.

The execution, which happened on Friday, caught everyone by surprise. Not only had there been no formal notification 48 hours before the hanging, as required under Iranian law, but, just a fortnight earlier, Ms Darabi had actually been granted a two-month stay of execution by the head of the judiciary. The day before their daughter would end up being walked to the gallows, her parents had even visited her in jail where she had excitedly informed them there was to be an appeal so new evidence could be heard. Twenty-four hours later, she was dead.

Rights groups inside and outside Iran reacted with horror over the weekend as news of the secret hanging seeped out. "It appears Iran's head of judiciary has no ability to control his own judges," said Zama Coursen-Neff from the children's rights division of Human Rights Watch. "This is an outrageous violation of Iranian as well as international human rights law, and a callous affront to basic human dignity." Amnesty International said that the decision to rush the execution through in secret "appears to have been a cynical move on the part of the authorities to avoid domestic and international protests which might have saved Delara Darabi's life".

Iran leads the world in executing juvenile offenders, according to human rights groups, accounting for two-thirds of such deaths in the past four years. The hanging of Ms Darabi was the second known execution of a juvenile offender this year and lawyers in Tehran estimate that at least 130 more are waiting on death row.

It was the fate to which these young individuals were doomed that Ms Darabi sought to highlight through her haunting paintings. "Delara is not alone," she wrote to the president of Stop Child Executions. "Delaras are trapped in prisons and in need ... of defenders of human rights and humanity."

Many of her images are monochrome, the harsh charcoal lines depicting anguished, tortured faces. Others incorporate disturbing splashes of red, spattering the white headscarves of female prisoners, or washed across the background to suggest the hell of incarceration.

Those campaigning to free Ms Darabi put the artwork on display in Tehran. "I try to defend myself using colours, forms and words. These paintings are my swear to what I have not done," the prisoner wrote in the exhibition's blurb. "From behind the walls, I say hello to you, who has come to see my paintings."

As her family buried her at the weekend and the EU joined the chorus of criticism against the Iranian authorities, the human rights lawyer, Mr Mostafaei, recalled the personal gift Ms Darabi had bestowed on him. "She painted a picture of an old man playing the violin," he said. "I did not know that he was playing her death song."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/delara-darabi-oh-mother-i-can-see-the-noose-1678543.html

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Innocent woman executed in Iran? What else is new.

[Majic Walrus]

Not to sound like an dick or anything but how do we know that she did not commit the crime? Did her defense attorney prove her innocence? Did the actually killer confess or get caught?

I mean it's obvious that she was mistreated and mistried and I would even go so far as to throw in my 2 cents that says that no one should be killed for their crimes no matter how severe so I'm totally opposed to the idea of killing her in general, but.... How do we know she didn't actually do it?.

[Knightsaber Priss]

Why did the boyfriend only get 10 years and the girl get death? What a twisted, backwards country.

[Paradyme]

Why did the boyfriend only get 10 years and the girl get death? What a twisted, backwards country.

Because Men are considered above Women there.

[Knightsaber Priss]

Because Men are considered above Women there.

Which is why I called it a twisted backwards country.

[Darthphere]

Um, lets read the article. She confessed to the crime, then she said she didn't do it and her boyfriend persuaded her to do it. So she was complicit in the act. The fact that the boyfriend only got 10 years is tragic, but lets not act like she's some innocent bystander in this.

[Warhammer]

That sucks for that Iranian women. Meanwhile, man it's rainy outside.

:o

[Majic Walrus]

Um, lets read the article. She confessed to the crime, then she said she didn't do it and her boyfriend persuaded her to do it. So she was complicit in the act. The fact that the boyfriend only got 10 years is tragic, but lets not act like she's some innocent bystander in this.

:applaud:up:

Thank you!

[RachelDawes]

She might not have been completely innocent in the death of her relative, but why did they have to be such d**** about executing her? I mean having her call her parents and then telling them there was nothing they could do to stop the execution.

BTW, we'll never know the truth, but it sounds like she was complicit only in the sense that she tried to take the blame to protect her boyfriend. That's stupid and cruel to her dead relative, but it's not something she should be executed for.

[The Guard]

Assuming this is all true...that's horrible. Kind of makes you not want to, you know, help out murderers by taking the blame for something you did not do.

[Manic]

Today's lesson: Don't confess to someone else's crime, then try to take it back as soon as you don't like your punishment. Especially if the crime is murder.

[WompuM]

Where's the hundreds of threads about "Young Black American Man executed for a crime he did not commit"?

[Wiseman]

Where's the hundreds of threads about "Young Black American Man executed for a crime he did not commit"?

:yawn:

I'm sorry, what was that?

[WompuM]

I'm just saying. If Iran has ONE unjustified execution. Good for them. Keep up the good work.

[Sentinel X]

Innocent woman executed in Iran? What else is new. Tell me about it. :o

The middle east has some of the most sexist men living on this planet and its disgusting. I don't care if it is one's customs or beliefs...there is NO excuse to be so vile and condescending to another individual, imo.

I saw a documentary about middle eastern women and they are abused so harshly. They are beaten in streets because of the way they "looked" at a man or walked...its ridiculous.

There was also a female poet who was a local celebrity. Her husband killed her because he was jealous of her success and he only had like 2 weeks of jail time and didn't even care. (and the only reason he got jail time was because she was a local celebrity)...its just really sad.

[WompuM]

He saw a documentary people!

[Addendum]

He's so learned

[Ghostvirus]

Wow. If they keep this up. They will catch up with Texas.:dry:

[StorminNorman]

From US-Iran relations to the Iranian election and everything in between. This thread is for ALL THINGS Iran.

Discuss.


Iran sends warships to Gulf of Aden - navy
Mon May 25, 2009 5:43pm IST


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.


Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.


Iran said on May 14 it had sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect oil tankers from the world's fifth-largest crude exporter against attacks by pirates but ISNA did not make clear whether they were among the six Sayyari talked about.


Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear programme.


"Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy," Sayyari told a gathering of armed forces officials, IRNA reported.
Sayyari said that preserving Iran's territorial integrity in its southern waters called for the "perseverance and firmness" of the navy.


The move to dispatch the warships "is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores," Sayyari said.


The ISNA report did not mention the threat of pirate attacks, which, fuelled by large ransoms, have continued almost unabated despite the presence of an armada of foreign warships patrolling the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.
In January, pirates released an Iranian-chartered cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat to Iran from Germany that was seized in November. In March, a regional maritime official said Somali villagers had detained another Iranian vessel.


Nearly 20,000 ships pass through the Gulf of Aden each year, heading to and from the Suez Canal. Seven percent of world oil consumption passed through the Gulf of Aden in 2007, according to Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit.


On May 20, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested a missile that defence analysts say could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a move likely to fuel concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.


The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies, but President Barack Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist".


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39868320090525?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Iran's Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal Mon May 25, 2009 10:49am EDT
By Parisa Hafezi (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=Parisa.Hafezi)


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.


The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking re-election in a June 12 presidential vote, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.


The United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain said in April they would invite Iran to a meeting to try and find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.


The West accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, denies the charge and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.


Breaking with past U.S. policy of shunning direct talks with Iran, Obama's administration said it would join such discussions with Tehran from now on.


"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.


"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference.
NO COOPERATION WITH NORTH KOREA


He was asked about a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal first put forward last year under which Iran would freeze expansion of its nuclear program in return for the U.N. Security Council halting further sanctions against Tehran.


Western diplomats say the proposal remains on the table. Ahmadinejad last month said Iran had prepared its own package of proposals to end the stalemate.


"We will not allow anyone to negotiate with us outside the agency's regulations and issues," he said on Monday, referring to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the agency."


Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist," but Washington has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails.


Ahmadinejad, facing a challenge in the election from moderates advocating detente with the West, has made angry rhetoric against the United States and it allies his trademark since he came to power in 2005.


Iran says it is ready for "constructive" talks but has repeatedly rejected demands to halt sensitive uranium enrichment which can have both civilian and military purposes.


Asked about North Korea's nuclear test on Monday, Ahmadinejad said: "In principle we oppose the production, expansion and the use of weapons of mass destruction."


He said Iran had no missile or nuclear cooperation with North Korea.
Ahmadinejad also proposed a debate with Obama at U.N. headquarters in New York, "regarding the roots of world problems."

[Matt]

Our president's handling of Iran thus far has been an embarrassment to our country. Bush did too much in regards to foreign policy, overstepped his bounds and what not where as Obama is not doing enough. It is like he sits in his office like a terrified little boy hoping that his world of rainbows and unicorns won't be disrupted by some nut job third world leader.

[StorminNorman]

Deputy defense minister: Israelis should be prepared for all-out war ...

'Home front drill scenario not fiction'
May. 25, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
The upcoming home front drill, Turning Point 3, is based a scenario in which "a combined missile and rocket attack on Israel from all sides combined with terror attacks from within," and is "not a fictional scenario,", Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilan'i told members of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.
Vilna'i briefed the committee on the state-wide drill, scheduled to begin on May 31. The threat of missiles hitting mainland Israel "is not unrealistic," Vilna'i continued. "If a war breaks out, that is probably what would happen."
According to Vilna'i, "In conducting this national home front drill we aren't looking to scare anyone, but rather prepare ourselves for a threat which has its writing on the wall."
The drill will include all emergency response teams, all government ministries as well as the entire civilian population. According to the military, people will be asked to choose secured rooms or bomb shelters, and ensure that they know what to do in the event of war.
During the exercise, 252 local councils and municipalities will open 'crisis rooms' and will respond to various simulated emergency scenarios.
The exercise will be the third home front exercise to be held since the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and since the Defense Ministry's National Emergency Administration (NEA), which is responsible for setting national emergency standards, was established.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243257906474&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran

Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday. Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.

But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.
Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear armed state, considers Iran its arch-foe after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map."
Israel and Washington accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.
Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.
It was carried out by Tel Aviv University's Centre for Iranian Studies among 509 Israeli adults and had a 4.5-percent margin of error.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.278ae37b736a0478b7223156a3bcf18 a.401&show_article=1

At least Israel and America are pals. I mean, Israel wouldn't do something if Barack Obama doesn't want them to, right?

Netanyahu defies Obama on Israeli settlement freeze

Source: ReutSource: Reuters
* Israel rejects full West Bank settlement freeze

* PM Netanyahu vows no limitations on Jerusalem building

* Palestinians see settlements as threat to statehood

By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM, May 24 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rebuffed U.S. calls for a full settlement freeze in the occupied West Bank and vowed not to accept limits on building of Jewish enclaves within Jerusalem.

Netanyahu's defiant stance set the stage for a possible showdown with U.S. President Barack Obama, who, in talks with the new Israeli prime minister in Washington last week, pressed for a halt to all settlement activity, including natural growth, as called for under a long-stalled peace "road map".

"The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don't think that anyone here at this table accepts it," Netanyahu told his cabinet, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, according to an official.

Netanyahu said Israel had no plans to set up any new West Bank settlements. But he told Obama, according to the official, that his government "does not accept limitations on building" within what Israel defines as its capital, the Jerusalem municipality, an area that includes Arab East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank captured in a 1967 Middle East war.

Palestinians want their own state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with its capital in Jerusalem. Settlement building in the city is a particularly sensitive issue for both sides.

"What we are interested in seeing is that Israel should implement its obligations under the road map, which includes halting settlement activity and expansion in all its forms," Public Works and Housing Minister Mohammed Shatayyeh said.

He added that if Israel wanted to show it was serious about peace talks with the Palestinians it should stop providing utilities to settlements and deny them state funding.

Netanyahu's comments reaffirmed a position he took in his bid for the premiership in a February election. By natural growth, Israel refers to construction within the boundaries of existing settlements to accommodate growing families.

Obama was expected to prod Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resume long-stalled peace talks during a major speech in Cairo early next month.

Abbas has ruled out restarting those talks until Netanyahu, whose right-leaning government took office on March 31, commits to a two-state solution and halts settlement expansion.

Obama has surprised Israel with his activism on the settlement issue, but it is unclear how much pressure he will put on Netanyahu to freeze construction entirely, Israeli and Western officials said. Former President George W. Bush called for a freeze but building continued largely unchecked, Israeli anti-settlement advocacy groups say.

Half a million Jews live in settlement blocs and smaller outposts built in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War.

The World Court says all are illegal. The United States and European Union regard them as obstacles to peace.

Palestinians see the settlements as a land grab meant to deny them a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

PEACE TALKS

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said the fate of existing settlements should be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians. "In the interim period, we have to allow normal life in those communities to continue," he said.

Netanyahu has so far balked at committing to talks with the Palestinians on territorial issues, including settlements.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Netanyahu's government hoped to sidestep U.S. pressure by committing to uproot smaller hilltop outposts built without official authorisation, a step also set by the road map.

"Moving on outposts is relatively easy" compared to freezing the growth of larger settlements, which Israel wants to keep as part of any future peace deal, the Israeli official said.

Last week, Israel flattened a small outpost near the Palestinian city of Ramallah, but residents returned to rebuild.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak told reporters that Israel would remove more than 20 other outposts, either through negotiations or with force, but gave no timeline. (Additional reporting by Ari Rabinovitch and Allyn Fisher-Ilan in Jerusalem and Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah; editing by Myra MacDonald) (For blogs and links on Israeli politics and other Israeli and Palestinian news, go to http://blogs.reuters.com/axismundi)

[Wiseman]

I posted in here to prove addendum wrong

[Carcharodon]

I posted in here to prove addendum wrongIf you posted in here in response to a claim made by Addendum, then that means the claim existed before you ever posted this...and it means that he wasn't wrong. :huh:

[Wiseman]

If you posted in here in response to a claim made by Addendum, then that means the claim existed before you ever posted this...and it means that he wasn't wrong. :huh:

hmm, perhaps I should've been more subtle with my approach

[voyzovrezon]

Our president's handling of Iran thus far has been an embarrassment to our country. Bush did too much in regards to foreign policy, overstepped his bounds and what not where as Obama is not doing enough. It is like he sits in his office like a terrified little boy hoping that his world of rainbows and unicorns won't be disrupted by some nut job third world leader.

You must have been a Hillary supporter. :hehe:

I feel safer now that the Obama administration is in charge. He's willing to be diplomatic as part of his job--not to shoot from the hip and ask questions later like Cheney wants to do. You know, the guy that got five deferments from serving in the military?

Anyway, if war ensues, it will be on the head of Netenyahu. He's crazy.

[StorminNorman]

You must have been a Hillary supporter. :hehe:

I feel safer now that the Obama administration is in charge. He's willing to be diplomatic as part of his job--not to shoot from the hip and ask questions later like Cheney wants to do. You know, the guy that got five deferments from serving in the military?

Wait...was Obama ever in the military? So why does Cheney not being in the military mean anything?

Also, being willing to take part in diplomacy only works if the other party cares.

Anyway, if war ensues, it will be on the head of Netenyahu. He's crazy.

Netenyahu has a far greater understanding of the seriousness of Iran than Barry does.

[voyzovrezon]

Netenyahu has a far greater understanding of the seriousness of Iran than Barry does.

Maybe he can't see the forest for the trees. Netenyahu has attended CUFI conferences. Listen to what these people believe:

mjMRgT5o-Ig

[StorminNorman]

Maybe he can't see the forest for the trees. Netenyahu has attended CUFI conferences. Listen to what these people believe:

mjMRgT5o-Ig

:sleepy:

Wake me when it's something relevant. A video interviewing the more radical members of an organization (while at the same time demonstrating that the leaders of the organization did not share those views) isn't doing your argument a whole lot of good.

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_AboutCUFI

There is a link to what the CUFI touts as the purpose of their group - there is nothing extremist about any of that. Nentenyahu supporting and speaking to such a group isn't at all suspicious, out of place or warrant of a second thought.

[voyzovrezon]

:sleepy:

There is a link to what the CUFI touts as the purpose of their group - there is nothing extremist about any of that. Nentenyahu supporting and speaking to such a group isn't at all suspicious, out of place or warrant of a second thought.

I disagree. John Hagee, founder of CUFI, believes that Armageddon is inevitable. The Jews obtaining the Dome of the Rock is crucial to usher in Jesus return. Hagee has more influence over foreign policy than most people realize. Maybe not with the Obama administration, but with many members of congress and senate.

The publication of a book calling for an evenhanded US policy towards Israel has caused outrage. Christian lobby groups want America to take a more aggressive stance against Israel's enemies. "When the US State Department presents a brain dead plan to divide Jerusalem, our response will be 'not on our watch'" vows TV evangelist, Pastor John Hagee. His influential lobby group, Christians United for Israel, believes protecting Israel is of paramount importance. "Israel is the focus of the bible". To this end, he's gathered more than 3,000 supporters for an assault on Capital Hill. "We will visit the offices of every senator and congressman". Hagee's particularly dismayed at President Bush for promoting peace negotiations with the Palestinians and using the word 'occupation'. "Every concession by Israel has only led to advanced terrorism", he explains. However, many Jews do not agree with the Pastor. "His agenda is not good for Jewish life in America or for Israel", claims Rabbi Block. "He argues against Israeli disengagement from any occupied territory". And the 50,000 Christians who live in the West Bank feel betrayed. As the Christian Palestinian Ambassador, Afif Safieh, laments; "They are totally insensitive of our ordeal and supportive of our oppressor".

embedding was disabled for this video, but hear what Hagee himself has to say about Israel and foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY1TT4I2ohI

[Nivek]

OOh noes, Amrageddinit?

[StorminNorman]

I disagree. John Hagee, founder of CUFI, believes that Armageddon is inevitable. The Jews obtaining the Dome of the Rock is crucial to usher in Jesus return. Hagee has more influence over foreign policy than most people realize. Maybe not with the Obama administration, but with many members of congress and senate.
.

embedding was disabled for this video, but hear what Hagee himself has to say about Israel and foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY1TT4I2ohI

Is Nentenyahu besties with John Hagee? If so, then it is something to be worried about.

Speaking at the CUFI is not.

[Zar25]

Also, being willing to take part in diplomacy only works if the other party cares.

He got our reporter back through diplomacy didn't he ? I wonder how Bush would've handled that one ... hmmnnn

[Zar25]

Our president's handling of Iran thus far has been an embarrassment to our country. Bush did too much in regards to foreign policy, overstepped his bounds and what not where as Obama is not doing enough. It is like he sits in his office like a terrified little boy hoping that his world of rainbows and unicorns won't be disrupted by some nut job third world leader.


You know this how ? :whatever: I'll concede that relations with Iran is frustrating at best but making assumptions like that is insulting. Diplomacy thus far is the only avenue we have. Iran is NOT Iraq. Iran is smarter, tougher and stronger.

Having dialogue is NOT weakness. Unless you believe on taking direct action on Iran which we really can't afford to do or impose further sanctions that it's practically useless.

We got nothing on Iran and they're not going to easily give us anything either. We got no leverage and little actionable intelligence to pursue. Until we have a better solution, diplomacy is the only way to go.

[hippie_hunter]

You must have been a Hillary supporter. :hehe:

I feel safer now that the Obama administration is in charge. He's willing to be diplomatic as part of his job--not to shoot from the hip and ask questions later like Cheney wants to do. You know, the guy that got five deferments from serving in the military?

Anyway, if war ensues, it will be on the head of Netenyahu. He's crazy.

I honestly feel that the United States is just as unsafe with Obama as it was with Bush. While Bush's foreign policy went way too far with his no tolerance to the point where it pissed off our allies, Obama's is going way too far in playing nice.

Extremes aren't good because on one hand you have the United States being the ******* of the world with Bush and on the other rogue nations are pretty much viewing Obama as weak. There needs to be balance.

[StorminNorman]

The allies that Bush pissed off are mostly useless, honestly.

Israel and Britain are by themselves far more useful than the rest of Western Europe combined.

[SuBe]

Iran is just pissed Obama hasn't been over for Tea and Crumpets yet. Wait until that happens and Obama Wan Kenobi will use his Jedi Mind Tricks then everything will be "Kosher". Except probably Israel. Which will no longer be Kosher as they will be dust.

Way to go Obama!

[Paradyme]

Ahmadinejad Challenger Vows Better U.S. Ties

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


Print TEHRAN, Iran — A conservative challenger to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran's presidential race is vowing to improve ties with the United States and "save" the country's economy if elected.

Mohsen Rezaei, former chief of the powerful paramilitary Revolutionary Guards, is accusing the hard-line Iranian leader of damaging the country by pursuing a harmful foreign policy full.

Rezaei said Ahmadinejad's mismanagement has taken Iran to the "edge of a precipice."

The conservative told The Associated Press that he has devised a step-by-step "reciprocal exchange" plan to patch up ties with Washington.

Although he is not considered a leading contender in the June 12 election, Rezaei could pose a threat to Ahmadinejad by siphoning away the conservative camp's vote.


Here's to hoping he wins then. Maybe we can avoid a problem with Iran and only have North Korea to worry about.

[hippie_hunter]

The allies that Bush pissed off are mostly useless, honestly.

Israel and Britain are by themselves far more useful than the rest of Western Europe combined.
Germany and France are not useless allies.

[Matt]

Here's to hoping he wins then. Maybe we can avoid a problem with Iran and only have North Korea to worry about.

It won't matter if he wins. Ahmadinejad is a puppet. This new guy will be a puppet. In the end, the new president will do whatever Khamenei wants him to do. Khamenei has no desire to have good relations with the US.

[Paradyme]

It won't matter if he wins. Ahmadinejad is a puppet. This new guy will be a puppet. In the end, the new president will do whatever Khamenei wants him to do. Khamenei has no desire to have good relations with the US.

Yeah, you're probably right.

[StorminNorman]

Germany and France are not useless allies.

Yes they are. You cannot ignore the culture of a country when accounting for their strategic usefulness. The French and German people limit the possible effectiveness of their military. Like many liberal European countries, they lack the stomach for war.

[voyzovrezon]

Lack the stomach for war? And that's supposed to be a bad thing?

Maybe Germany had its fill of it back in WWII. A guy named Hitler took over and we all know what happened then. It took years for them to rebuild with other nations help.

Maybe if other countries were as "liberal" as Germany and France, there'd be a lot less bloodshed in the world. Good gravy people, give peace a chance!

[voyzovrezon]

Iran is just pissed Obama hasn't been over for Tea and Crumpets yet. Wait until that happens and Obama Wan Kenobi will use his Jedi Mind Tricks then everything will be "Kosher". Except probably Israel. Which will no longer be Kosher as they will be dust.

Way to go Obama!

What ta....:lmao:

What's wrong with having tea and crumpets with other world leaders? And Obi Wan Kenobi was a very wise sage. Obama could hope to do as well.

Another president named Jimmy Carter succeeded in bringing together two supposedly enemies in peace. I'm old enough to remember Begin and Sadat. Maybe with Arafat gone, and a new president for Iran on the way, it's not too late to give up hope.

[StorminNorman]

Lack the stomach for war? And that's supposed to be a bad thing?

Maybe Germany had its fill of it back in WWII. A guy named Hitler took over and we all know what happened then. It took years for them to rebuild with other nations help.

Maybe if other countries were as "liberal" as Germany and France, there'd be a lot less bloodshed in the world. Good gravy people, give peace a chance!

Guess what, we can't afford to treat the world as if it was ideal. When evaluating National Security and International Relations, we have to see the world for what it is. Deluding yourself does nothing to benefit your people.

A country that does not have the stomach to go to war has a disadvantage when going against a country like Iran.

[voyzovrezon]

A country that does not have the stomach to go to war has a disadvantage when going against a country like Iran.

I'm also old enough to remember the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, it was the same day the hostages in Iran were set free without war! People did some negotiating behind the scenes and AVOIDED a war.

[StorminNorman]

I'm also old enough to remember the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, it was the same day the hostages in Iran were set free without war! People did some negotiating behind the scenes and AVOIDED a war.

Correct...:huh:

[Hobgoblin]

Our president's handling of Iran thus far has been an embarrassment to our country. Bush did too much in regards to foreign policy, overstepped his bounds and what not where as Obama is not doing enough. It is like he sits in his office like a terrified little boy hoping that his world of rainbows and unicorns won't be disrupted by some nut job third world leader.

I dont know if he is scared but I do think he doesnt want to be seen as aggressive in foreign relations as Bush was. He's trying to be better than the "war mongering" Bush. There has to be a middle ground and we've gone from one extreme to the other.

You must have been a Hillary supporter. :hehe:

I feel safer now that the Obama administration is in charge. He's willing to be diplomatic as part of his job--not to shoot from the hip and ask questions later like Cheney wants to do. You know, the guy that got five deferments from serving in the military?

Anyway, if war ensues, it will be on the head of Netenyahu. He's crazy.
I doubt that. I'd say Iran and Israel are about even in the likelihood that they will attack each other. Its just a question of defense or offense. Not that it matters, as a strike by either side would be very bad for Mid East peace.

[voyzovrezon]

I doubt that. I'd say Iran and Israel are about even in the likelihood that they will attack each other. Its just a question of defense or offense. Not that it matters, as a strike by either side would be very bad for Mid East peace.

True, but Netenyahu's aggressive expansion policies are further fanning the flames of ethnic distrust.

[StorminNorman]

True, but Netenyahu's aggressive expansion policies are further fanning the flames of ethnic distrust.

Israel has lost its bigger ally in America, Israel has a right to be scared. Obama has forced Israel to be wound so tightly.

[Hobgoblin]

Obama may be tougher on Israel than Bush was but America is still her #1 ally.

[StorminNorman]

With friends like Obama, who needs enemies?

Here is a good analysis by Charles Krauthammer

The Settlements Myth

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 5, 2009

President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."

What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren? It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process at a time when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he'll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060403811_pf.html

[sasquatchs]

So Krauthammer's argument is that the language all parties accepted in the 2003 roadmap ("GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)) is dictating. But an agreement between the US and Israel to propose swapping fertile settlement land for a patch of desert isn't. What a pile of excrement

[Wiseman]

I had no idea untill a couple months ago that Krauthammer is paralysed. Can't believe I didn't notice

[StorminNorman]

So Krauthammer's argument is that the language all parties accepted in the 2003 roadmap ("GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)) is dictating. But an agreement between the US and Israel to propose swapping fertile settlement land for a patch of desert isn't. What a pile of excrement

It's about maintaining current settlements so as not to force innocent Israeli's nor innocent Palestinians to leave their homes.

[StorminNorman]

I wonder how Jewish voters (75+% of the Jewish Community voted for Obama last election) feel about electing an enemy of Israel.

[Hobgoblin]

Actually, my aunt and uncle are Jewish and they voted against Obama for this very reason: thinking that he wont support Israel. Yeah, thats why he is the first sitting American president to visit a former concentration camp. That shows a real lack of sensitivity and a lack of awareness about anti-Semitism and the dangers that Jews face. :whatever:

[StorminNorman]

Visiting a concentration camp does what for the jewish people? Don't confuse a political stunt for substance. Just because Ahmadinejad visits the UN doesn't mean he has any interest in promoting global unity.

And I am not blaming the Jewish people for being tricked by Obama - they had little way of knowing how hostile Obama would be to Israel. I was asking, essentially, if they have buyers remorse.

[Hobgoblin]

Visiting a concentration camp does what for the jewish people? And I am not blaming the Jewish people for being tricked by Obama - they had little way of knowing how hostile Obama would be to Israel. I was asking, essentially, if they have buyers remorse.

How is he hostile to Israel? :huh: He condemned violence against Israelis. Visiting Buchenwald does show sensitivity to the Jewish people. Does it do anything outright? No, but its a good gesture. I cant believe anyone would actually think an American president would turn his back on Israel.

[sasquatchs]

It's about maintaining current settlements so as not to force innocent Israeli's nor innocent Palestinians to leave their homes.

Oh really? What settlements do Palestinians have in Israeli territory?

The "analysis" doesn't mention innocent Palestinians because it's ludicrously one-sided

I wonder how Jewish voters (75+% of the Jewish Community voted for Obama last election) feel about electing an enemy of Israel.

Stopping an illegal land grab = enemy of Israel. Laughable

Was Bush Sr an enemy of Israel too? He actually imposed sanctions whereas Obama pays lip-service

[Hobgoblin]

US Intell Expects Iran/Israel War in 09
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85662&sectionid=351020101
The US intelligence chief reportedly expects Israel and Iran to engage in a major military confrontation before the end of the year.

Dennis Blair, the newly-appointed head of US intelligence, said Tel Aviv will eventually declare war on Tehran as a last-ditch effort to curb Iran's enrichment capabilities, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported on Saturday.

Detailed military plans to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure have long been on the table in Tel Aviv.

Israel accuses Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of pursuing a military nuclear program.

Iran, however, says it enriches uranium for civilian applications and that it has a right to the technology already in the hands of many others.

In an annual threat assessment to Congress on Thursday, Blair reconfirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report, asserting once again that Iran is not currently working toward weaponization.

The retired admiral said that while Iran has made progress in enrichment, there is proof that Tehran "does not currently have a nuclear weapon, and does not have enough fissile material for one".

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) issued in November 2007 by sixteen US intelligence agencies has been an obstacle to Israeli efforts in building a case for war against the Islamic Republic.

In a Friday interview, former Israeli UN ambassador Dan Gillerman nevertheless revealed that Tel Aviv is preparing a military offensive against the country.

Gillerman explained that Israel could no longer afford to wait for international efforts to bring Iran's enrichment to an end.

Israeli legislator and weapons expert Isaac Ben-Israel has also called for Tel Aviv to attack Tehran in the coming year.

The Israeli calls against Tehran come at a time when prospects for direct US-Iran diplomacy have increased significantly in recent weeks.

Iran and the US have had no diplomatic ties for almost thirty years, but in an abrupt volte-face in the White House policy of isolating Iran, US President Barack Obama has vowed to break the ice and create conditions for the two sides to "start sitting across the table, face to face" in the coming months.

"I think there's the possibility, at least, of a relationship of mutual respect and progress," Obama said at his first prime time press conference on Monday.

"My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction," he added.

Israel fears US-Iran talks may lead to rapprochement between the two countries -- a development that may be able to slightly change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Iran has shown openness toward US calls for dialogue but insists that Washington should be seeking lasting 'change' and not a mere shift in tactics.

[StorminNorman]

How is he hostile to Israel? :huh: He condemned violence against Israelis. Visiting Buchenwald does show sensitivity to the Jewish people. Does it do anything outright? No, but its a good gesture. I cant believe anyone would actually think an American president would turn his back on Israel.

Why take my words when you could have essentially the same message come from a highly respected political mind like Charles Krauthammer.

The "analysis" doesn't mention innocent Palestinians because it's ludicrously one-sided

Actually it does. It mentions the fact that the Palestinian people have been used and abused by it's leaders.

Stopping an illegal land grab = enemy of Israel. Laughable

An illegal land grab? Bull. Israel has a right to the land. Obama wants to prevent Israel from having any natural growth, which is completely absurd. Obama places most of the blame of the Palestinians on the Israeli's and not those who deserve the blame - the leadership of the Palestinians and Arab neighbors.

Was Bush Sr an enemy of Israel too? He actually imposed sanctions whereas Obama pays lip-service

Obama's hostility is obvious in the difference in approach in how he treats Iran and North Korea and how he treats Israel.

US Intell Expects Iran/Israel War in 09
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85662&sectionid=351020101

I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

[Addendum]

An illegal land grab? Bull. Israel has a right to the land.


According to what?

[StorminNorman]

According to what?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the treaties made with Jordon and Egypt.

[sasquatchs]

Actually it does. It mentions the fact that the Palestinian people have been used and abused by it's leaders.


Which is relevant how to you saying the article was about not forcing "innocent Israeli's nor innocent Palestinians to leave their homes". Don't try to create false equivalences


An illegal land grab? Bull. Israel has a right to the land. Obama wants to prevent Israel from having any natural growth, which is completely absurd.


You still haven't acknowledged that Israel accepted the road map, including a freeze on natural growth


Obama's hostility is obvious in the difference in approach in how he treats Iran and North Korea and how he treats Israel.


A complete non-answer. What's the difference between Bush Sr and Obama's attitude to Israeli settlements?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the treaties made with Jordon and Egypt

Where in 242 does it say Israel has a right to the land?

[Addendum]

I don't recall those treaties giving Israel a right to the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights.

[Kelly]

Did they not gain those through war?

[Addendum]

Did they not gain those through war?

And that UN Resolution considers those territories inadmissible.

[Matt]

US Intell Expects Iran/Israel War in 09
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85662&sectionid=351020101

Bold prediction: By 2010, NK will have sold a crude nuclear weapon to Iran. They will use it on Israel. Hell will break loose in the Middle East.

[Marx]

Bold prediction: By 2010, NK will have sold a crude nuclear weapon to Iran. They will use it on Israel. Hell will break loose in the Middle East.

That is rather bold...and quite scary to even think about.

[Kelly]

I don't know that it will happen by 2010, but I do believe it is possible that it could happen during the Obama administration....

[StorminNorman]

I would almost be surprised (and naturally relieved) if Isreal did not attack Iran by the end of the year.

[StorminNorman]

Which is relevant how to you saying the article was about not forcing "innocent Israeli's nor innocent Palestinians to leave their homes". Don't try to create false equivalences

No Palestinians will be forced to leave their homes under such a plan. Neither would any Israeli's.

You still haven't acknowledged that Israel accepted the road map, including a freeze on natural growth

When?

A complete non-answer. What's the difference between Bush Sr and Obama's attitude to Israeli settlements?

The perception. It's all about perception.

Where in 242 does it say Israel has a right to the land?

Peace treaties made with Jordan and Egypt were made with Israel retaining control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. As the PLO refused to accept the terms of 242, Israel - I and many - believe holds the right to that area.

I don't recall those treaties giving Israel a right to the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights.

Look at the treaties made with Jordon and Egypt.

And that UN Resolution considers those territories inadmissible.

Not entirely true.

[sasquatchs]

Peace treaties made with Jordan and Egypt were made with Israel retaining control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. As the PLO refused to accept the terms of 242, Israel - I and many - believe holds the right to that area.

Er, no. The land isn't forfeited and given to Israel just because the PLO declined the terms. 242 makes clear that Israel or any state can't acquire land through force, they don't get squatters rights


When?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=296839&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[voyzovrezon]

US Intell Expects Iran/Israel War in 09
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=85662&sectionid=351020101

Iran and the US have had no diplomatic ties for almost thirty years, but in an abrupt volte-face in the White House policy of isolating Iran, US President Barack Obama has vowed to break the ice and create conditions for the two sides to "start sitting across the table, face to face" in the coming months.

"I think there's the possibility, at least, of a relationship of mutual respect and progress," Obama said at his first prime time press conference on Monday.

"My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction," he added.

Israel fears US-Iran talks may lead to rapprochement between the two countries -- a development that may be able to slightly change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Iran has shown openness toward US calls for dialogue but insists that Washington should be seeking lasting 'change' and not a mere shift in tactics.

There's hope when the U.S. president wants diplomatic solutions rather than preemptive strikes. Like Jimmy Carter showed us back in 1978, talks work. And Iran is willing to talk.

[Hobgoblin]

But is Israel willing to wait for talks to be productive? And should they be willing?

[voyzovrezon]

and speaking of Palestinians being forced from their homes, this video by Max Blumenthal, at 3 minutes in, shows a town called Silwan in which Palestinians may be forced to evacuate in order for an archeological park to be built.

_aVb2coBLwE

[voyzovrezon]

But is Israel willing to wait for talks to be productive? And should they be willing?

First question---I personally do not know. Second question--why shouldn't they be willing?

[Hobgoblin]

First question---I personally do not know. Second question--why shouldn't they be willing?

The longer they wait, the more progress Iran makes on developing its nuclear program. Time is of the essence, I'm sure.

[The Overlord]

Peace treaties made with Jordan and Egypt were made with Israel retaining control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. As the PLO refused to accept the terms of 242, Israel - I and many - believe holds the right to that area.

.

Egypt and Jordan don't own those lands, That's like saying the US would have the right to sell Canada to Russia, it doesn't. Trying to control Gaza and west Bank doesn't make sense on many levels, from a military standard and a PR one. Its foolish to waste resources protecting a bunch of crazy religious settlers, it spreads your forces too thin and Israel would have the moral support of most of the world if they withdrew to the pre 67 borders. If they withdrew to their pre 67 borders, they can build a wall around that for I care, if they are that worried about security, it would easier to defend a smaller era with a more concentrated Jewish population, then trying to defend that and a bunch of scattered settlements.

There is no logical reason for these settlements, the reasoning behind is some outdated religious mumbo jumbo. Now granted I don't like the regime in Palestine either, but allowing this status quo to continue is insane, this status quo is not working, it needs a change.

[StorminNorman]

Er, no. The land isn't forfeited and given to Israel just because the PLO declined the terms. 242 makes clear that Israel or any state can't acquire land through force, they don't get squatters rights



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=296839&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

And the fact that Israel made treaties with Jordan and with Egypt that left them with the land they owned means it was not simply acquired through force. It was acquired through treaty.

[The Overlord]

And the fact that Israel made treaties with Jordan and with Egypt that left them with the land they owned means it was not simply acquired through force. It was acquired through treaty.

Again, don't those lands belong to the Palestinians, not Jordan or Egypt, I mean its not like there are Jordanians or Eygtians in Refugee camps.

[Kelly]

Again, don't those lands belong to the Palestinians, not Jordan or Egypt, I mean its not like there are Jordanians or Eygtians in Refugee camps.

I do not believe that the Palestinians can legally prove they own any land.....therein lies their biggest hurdle to a state of their own.

[The Overlord]

I do not believe that the Palestinians can legally prove they own any land.....therein lies their biggest hurdle to a state of their own.

But then who does own the land? Can Jordan or Egypt prove they own that land? Who did own that land circa 1946? If the Palestians didn't own that land, why are they in refugee camps then?

[Kelly]

But then who does own the land? Can Jordan or Egypt prove they own that land? Who did own that land circa 1946? If the Palestians didn't own that land, why are they in refugee camps then?

Yes, but the land was taken by Israel, through war....

[luke1234]

That is rather bold...and quite scary to even think about.

yeah it is, time to reset the doomsday clock

[The Overlord]

Yes, but the land was taken by Israel, through war....

So what? The USSR took Poland after WWII, was that a valid exchange? Taking something in a war doesn't mean legitimate ownership.

Here's the problem with that region, its been conquered and reconquered so many times, drawn and redrawn since the dawn of recorded history, that proving ownership of anything there would be a problem. Its a bloody mess. If you want to get technical, neither Palestine or Israel own that land, it is owned the Caanites. Since there are no Caanites around anymore, let's just come up with the most fair and reasonable solutions to this problem today, instead worrying about the messy and bloody history of who owns what, in that region, which can stretch out for centuries.

[StorminNorman]

Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98MJF002&show_article=1

[Paradyme]

I find that confusing since most of the footage I've seen of Iran and the people they look quite...westernized.

[The Overlord]

Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98MJF002&show_article=1

That ingores the fact that its impossible to get an unbiased poll out of Iran, the governemnt there will always have the results rigged. There is an underground sub culture in Iran, that would not answer this poll, that does like the US and hate the current regime, its hard to get a reasonable poll out of that country.

[Marx]

Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98MJF002&show_article=1

In all honesty, I blame the Iranian goverment for that.

[Kelly]

So what? The USSR took Poland after WWII, was that a valid exchange? Taking something in a war doesn't mean legitimate ownership.

Here's the problem with that region, its been conquered and reconquered so many times, drawn and redrawn since the dawn of recorded history, that proving ownership of anything there would be a problem. Its a bloody mess. If you want to get technical, neither Palestine or Israel own that land, it is owned the Caanites. Since there are no Caanites around anymore, let's just come up with the most fair and reasonable solutions to this problem today, instead worrying about the messy and bloody history of who owns what, in that region, which can stretch out for centuries.

The UN gave Israel a certain portion of land, as the years went by and Israel was attacked at certain time, they gained land. Most gained during the 6-day war in the 1960's.....

Then we need to take a look at the land we gained from war, and international law says it is legitimately ours.

But, you are correct, keeping their eyes on history rather than the future will not help. That is why peace negotiating starts out #1, with both parties agreeing not to look at their history. That is why peace negotiations between these 2 parties stall so quickly.