http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12370498/

If this is true then we have another land of sand we will be looking at :(

I'm sure he was there providing "Humanitarian Aid".....
:eek:

You know what i find somewhat funny?

If an American soldier was in another country aiding a group against another country, we would all shrug it off as him being an enemy combatant himself or something of that sort... But they find a guy from the military in Iran and there is a whole conspiracy of Iran sending bombs to Iraq, and training terrorists.

I dont trust America's intelligence anymore, I didnt trust it before we invaded Iraq, and it turned out I was right not to trust it before. Its amazing how they have built credibility with the people through more inaccurate information.

Is it possible that this 1 soldier was sent by Iran? Yes
Does it mean its true because the U.S. sais it is? No

If an American soldier was in another country aiding a group against another country, we would all shrug it off as him being an enemy combatant himself or something of that sort...

I would think he's in the Special Forces.....
You don't usually find American soldiers that go to other countries "just to help out", unless they have orders to do so.
I suppose you are allowed to think that this guy is a "loose cannon", but combined with the other Iranians they have been seeing regurlarly in Iraq, it's kind of hard not to draw conclusions...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/04/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Iraq-Detained-Iranians.php

http://archive.seacoastonline.com/news/01122007/worldnation-ph-wn-iraq.12.html

http://cbs2chicago.com/national/topstories_story_359173339.html

One thing that makes it hard to believe for me is, Iran hates Iraq.

Plain and simple, My family in Iran still curse about Iraqi's when they speak of them. Old men and women cant control their tongues.

The Iran Iraq war where so many Iranian's young boys fought and died has made them hate Iraq with a passion.

Then again, My father just showed me some pictures from his trip to Iran, and there were MANY full building advertisement type paintings that said DEATH TO AMERICA with skulls as stars on the flag, and the stripes fading into bombs...

So who knows

One thing that makes it hard to believe for me is, Iran hates Iraq.


Ever notice how a lot of Iraqis are killed by road side bombings, as well as American soldiers?

My thinking is this: The Iranians aren't going there to help Iraqis, they are going there to kill American soldiers.
There's a big difference between the two.

Ever notice how a lot of Iraqis are killed by road side bombings, as well as American soldiers?

My thinking is this: The Iranians aren't going there to help Iraqis, they are going there to kill American soldiers.
There's a big difference between the two.

Thats a possibility, Perhaps they think they will kill two birds with 1 stone?

Yep.
They key is, is to try to get the Iraqis to start rejecting any sort of "Help" from the Iranians.
The problem there is, the Shiites seem to be closely tied to Iran, and willing to "Deal with the Devil", as it were.

Of course the heavily Shiite Iraqi government, particularly Tehran friendly PM al-Maliki, are willing to deal with Iran. There's no surprise here. In turn, the US is dealing with its own devils, both former (and possibly future) Sunni insurgents as well as that same Tehran friendly Prime Minister.

And while Iranians have reason to hate Iraq, the opportunity to influence the ultimate political outcome of that nation (assuming there is one) is too good to pass up.

The news these days is so depressing... All we hear about is the possibility of attacking this country, the chance of being attacked by that country/group, the news about one country attacking another... Will it ever end?

Human Beings are territorial creatures. It has served us well throughout our evolution.
The only way it will end is if an outside entity causes us to band together, against them....
Read The Watchmen, by DC comics.
And the news will always be about what interests people the most.
Right now, attacking another country or being attacked by them is pretty high on people's lists.....

Human Beings are territorial creatures. It has served us well throughout our evolution.
The only way it will end is if an outside entity causes us to band together, against them....
Read The Watchmen, by DC comics.
And the news will always be about what interests people the most.
Right now, attacking another country or being attacked by them is pretty high on people's lists.....

I understand that, as it is high on my list... But isnt it just sad?

The news these days is so depressing... All we hear about is the possibility of attacking this country, the chance of being attacked by that country/group, the news about one country attacking another... Will it ever end?Not so long as the induction of fear is a useful political tool.

The news these days is so depressing... All we hear about is the possibility of attacking this country, the chance of being attacked by that country/group, the news about one country attacking another... Will it ever end?

NO!

Not as long as there are so many varied religious practices, and not as long as vital resources are to be found only in certain areas, and not as long as people have varying shades of skin tone, and not as long some country's are run by dictatorships and others by democratically voted in governments, and not as long as concepts such as hate and envy and revenge and greed remain so prominent in the global consciousness.

I dont trust America's intelligence anymore, I didnt trust it before we invaded Iraq, and it turned out I was right not to trust it before. Its amazing how they have built credibility with the people through more inaccurate information.While I don't disagree with your sentiment at all, I would draw a distinction - it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that our intelligence is very accurate, or at least far more accurate in many matters than we are led to believe. What is absolutely untrustworthy is what they choose to tell the American people, either through officials flat out lying or current media spins. I don't trust the majority of news that I see on television anymore, and it's becoming exceedingly harder to wade through it all and find any semblance of truth.

Because truth and accuracy have been replaced with ratings....
Who cares if you tell the truth, as long as you have people watching?

Starting in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981), Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker) and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive each other of trade. After Iraqi attacks on Iran's main oil export facility on Khark Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Province#Kharg_Island_.28Khark_Island.29), Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain) on May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984), and a Saudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) tanker in Saudi waters on May 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_16). Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) sharply increased thereafter. This phase of the conflict was dubbed the "Tanker War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_War)."

In 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982) with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)), and also supplying weapons.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-11) President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-12) President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-13)

Lloyd's of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London), a British insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance) market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market), estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest portion of the attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1), 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986), Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience) on March 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7), 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987) (Operation Earnest Will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will) and Operation Prime Chance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prime_Chance)). Under international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law), an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the United States, allowing the U.S. Navy to retaliate. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.

On May 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17), an Iraqi plane attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29), a Perry class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class) frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate), killing 37 and injuring 21.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-14) However, U.S. attention was focused on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_598), which passed unanimously on July 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20), under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. During the Operation Nimble Archer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nimble_Archer) in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-15)

On April 14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_14), 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988), the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_%28FFG-58%29) was badly damaged by an Iranian mine however it didn't suffer any casualty. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) on April 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_18), the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy)'s largest engagement of surface warships since World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships and six Iranian gunboats were destroyed. an American helicopter also crashed most likely accidentally.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-16)

In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_%28CG-49%29) shot down Iran Air Flight 655 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_3), 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988). The American government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States) claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat), and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-17). The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Crowe) also admitted on Nightline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightline) that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-18) . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident ($131,800,000)), but never apologized.

According to an investigation conducted by ABC News' Nightline, decoys were set during the war by the US Navy inside the Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation.

The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-33)

Ted Koppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Koppel) of ABC Nightline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightline) reported the following, however, on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.�

According to New Yorker, the Reagan Administration began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-34) Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-35)

The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany also provided "dual use" technology (computers, engines, etc.) that allowed Iraq to expand its missile program and radar defenses. The U.S. Commerce Department, in violation of procedure, gave out licenses to companies for $1.5 billion in dual-use items to be sent to Iraq. The State Department was not informed of this. Over 1 billion of these authorized items were trucks that were never delivered. The rest consisted of advanced technology. Iraq's Soviet-made Scuds had their ranges expanded as a result.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-36)

Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia) sold weapons to both countries for the entire duration of the conflict. Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) helped both countries: it was not unusual seeing Iranian- and Iraqi-flagged ships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships) side-by-side in Sines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sines%2C_Portugal) (a town with a deep-sea port (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port)).

According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon) were obtained from the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), West Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany), the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) and the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China).[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-38)

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (4,261 tons), Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) (2,400 tons), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany) (1,027 tons). One Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) and affiliated to United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates), supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29), sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin), and mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas) precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-39)

According to Iraq's declarations, it had procured 340 pieces of equipment used for the production of chemical weapons. More than half came from a US firm via a German company[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)], the remainder mostly from France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), and Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria). [4] (http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif) In addition, Iraq declared that it imported more than 200,000 munitions made for delivering chemicals, 75,000 came from Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), 57,500 from Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), 45,000 from China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China), and 28,500 from Egypt. [5] (http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif)

Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld) even met with Saddam Hussein the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_%28nerve_agent%29) nerve agent against Iranian troops.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-40) The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) reported from Baghdad on 29 March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_29) 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984), that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-41) The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record�.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-42) According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-43)

In May 2003, an extended list of international companies involvements in Iraq was provided by The Independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent).[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-44) Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that 31 Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-45)

Iraq's chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Kobe&action=edit), which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraq’s foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun) were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin) began in 1984.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-46) Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensors and vessels. France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), and Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) provided similar equipment.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-47)

The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) delivered 60 tons of DMMP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMMP), a chemical used to make sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin), a nerve gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_gas) implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_Syndrome). The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times) and The Tennessean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tennessean) reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon), a design based on the Canadian HARP program. In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stopped an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was placed by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad. [6] (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883_3895.html)

The U.S. firm Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiodiglycol), to Iraq & Iran in violation of U.S. export laws but the U.S. Justice Department for illegal exports indicted the company in 1988 only for its illegal exports to Iran and was forced to pay a fine. Overall between 300-400 tons were sent to Iraq.[7] (http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883_3895.html) [8] (http://www.iraqwatch.org/search/view-record.asp?sc=suppliers&id=269) [9] (http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/iran-chemical-1998.html)[10] (http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif) [11] (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html)



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&action=edit&section=26)] Biological

Iraq did not use biological weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_weapons) in the war, but built up its capability during that time.

On 25 May (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_25) 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994), The U.S. Senate Banking Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking%2C_Housing%2C_and _Urban_Affairs) released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic), toxicological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicological), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-48) The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Anthrax Bacillus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax)) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding that "these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-49)

A report by Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin)'s Die Tageszeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Tageszeitung) in 2002 reported that Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council) listed 150 foreign companies that supported Saddam Hussein's WMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) program. Twenty-four U.S. firms were involved in exporting arms and materials to Baghdad[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-50) Donald Riegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_W._Riegle%2C_Jr.), Chairman of the Senate committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking%2C_Housing%2C_and _Urban_Affairs) that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nile_virus), according to Riegle's investigators.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-51)

With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-r1) of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) is one the countries most severely afflicted by weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction).

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Wiesenthal_Center), a Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish) organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust), released a list of U.S. companies and their exports to Iraq.

The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star-Ledger):

"Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by mustard gas..."[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-56) Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iranian civilians, killing many in villages and hospitals. Many civilians suffered severe burns and health problems, and still suffer from them. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-r1)

On 21 March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_21) 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986), the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-57)

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency) at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival",[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-58) however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-59)[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-60)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-61)

There is great resentment in Iran that the international community helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal and armed forces, and also that the world did nothing to punish Saddam's Ba'athist regime for its use of chemical weapons against Iran throughout the war — particularly since the US and other western powers soon felt obliged to oppose the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait) and eventually invade Iraq itself to remove Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency) also accused Iran of using chemical weapons. These allegations however, have been disputed. Joost Hiltermann (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joost_Hiltermann&action=edit), who was the principal researcher for Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) between 1992-1994, conducted a two year study, including a field investigation in Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process.

According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of chemical weapons use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence".[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-62) Gary Sick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sick) and Lawrence Potter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Potter&action=edit) call the allegations against Iran "mere assertions" and state: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit [of using chemical weapons] was ever presented".[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-63) Policy consultant and author Joseph Tragert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Tragert&action=edit) also states: "Iran did not retaliate with Chemical weapons, probably because it did not possess any at the time".[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#_note-64)

At his trial in December 2006, Saddam Hussein said he would take responsibility "with honour" for any attacks on Iran using conventional or chemical weapons during the 1980-1988 war but he took issue with charges he ordered attacks on Iraqis

Iran-Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

I wonder if anyone was in uproar when Rumsfield was in Iraq, shaking hands with Sadaam and handing over intel, and arms.

Its alright though, as long as an Iranian isnt helping someone else against America... Right?

Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. Iranian troops and civilians suffered tens of thousands of casualties from Iraqi chemical weapons during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). As a result, Iran has publicly stood against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums.

Even today, more than eighteen years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, about 30,000 Iranians are still suffering and dying from the effects of chemical weapons deployed by Iraq during the war. The need to manage the treatment of such a large number of casualties has placed Iran’s medical specialists in the forefront of the development of effective treatment regimes for chemical weapons victims, and particularly for those suffering from exposure to mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas).

Does it make you sick that these people had sanctions put on them, by the same people that helped put them in such a precarious position?

People still sick from weapons that we helped provide?

You'd think that since Iran is so opposed to chemical weapons, they they'd be reluctant to pursue nuclear power: a source of energy which produces waste materials that makes mustard gas look like nitrous oxide....

Im sure there were people upset by the US helping Iraq. People get upset over the smallest of things that to one might seem normal or trivial.

but just because we helped Iraq fight Iran war, doesnt mean we should slap an Iranian officer on the hand who was driving a truck full of bombs on the wrist and send him back accross the border home to get another truckload.

The US didnt decide to back Iraq for just giggles because it didnt like Iran. The rest of the middle east, europe wanted intervention into the conflict as well.

Iran was using US warplanes against Iaq and other weapons. Russian tanks Ak47's. The use of chemical weapons is horrendous.

But there are were no WMD's in Iraq. Bush and Cheney made that up to go to war.

You'd think that since Iran is so opposed to chemical weapons, they they'd be reluctant to pursue nuclear power: a source of energy which produces waste materials that makes mustard gas look like nitrous oxide....

Unfortunatly Iran cannot rely on anyone else and is taking steps to be more self sufficient.

Puzzling though that you take that stance rather then one of general condemnation of the United States acts and its blatant disregard for all that it claims to hold dear.

But there are were no WMD's in Iraq. Bush and Cheney made that up to go to war.

Right... Because they used them all against Iran.

ARMS TO THE AYATOLLAH

The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.<74> Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin weapons to Iran;<75> to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.

In 1984, because of Iranian battlefield victories and the growing U.S.-Iraqi ties, Washington launched "Operation Staunch," an effort to dry up Iran's sources of arms by pressuring U.S. allies to stop supplying Teheran.<76> U.S. secret arms sales to Iran in 1985 and 1986 thus not only violated U.S. neutrality, but undercut as well what the U.S. was trying to get everyone else to do. The cynical would note that Operation Staunch made the U.S. arms transfers to Iran that much more valuable.

When this arms dealing became known, the Reagan administration was faced with a major scandal on several counts. Proceeds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. And though the administration's professed uncompromising stand on terrorism was always hypocritical, given its sponsorship of terrorism in Nicaragua and elsewhere, being caught trading "arms-for-hostages" was particularly embarrassing.

Now, in fact, this would not have been the first time the U.S. offered Teheran arms for hostages. In October 1980 the Carter administration had declared that spare parts for U.S. military equipment could be sold to Iran if the U.S. embassy hostages were released promptly.<77> There was even talk among U.S. officials about pre-positioning some spare parts in Germany, Pakistan, and Algeria so that the Iranians could get the equipment as soon as possible.<78> Republicans charged that Carter was trying to buy the hostages out in time for the election; there is some evidence that the Republicans in the meantime were engaged in an election maneuver of their own: negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.<79>

In any event, political influence not hostages was the Reagan administration's objective. Regardless of what was in the President's mind (as it were), the National Security Council was clear that the political agenda was key.<80>

Whatever the arguments for purchasing the freedom of hostages, trading weapons to obtain their release is another matter entirely, since one is exchanging for the lives of some hostages the lives of those who will be fired on by the weapons. And trading weapons for "a strategic opening" is more reprehensible still, particularly so when the weapons are going to the country whose army is on the offensive. Reagan claimed that the weapons were all defensive in nature,<81> but this is nonsense. Anti-tank missiles in the hands of an advancing army are offensive. And U.S. officials knew exactly what Iran wanted the weapons for: for example, as the Tower Commission noted, North and CIA officials discussed with their Iranian contacts "Iran's urgent need" for "both intelligence and weapons to be used in offensive operations against Iraq."<82>

The intelligence that the United States passed to the Iranians was a mixture of factual and bogus information. The CIA claimed that the false information was meant to discourage Iran's final offensive, by for example exaggerating Soviet troop movements on the northern border.<83> But if the U.S. simply wanted to discourage an Iranian attack, it could have done this more easily by telling Iran of Washington's contingency plans to use U.S. air power in the event of an Iranian breakthrough against Iraq.<84> The misinformation about the Soviet Union, however, had the added advantage of inciting Iranian hostility to Moscow and to the local communists.

U.S. intelligence did not deal only with the Soviet Union, but covered the Iraqi front as well. CIA deputy director John McMahon claimed that he warned Poindexter that such intelligence would give the Iranians "a definite edge," with potentially "cataclysmic results," and that he was able to persuade North to provide Iran with only a segment of the intelligence.<85> North, however, apparently gave critical data to Iran just before its crucial victory in the Fao Peninsula in February 1986.<86> It is unclear to what extent North was acting on his own here, but it is significant that despite McMahon's warnings, neither Poindexter nor CIA Director Casey reversed the plans to provide the Iranians with the full intelligence information.<87>

At the same time that the U.S. was giving Teheran weapons that one CIA analyst believed could affect the military balance<88> and passing on intelligence that the Tower Commission deemed of "potentially major significance,"<89> it was also providing Iraq with intelligence information, some misleading or incomplete.<90> In 1986, the CIA established a direct Washington-to-Baghdad link to provide the Iraqis with faster intelligence from U.S. satellites.<91> Simultaneously, Casey was urging Iraqi officials to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets.<92> Asked what the logic was of aiding both sides in a bloody war, a former official replied, "You had to have been there."<93>

Washington's effort to enhance its position with both sides came apart at the end of 1986 when one faction in the Iranian government leaked the story of the U.S. arms dealing. Now the Reagan administration was in the unenviable position of having alienated the Iranians and panicked all the Arabs who concluded that the U.S. valued Iran's friendship over theirs. To salvage the U.S. position with at least one side, Washington now had to tilt -- and tilt heavily -- toward Iraq.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Nekko... What does all that prove?

That the U.S. stuck its nose into something it shouldn't have, and ended up backing Iraq against Iran?

That until the end when Iran wouldnt back down on its attacks the US gave just as many weapons to Iran as it did Iraq. The link goes into more involvement, but the US stepped in since it only relied on 4% of the mid east for oil compared to other allies.

That until the end when Iran wouldnt back down on its attacks the US gave just as many weapons to Iran as it did Iraq. The link goes into more involvement, but the US stepped in since it only relied on 4% of the mid east for oil compared to other allies.

If what you say is true, then the reason was in exchange for U.S. Hostages in Iran, as it sais in the article. Also I dont think it matters whether Iran wouldnt back down on its attacks, seeing as how they were attacked and were responding in kind.

The possibility that America picked a side and armed them to the teeth LATER rather then EARLIER doesn't detract from the argument I am making. ESPECIALLY since the side they picked was the side using Chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and Civilians.

Sorry, but i just dont get how that is important to the discussion.

Perhaps you would like to comment on why the United States interfered with a middle east situation, armed Iraq side, shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft, never apologized, kept piling pressure onto Iran by making Iraqi supply tankers off limits, yet allowing Iraq to attack Iran's at will, and of course, selling chemical weapons to Iraq knowing full well that they would be used on Iranians... AND THEN... and its a big AND THEN... Making a statement that the use of Chemical weapons on soldiers is fine where as it is wrong against civilians, even though they were being dropped on civilians as well.

How the hell do we expect to be taken seriously in this world?

Furthermore, Do you at least understand why Iranians may hate America?

Right... Because they used them all against Iran.

you're probably right.

How the hell do we expect to be taken seriously in this world?

Furthermore, Do you at least understand why Iranians may hate America?

They actually do take us seriously, they just don't like us...thats a differen't point.

So your a poll taker in Iran these days? I wouldn't be to sure "Iranians" hate America. I would venture some are as interested in us as we are of them. I have had family travel to Iran as well, they are white (only said so you can see they stood out like a sore thumb), plain closed Americans who had many people come up to them and want to chat with them. Sure they say George Bush sucks but they don't hate the individual. This particular family member spent over a month in Iran last year, drove a fricken BMW road bike over many thousands of miles through out Iran. He was with in several football fields from nuclear sites with out even a single person questioning him. I suspect some hate us, but we also have retards who also hate Iranians for just being Iranians, I simply hate their government much like they hate ours.

I dont believe they all hate us and not going to make a blanket statement in regards to that the clerics hate us or whomever. Im sure there are many who like the US and would love to not live under such a strigent regime of religouos fanaticism.

Iran's hands arent clean it wasnt the big bad Iraqis that started it all by themselves with a push from US hands.

Furthermore, Do you at least understand why Iranians may hate America?

Well I know at least one that does, judging by his posts on here.

My stance of equating Iran's nuclear energy pursuits to the dangers of chemical weapons was to prove a point.
If you have a country with massive stockpiles of hydrocarbons, doesn't it make more sense to build refineries to turn that oil into gasoline?
This would benefit Iranians in increased profits, because they wouldn't have to ship the oil ourt of the country to refine it, and would allow Iranians access to a cheap and SAFE form of almost unlimited energy. It would also be far more cost effective.

Pursuing nuclear energy serves only 1 purpose that I can see: the Iranian government wants to be taken "seriously" by the rest of the world.
They are falling into the trap that Saddam fell into. They want to be seen as one of the "Big Boys". All the "Big Boys" have nuclear weapons, so they want them too.
There's a problem if you try to play with the "Big Boys", you tend to wind up with a bloody nose, if you aren't careful.

Actually, there's another purpose behind pursuing nuclear energy, that I can see. It's so the waste materials could find their way into the hands of terrorists. I tend to discount this one as an actual goal of the regime, as I don't believe that it is an intention of the Iranian government.
However if some did accidentally get into the hands of Al-Qaeda and their ilk, the results would be the same.

So my question is, what steps has the Iranian government made to make sure this won't happen?

So your a poll taker in Iran these days? I wouldn't be to sure "Iranians" hate America. I would venture some are as interested in us as we are of them. I have had family travel to Iran as well, they are white (only said so you can see they stood out like a sore thumb), plain closed Americans who had many people come up to them and want to chat with them. Sure they say George Bush sucks but they don't hate the individual. This particular family member spent over a month in Iran last year, drove a fricken BMW road bike over many thousands of miles through out Iran. He was with in several football fields from nuclear sites with out even a single person questioning him. I suspect some hate us, but we also have retards who also hate Iranians for just being Iranians, I simply hate their government much like they hate ours.

Iranians as a whole dislike America, and Hate our government. However they do not hate American citizens. They do treat American's in their country like dear friends. But my point is, if Iranians take any sort of Action against the United States, it is not unwarranted. It is usually a response to the past.

And sorry Sixee, but I don't respond to speculation of what is possible that can happen if the moon and the sun align and the earth switches to rotating the opposite way.

Pre emptiveness is what got us into the mess in Iraq, and if we keep continue making up reasons why we have the right to stop people and acting on it, we are no better then the people we claim we are trying to stop.

They actually do take us seriously, they just don't like us...thats a differen't point.

So your a poll taker in Iran these days? I wouldn't be to sure "Iranians" hate America. I would venture some are as interested in us as we are of them. I have had family travel to Iran as well, they are white (only said so you can see they stood out like a sore thumb), plain closed Americans who had many people come up to them and want to chat with them. Sure they say George Bush sucks but they don't hate the individual. This particular family member spent over a month in Iran last year, drove a fricken BMW road bike over many thousands of miles through out Iran. He was with in several football fields from nuclear sites with out even a single person questioning him. I suspect some hate us, but we also have retards who also hate Iranians for just being Iranians, I simply hate their government much like they hate ours.

I remember I think.. you posting his blog or something right? That was on this forum? It was interesting to read.

And sorry Sixee, but I don't respond to speculation of what is possible that can happen if the moon and the sun align and the earth switches to rotating the opposite way.



Ahh, so you think the government of Iran has no ties to terrorists?

http://www.emailthepresident.com/news/2006/05-17-irans-ties-to-terrorist-groups-pose-threat-to-us.html


The U.S. State Department accuses Iran of being an active state sponsor of terrorism. Henry Crumpton heads the Department's Counterterrorism office.

"Again in 2005, Iran remained the most active sponsor of terrorism. Iran encouraged anti-Israeli activity: rhetorically, operationally and financially. Iran provided Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups with extensive funding, training and weapons."


Why do you think nuclear reactors in the United States have fences around them? It's not to keep the radiation in....

Ahh, so you think the government of Iran has no ties to terrorists?

http://www.emailthepresident.com/ne...reat-to-us.html

Quote:

The U.S. State Department accuses Iran of being an active state sponsor of terrorism. Henry Crumpton heads the Department's Counterterrorism office.

"Again in 2005, Iran remained the most active sponsor of terrorism. Iran encouraged anti-Israeli activity: rhetorically, operationally and financially. Iran provided Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups with extensive funding, training and weapons."


Why do you think nuclear reactors in the United States have fences around them? It's not to keep the radiation in....

First of all, I don't see that as Evidence. "The U.S. State Department ACCUSES Iran of being an active state sponsor of terrorism." Sorry if I don't trust our government too much.

Second... When you have a common enemy, you sometimes work with people you used to despise. AKA United States working with Rebel groups in Iraq against other groups. Right? Right?

Wake the F up and stop allowing our government a free pass to do whatever the hell they want, and accusing other countries who do the same thing of something worse.

Hell I can prolly find you 10 links where Iran accuses the United states military and CIA, of being a terrorist organization...

Dude i can find 10 links that say the moon landing was a hoax, the holocaust was a hoax, and that a fat guy who plays EQ all day can get laid. Proof is in the history, the Us isnt innocent but it seems your are taking this Iran is holier-than-thou stance that has no bias besides your opinion and apparent poll taking skills overseas.

Dude i can find 10 links that say the moon landing was a hoax, the holocaust was a hoax, and that a fat guy who plays EQ all day can get laid. Proof is in the history, the Us isnt innocent but it seems your are taking this Iran is holier-than-thou stance that has no bias besides your opinion and apparent poll taking skills overseas.

Negative... I am taking the, We are just as F'd up as everyone else and have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do, especially when they follow the rules that the world already set forth for them stance.

People who torture prisoners have no right to tell others that they are evil for having done so.

People who invade countries with crap intelligence and stupid reasons have no right to label other people as Terrorists and as members of the "Axis of Evil"

People who have a history of interfering with and taking sides against a country have no right to point fingers when that country takes up a position against them.

Never have i said that Iran is a wonderful country full of peaceful people who have never done anything against America.

All i am saying is that they are a country that is fed up with our bullshit, tired of our support for their enemies, and wanting to be independent. Who are we to police the world when we cannot even police our own country.

Its not like the US just woke up one morning and decided Iran or whoever is the bad guy, As mentioned there are histories involved and a world economy that thrives or suffors from impacts made by Iran Iraq you call it whatever.


I dont see Iran trying to join the other Opec countires in copying Europe in making a Euro ~ middleast economy other than rocking the boat for the entire region. The US is bound to keep peace in the region its why Saudia Arabia and others have the deals with the US and Euro nations that they do. As I mentioned before its the fact that the US has far less dependance on Mid east oil other than the stock market which still.$$$ Than the other countries that we play a part.

Bitch about the US but how much would you cry if it was the Chinese or the Russians there. Is that a better solution ?

Its not like the US just woke up one morning and decided Iran or whoever is the bad guy, As mentioned there are histories involved and a world economy that thrives or suffors from impacts made by Iran Iraq you call it whatever.

Of course not, they thought they were the bad guy ever since Iran rejected the leader the U.S. put in power for them, and expelled the Americans from their land. Democracy is cool only as long as we approve, did you forget?

The US is bound to keep peace in the region

Who the hell do we think we are? So Iran is the bad guy because the US who has attacked two Middle eastern countries in the last few years, can "Keep peace in the region" ???

So its only peace as long as American citizens are not dieing back at home.
Doesn't matter that the actual people in that region are living with more instability then when they were under cruel dictators and harsh islamic rule from organizations such as the Taliban

I want what your smoking bro.

Of course not, they thought they were the bad guy ever since Iran rejected the leader the U.S. put in power for them, and expelled the Americans from their land.

America backed an Iranian faction that wanted a change in leadership, using CIA operatives; in other words, we assisted a revolution. If there had not been a movement to replace the government there would have been noone for the US to back.

Not saying right or wrong, but to say the US put someone in the seat of government is to deny that a significant part of the population was supporting just such a move.

The US should just pull out and let Turkey and Iran take over Iraq im sure that will resolve the issues, after of course the death squads have killed every opposing religion and political belief in the country.



http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/b974274f-ce72-4859-b2c4-605ce58ebfe8.html

The US should just pull out and let Turkey and Iran take over Iraq im sure that will resolve the issues, after of course the death squads have killed every opposing religion and political belief in the country.



http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/b974274f-ce72-4859-b2c4-605ce58ebfe8.html

Iranians dont have "Death Squads"

And i dont see a single thing in that article that is disturbing. If anything i see Iran trying to better its relations with its neighbors.

Thank you for the link...

America backed an Iranian faction that wanted a change in leadership, using CIA operatives; in other words, we assisted a revolution. If there had not been a movement to replace the government there would have been noone for the US to back.

Not saying right or wrong, but to say the US put someone in the seat of government is to deny that a significant part of the population was supporting just such a move.

Incorect, The majority of the Population was in favor of their current leader Mosadeq, who was assasinated by the United States(politcally), before the Shah was placed into power.

Mosadeq was a democratically elected leader of Iran. The shah had few followers and in no way compared to the backing of the leader elected by the people.

Here is some info regarding Mohammed Mosadeqh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mmosaddeq/mohammad_mosaddeq.php

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~majid/op-ed_articles/iran-america.html

Those cover alot of the points in the link I posted before., In regards to him and the Shah at the time. The people where divided. My point is just that the US is there for the better interest other than themselves. Id love to see a democratic vote there.

Euro interests ( France is crying ) the threat of Russian China domination. The other OPEC countries we are vowed to protect, so there interest and pull isnt gone un noted. Kuwati was a vertual over night pull on the trigger when Saddam rolled in. I was in Seattle one night watching it on the news and omw with in 24hrs.

Amazing how fast a ship can clear seattle harbor when it took so long to get guided in.

Iran isnt our friend point taken. Niether is N.Korea but there starting to soften up to a more free world.

...We are just as F'd up as everyone else and have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do, especially when they follow the rules that the world already set forth for them...

So we should have no stance on any issue, because we have done as bad, or worse?
If that arguement was valid, no country has the right to have a stance on any issue, ever.
You might as well say, "Anyone who has ever picked his nose, doesn't have the right to offer anyone a tissue to blow theirs."
You are right, the United States government has done some effed up things in the past.
But if we use the above litmus test, and try to apply it to other countries (Russia, China) who have been around far longer, and done far more damage to other countries, as well as their own people, silence should reign supreme.

So we should have no stance on any issue, because we have done as bad, or worse?Jedd didn't say we "should have no stance on any issue;" he said we "have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do." Those are entirely different things. That argument isn't so strong that you have to strawman it.

So we should have no stance on any issue, because we have done as bad, or worse?
If that arguement was valid, no country has the right to have a stance on any issue, ever.
You might as well say, "Anyone who has ever picked his nose, doesn't have the right to offer anyone a tissue to blow theirs."
You are right, the United States government has done some effed up things in the past.
But if we use the above litmus test, and try to apply it to other countries (Russia, China) who have been around far longer, and done far more damage to other countries, as well as their own people, silence should reign supreme.

Now lets look at what i said...

We are just as F'd up as everyone else and have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do, especially when they follow the rules that the world already set forth for them

Hmm, who was it that said Iran is following the rules of the IAEA? Maybe this guy?


Nuclear Verification. Dr. ElBaradei called on all States who have not done so to bring into force a comprehensive safeguards agreement and an additional protocol. He also said that as of 17 July, the Agency has been able to verify the DPRK´s shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. "I welcome the return of the DPRK to the verification process. I also welcome the active cooperation the IAEA team has received from the DPRK," he stated.

Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. ElBaradei made four points:




The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;
Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;
Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and
While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_gcstatement.html

The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;

What about the undeclared material?


Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;

Experiments it did not have the authorization to do.

Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and

Showing that Iran has no regards for any organization that doesn't allow it to do whatever it wants to. Sound familiar?

While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

Sounds like a stalling plan to me. Just wait a little longer while we continue to enrich uranium, please.

What about the undeclared material?
Experiments it did not have the authorization to do.


You have shown with these two statements that you have no interest in changing your opinion, or even giving fair consideration to another argument.
You are biased, so why bother.

Tell us, what undeclared material do you have knowledge of that others don't, so that those charged with monitoring can do a better job.

And who is supposed to authorize the experiments? Who did the US, England, France, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan get authorization from for their experiments?

You are tossing out arguments just to argue, as usual.

What about the undeclared material?


Experiments it did not have the authorization to do.

Showing that Iran has no regards for any organization that doesn't allow it to do whatever it wants to. Sound familiar?

Sounds like a stalling plan to me. Just wait a little longer while we continue to enrich uranium, please.


Meanwhile the United states is enriching uranium and has thousands of nuclear bombs at the ready... Hypocrite much?

With people like you in the world(our government) Perhaps Iran should make Nuclear weapons. We will attack them regardless, so why not?

Tell us, what undeclared material do you have knowledge of that others don't, so that those charged with monitoring can do a better job.

This is the same argument that people tend to use for gun control.
People who follow the law, don't need gun control. People that don't follow the law, don't care how many laws you pass, they will still get a gun.

Iran has lied to the International Community on more than one occasion on a variety of subjects, including this one. Where is the incentive to suddenly come clean?

And who is supposed to authorize the experiments? Who did the US, England, France, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan get authorization from for their experiments?
In an era before the proliferation of nuclear arms, there was no need to. Personally, I'm for dismantling all nuclear weapons. They are dangerous, and serve no quantifiable purpose. If you use one, you assure your own destruction, as well as your enemy's.

Meanwhile the United states is enriching uranium and has thousands of nuclear bombs at the ready... Hypocrite much?
And our government has been known to support the destruction of other countries by allowing our citizens to send monies to known terrorist organizations. Hypocrisy only works on an even playing field.

With people like you in the world(our government) Perhaps Iran should make Nuclear weapons. We will attack them regardless, so why not? Yep, mutually assured destruction is the way.

Iran has lied to the International Community on more than one occasion on a variety of subjects, including this one. Where is the incentive to suddenly come clean?

Sais you?

In an era before the proliferation of nuclear arms, there was no need to.

Welcome to 2007, Where you are allowed to have peaceful Nuclear technology as long as you follow the rules set forth by the IAEA. Unless America the police of the world decide your evil.

And our government has been known to support the destruction of other countries by allowing our citizens to send monies to known terrorist organizations. Hypocrisy only works on an even playing field.

Hmm... You set yourself up for this one.

In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[12] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[13] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Oh, i forgot terrorist organizations are determined by the U.S. Otherwise the CIA would be considered a Terrorist organization for...

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of any chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly "Top Secret" documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

authorized by President Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Eisenhower), is the codename for the CIA first covert operation in Latin America, carried out in Guatemala. According to most historians, the CIA-sponsored military coup in 1954 was “the poison arrow that pierced the heart of Guatemala's young democracy.�[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-16) The purpose of the operation was to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arbenz_Guzm%C3%A1n), the democratically-elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratically-elected) President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Guatemala) of Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala). The U.S. began to worry about the growth of Communism there because of policies set forth by Jacobo Arbenz. By recruiting a Guatemalan military force the CIA's operation succeeded in eliminating the democratic government and replacing it with a military junta headed by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castillo_Armas). The political and consequent social instability created in Guatemala 6 years later resulted in a very long civil war and its consequent, destructive impact upon the society, the economy, human rights and the culture of Guatemala.

The limitations of large scale covert action became apparent during the CIA-organized Bay of Pigs Invasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion) of Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) in 1961. The failed para-military invasion embarrassed the CIA and the United States world-wide. Recently de-classified documents show in written confirmation that President Kennedy had officially denied the CIA authorization to invade Cuba. Cuban leader Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro) used the routed invasion to consolidate his power and strengthen Cuba's ties with the Soviet Union. Later, the CIA tried and failed several times to assassinate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Assassination_Attempts) Fidel Castro. The CIA has supported a variety of anti-Castro agents such as Orlando Bosch and Luis Carrilles who are wanted in Venezuela for terrorism charges.

According to certain authors the CIA supported the 1963 military coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) against the Qassim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassim) government and supported the subsequently installed government of Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein), until the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait). U.S. support for the invasion was predicated upon the notion that Iraq was a key buffer state in geopolitical relations with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). There are U.S. court records indicating the CIA militarily and monetarily assisted Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). The CIA also was involved in the failed 1996 coup against Saddam Hussein.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-howthewest)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-list)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-why)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-key)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-carlos)

The CIA also supported the Ba'ath Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party)'s 1968 coup d'état against the Government of Rahman Arif, with Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) eventually assuming power.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-tyrant)

According to former U.S. intelligence officials, the CIA orchestrated a bomb and sabotage campaign between 1992 and 1995 in Iraq via one of the resistance organizations, Iyad Allawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi)'s group, the man later installed as prime minister by the U.S.-led coalition after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to the Iraqi government at the time, and former CIA officer Robert Baer, the bombing campaign against Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad) included both government and civilian targets. According to this former CIA official, the civilian targets included a movie theater and a bombing of a school bus and schoolchildren were killed. No public records of the secret bombing campaign are known to exist, and the former U.S. officials said their recollections were in many cases sketchy, and in some cases contradictory. "But whether the bombings actually killed any civilians could not be confirmed because, as a former C.I.A. official said, the United States had no significant intelligence sources in Iraq then

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest mistakes was the training, arming, supplying and supporting of the Mujahedeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedeen) (Islamist fighters) in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)], initiated under Carter and greatly expanded under Reagan, as American proxy soldiers against the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) regime and later the Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet) intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan). Part of the Mujahedeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedeen) trained by the CIA later became the core cadre of Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)'s Al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda) Islamist organization.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-18) Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski), the National Security Advisor under President Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter), has discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#Afghanistan) U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan in several magazines.

Democracy Now reported on June 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_5), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), "CIA Secretly Restores Ties to Sudan Despite Ongoing Human Rights Abuses in Darfur". The Los Angeles Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times) recently revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government's role in the mass killings in Darfur.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-21) It's reported that early CIA involvement in Darfur and US complicity in the Darfur tragedy has gone unrecognized.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-22) In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia School of Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Americas). "The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the 'front-line' states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime."[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#_note-23)

Sudan’s interior minister accused Central Intelligence Agency of smuggling weapons into the troubled region of Darfur. Interior Minister Zubair Bashir Taha addressing a crowd consisting of youth organizations said that the CIA is seeking to “disrupt the demographics of Darfur�. The US special envoy to Darfur Andrew Natsios told reporters in Khartoum last week that Arab groups from neighboring countries were resettling in West Darfur and other lands traditionally belonging to local African tribes.Taha accused the US of being responsible for “prolonging the war in Darfur and the death of thousands of people after the Abuja peace agreement just like they did in Iraq�



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA

Oh, i forgot terrorist organizations are determined by the U.S. Otherwise the CIA would be considered a Terrorist organization for...The Iranian parliament recently classified the CIA as a terrorist organization, shortly after Congress did the same thing to QUDS.

Sais you?
Says the Iranian Embassador to the IAEA

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Salehi declined to give any details about the declaration, which has been described as a stack of papers in a binder about one and half inches thick.
"The important thing to note is that Iran had to do some of its activities very discreetly because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for the past 25 years,'' Salehi said, adding that they were "legal activities.''

"Nevertheless (Iran) had to do them discreetly,'' he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/iran.nuclear/index.html?iref=newssearch

Welcome to 2007, Where you are allowed to have peaceful Nuclear technology as long as you follow the rules set forth by the IAEA. Unless America the police of the world decide your evil.

Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and
...the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, ...
If you don't see the hipocrisy of those two statements, I can't help you.

Oh, i forgot terrorist organizations are determined by the U.S. Otherwise the CIA would be considered a Terrorist organization for...

Hasn't it been put forth several times that one man's terrorist, is another's "Freedom fighter"?

Says the Iranian Embassador to the IAEA

Quote:
Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Salehi declined to give any details about the declaration, which has been described as a stack of papers in a binder about one and half inches thick.
"The important thing to note is that Iran had to do some of its activities very discreetly because of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for the past 25 years,'' Salehi said, adding that they were "legal activities.''

"Nevertheless (Iran) had to do them discreetly,'' he said.

Reading Comprehension = your friend.
He declined to tell US what he told the IAEA.

Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. ElBaradei made four points:




The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;
Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;
Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and
While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.
Once again, dont post just the part that proves your point, as i dont.
Unfortunatly the United States did not listen to the UN regarding attacking Iraq, and Israel defies the UN daily, but yet the call to arms for you is when Iran does it.

The IAEA who is all that matter, seems to be convinced that they are doing things right, and require a bit more information which they pointed out they will be recieving shortly.

You are wrong. You are going to continue being wrong, and no matter what you are shown will continue to point out the wrong information.

Iran is complying with the IAEA, and is rejecting the call to bow to the superpowers. I dont care if they dont listen to America, or France...

They are a nation with their own plans and people to take care of, and we have no right to tell them not to.

Up to February 2003, the violations of the U.N. Security council.This list is old so quite a bit is not on it, and i will research more.

It is also for those not including Iraq. which was about 68 resolutions to 130 or so Israel resolutions.



Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Turkey
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.



http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html

Oh and this pre war tidbit


THE HAGUE, Netherlands (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said an attack on Iraq would be a violation of the U.N. Charter if it does not have the support of the Security Council.

In his strongest statement yet regarding any possible U.S.-led military strike on Iraq, Annan was openly critical of any potential strike without U.N. approval.

Asked at a news conference in The Hague whether an attack would violate the charter, which sets out the rights and obligations of U.N. member states, Annan said, "If the U.S. and others were to go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter."

The charter only allows the use of force for self-defense and actions taken "to maintain or restore international peace and security" through the Security Council.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/

A better list perhaps regarding Israel can be found here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Isra el

You can add this one to the list:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16318472/

Iran condemned a U.N. sanctions resolution as “a piece of torn paper� that would not scare Tehran and vowed on Sunday to accelerate uranium enrichment work immediately.

You can add this one to the list:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16318472/

And you can add this one...

Resolution 1747 (2007)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5647th meeting on
24 March 2007

Elements of a long-term agreement
Our goal is to develop relations and cooperation with Iran, based on mutual
respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful
nature of the nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We propose a fresh
start in the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement with Iran. Such an agreement
would be deposited with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and
endorsed in a Security Council resolution.
To create the right conditions for negotiations,
We will:
• Reaffirm Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in
conformity with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (hereinafter, NPT), and in this context reaffirm our support
for the development by Iran of a civil nuclear energy programme.
• Commit to support actively the building of new light water reactors in Iran
through international joint projects, in accordance with the IAEA statute and
NPT.
• Agree to suspend discussion of Iran’s nuclear programme in the Security
Council upon the resumption of negotiations.
Iran will:
• Commit to addressing all of the outstanding concerns of IAEA through full
cooperation with IAEA.
• Suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities to be verified by
IAEA, as requested by the IAEA Board of Governors and the Security Council,
and commit to continue this during these negotiations.
• Resume the implementation of the Additional Protocol.
Areas of future cooperation to be covered in negotiations on a
long-term agreement
1. Nuclear
We will take the following steps:
Iran’s rights to nuclear energy
• Reaffirm Iran’s inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of NPT, and
cooperate with Iran in the development by Iran of a civil nuclear power
programme.
• Negotiate and implement a Euratom/Iran nuclear cooperation agreement.

Months later, and how many times have they suspended enrichment for the IAEA and then continued, and stopped again for the IAEA, and then continued?

From your link Sixee

The resolution demands Iran end all research on uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for nuclear power plants as well as for bombs, and halt all research and development on methods of producing or delivering atomic weapons.The thrust of the sanctions is a ban on imports and exports of dangerous materials and technology relating to uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water reactors, as well as ballistic missile delivery systems.





So this resolution is a violation of the resolution that i posted, in which they affirmed the right of Iran to produce Nuclear Energy. Therefore of course they do not accept it and will continue.

You can add this one to the list:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16318472/

Wow at least post recent information... Just noticed that article was last updated: PT Dec 24, 2006


Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. ElBaradei made four points:



The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran;

Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments;

Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence-building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak – "this is regrettable", he commented; and

While the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.
From September 17 2007... So what you got to tell me now?

Just this:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/11/content_6866865.htm

The UN Security Council has adopted two resolutions -- one in December 2006 and the other in March this year -- to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities and to give up its nuclear program.

Meaning the enrichment, and construction should have ceased until the situation was resolved.
But I'm sure I'm wrong again, somehow....

Just this:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/11/content_6866865.htm



Meaning the enrichment, and construction should have ceased until the situation was resolved.
But I'm sure I'm wrong again, somehow....


Alright lets take a look at your link...

"We have no data that Iran seeks to produce nuclear weapons. We believe that it has no such plans ... But we share concerns by our partners to make Iran's programs open and transparent. We consent that in recent years Iran has taken steps towards this direction," Putin was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.

From Russian President

A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iranian officials wrapped up their latest round of talks on Iran's nuclear program on Thursday in Tehran, the official IRNA news agency reported. In their three-day talks, the IAEA delegation was headed by the agency's Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen and the Iranian side was led by deputy head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Javad Vaeedi.


After the talks, Vaeedi expressed satisfaction with the trend of talks between Iran and the IAEA, saying that negotiations between the two sides would continue at the expert level next week.

The two sides had held very extensive talks during the past three days on ways to resolve issues pertaining to P1 and P2 centrifuges, Vaeedi said.

Tehran is prepared to respond to the IAEA's questions related to its P1 and P2 centrifuges and answers will be finalized in a session in Tehran in mid October, IRNA reported, quoting unidentified "sources."

The IAEA will study the answers in late October, summing up Iran's answers to questions on P1 and P2 centrifuges before presenting its final assessment, IRNA said.

The new round of Iran-IAEA talks is being held based on an agreement reached between the two sides in August which called for removing all outstanding issues on Iran's nuclear program upon a specified time-table.




It seems that Iran thinks of the U.N. about as highly as America. Therefore they are cooperating with the IAEA but not giving any weight to the U.N. Resolutions which they probably see as a joke seeing as how, America still ended up invading Iraq against the UN, and Israel defies U.N. Resolution after U.N. Resolution.




They are cooperating, but they are doing so in the best interest of their country. So yes, once again your wrong. I never said they are complying with the UN.

Stampeding Us to War: False Choices on Iran's Nuclear Program (http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/09/iran-nuclear-wa.html)

The range of options in dealing with Iran's nuclear program is being deliberately limited in order to justify a war with Iran or the imposition of sanctions. Left out are any acknowledgments of Iran's offers of nuclear compromise that would address any legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation, while at the same time respecting Iran's right to operate a civilian nuclear energy program.

I was struck by a recent press release issued by the New America Foundation (http://www.newamerica.net/events/2007/countering_nuclear_armed_iran) about an up-coming speech by Gary Samore on the subject of "Countering a Nuclear-Armed Iran", which states:

"Unless significantly greater sanctions are applied...we will eventually face a choice between acquiescing to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons break out option or using military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities." Leaving aside deliberate ambiguities and hype here (a "nuclear armed" Iran is equated with possesion of a nuclear breakout "option" - whatever that means) this formulation of the range of options presented by Samore in dealing with Iran (and oft repeated in the media and by other pundits) presents the usual false choice (http://iranaffairs.typepad.com/iran_affairs/2007/08/the-false-choic.html).

Conveniently left out are the 8 or so Iranian offers that would address any real concern of nuclear proliferation, and which have included offers to renounce plutonium reprocessing (thus making it impossible to use the Arak nuclear facility to manufacture bombs, for example.) It appears that even acknowledgment of these offers is to be simply left off the agenda.

Amb Javad Zarif listed some of the terms of these offers in an op-ed piece (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php) which was published in the NY Times and International Herald Tribune in April 2006

For the sake of at least historical accuracy, it is important to note the details of the offer listed by Zarif:



"Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package: 1- Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;

2- Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;

3- Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;

4- Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;

5- Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;

6- Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;

7- Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;

8- Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors
and future light-water reactors;

9- Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;

10- Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

11- Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards."

This false choice formulation has become a standard talking point which is repeated in pretty much all of the coverage of Iran's nuclear program. With all the recent speculation about an impending US attack on Iran, there are lots of articles discussing the same limited range of options (usually accompanied by pretty graphics showing the potential routes for Israeli planes to bomb Iran) - yet I have yet to see a single, solitary news report which even acknowledges Iran's compromise offers.




http://www.iranaffairs.com/

And check this out...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

Hmm this is kinda funny too isnt it?


Rice has told El Baradei to butt out (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/rice.iran/) of diplomacy since the IAEA is "just a technical body" and has no business discussing the Iran nuclear issue.

Funny thing is, that when El Baradei demanded that Iran only import nuclear fuel from multinational enrichment facilities located in Russia - a demand which is not only totally outside of the competence of the IAEA but in violation of the explicit text of the NonProliferation Treaty - Madame Rice didn't seem to have any problems with El Baradei acting as a diplomat then.




The link leads to this
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/rice.iran/

So if Iran isn't complying with the UN, and the US isn't complying with the UN, then what's the purpose of IAEA's recommendations?
Iran will do whatever it wants.
I'm sure that when the US, or its proxy, Israel bombs the bejesus out of whatever they are building, where will Iran go to to lodge a formal complaint?

So if Iran isn't complying with the UN, and the US isn't complying with the UN, then what's the purpose of IAEA's recommendations?
Iran will do whatever it wants.
I'm sure that when the US, or its proxy, Israel bombs the bejesus out of whatever they are building, where will Iran go to to lodge a formal complaint?

Straight to the missile launch with Jerusalem as its target probably

Nah. Tel Aviv.

Nah. Tel Aviv.

perhaps

I dont know why anyone is hot to go to war with Iran..

The morons are destroying themselves.

(might wanna diversify that economy there Ahmedimaretard)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Econ

Let em alone.. in 10 years they will just be another hot mess unable to get out of their own way.

yes please...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

reminds me of the satalite weapon that was scrapped to blind soldiers in the field. Instead we can accidently cook them. But a great thought for power generation indeed.

Ah now i know why we are going to attack Iran...

Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS: Health Minister Isfahan, Sept 12, IRNA-The formula Iranian scientists and researchers have discovered for medical treatment of AIDS epidemic has two-year effect on patients using it for three-month period.

Minister of Health and Medical Education Kamran Baqeri Lankarani on Tuesday said in a long-awaited statement to announce the breakthrough made by Iranian scientists and researchers that the use of the formula for a three-month period, will have clinical effects on patients for a two-year term, comparing it with other medicines which are only effective while being administered.

He said that Iranian doctors have experimented the formula on patients and its two-year effect on the body is guaranteed.

"For the time being, we cannot say that effects of the newly-discovered medicine will remain in the body along the life time," the health minister said.

Lankarani is in Isfahan to attend the 53rd Regional Committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the East Mediterranean.




http://payvand.com/news/06/sep/1130.html




Must be those damn drug corporations... ;)

Just something to read, no "OMG SEE" intentions whatsoever.

http://payvand.com/news/06/sep/1279.html

Would be better to fight a Country with a real military then the bullshit we had to deal with in Iraq. Insurgents that hide behind civilians? Or fighting a military?

I Would rather not fight anyone of course. We'll see what happens when our leadership changes to Democrat in the next election.

:devil

Would be better to fight a Country with a real military then the bullshit we had to deal with in Iraq. Insurgents that hide behind civilians? Or fighting a military?

I Would rather not fight anyone of course. We'll see what happens when our leadership changes to Democrat in the next election.

:devil

Yea the only thing that bothers me more then the actual fight is knowing that the US would not want to admit defeat and back down if Iran put up a good enough fight.

Would we resort to unthinkable actions to prove our superiority?

Think the dicktard of a president in Iran would admit defeat and back down or would he do something retarded like nuke.

Think the dicktard of a president in Iran would admit defeat and back down or would he do something retarded like nuke.

Unfortunatly for him, there is nowhere to go... The president is sitting in his cushy office in Washington. Oh and Iran doesn't have nukes... Thanks for playing, come again!

A real Military Trikki? /boggle

Might wanna look up on how the Iran/Iraq was fought.

Iran "won" because the mixture of nationalistic/Patriotic fever to defend their land from invasion with the religious fanaticism of defending the only Shia led nation in the world (at the time) enabled Iran to send wave after wave after wave of suicidal attacks on the vastly more professional, trained and modern equipped Iraqi army.
....in July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan on Iraqi territory, near Basra. Tehran used Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers in one of the biggest land battles since 1945. Ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks. In doing so, the Iranians sustained an immense number of casualties, but they enabled Iran to recover some territory before the Iraqis could repulse the bulk of the invading forces....

....In 1983 Iran launched three major, but unsuccessful, humanwave offensives, with huge losses, along the frontier. On February 6, Tehran, using 200,000 "last reserve" Pasdaran troops, attacked along a 40-kilometer stretch near Al Amarah, about 200 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Backed by air, armor, and artillery support, Iran's six-division thrust was strong enough to break through. In response, Baghdad used massive air attacks, with more than 200 sorties, many flown by attack helicopters. More than 6,000 Iranians were killed that day, while achieving only minute gains. In April 1983, the Mandali-Baghdad northcentral sector witnessed fierce fighting, as repeated Iranian attacks were stopped by Iraqi mechanized and infantry divisions. Casualties were very high, and by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition..... [10]


What a US occupying force in Iran would have to endure and go through would make life in Iraq look like a walk in the park.

We CANNOT hold land in Iran without a full out US draft and storming of normandy invasion with overwhelming military force (1 million + ground troops).

Yea.. we can bomb the living shit out of them.... but for what? The Russians have spend the last 20 years custom building their bunkers from specs designed to withstand a Nuclear war with the US. The Iranians arent using those things as wine cellars.

The Iranians have been telling their people and maintaining power with the "Death to America" chant for 30 years. All along telling them that they have to be ready to defend themselves against American aggression and fight to preserve their homeland. They have been preparing for this fight since 1979.

We can kill 10s of thousands Iranians.. we can destroy their economy and their entire Infrastructure... We can wreak apocolyptic horror on its citizenry. What we cant do is get to its nuclear weapons program or its leadership... A war or an attack by us would be a mistake that would make Iraq look like a hiccup.

There is no end game, there is no point.

You wanna fuck over Iran? Permanent Energy Indepence. Magically finding oil in ANWR isnt the answer because it doesnt devalue Irans reserves. The Chinese would happy as fuck, because it would ease the cost of their industrialization, but it would barely put a dent in Iranian profits. OPEC would basically just decrease supply comensurate with whatever oil ANWR would potentially put out.

Nuclear Power, Solar Power, Wind Power..

Irans economy is 80 fucking percent dependent on Oil. You looking for an Achilles Heel? There it is.

....Oh and Iran doesn't have nukes... Thanks for playing, come again!

and we found evidence to check for WMD's in Bahgdad

and we found evidence to check for WMD's in Bahgdad

huh?

I love this guy --->Lleauric (member.php?u=26)!

He pretty much hits it on the head every post. Spend those Billion on new energy resources and not wars.

huh?


you are telling me they have no nukes. Lets forget that the USSR broke up and now unemployeed Generals had a reason to sell off things that have misplaced records, and lets also forget their "nuclear power" development.

you are telling me they have no nukes. Lets forget that the USSR broke up and now unemployeed Generals had a reason to sell off things that have misplaced records, and lets also forget their "nuclear power" development.

wow, really grasping at straws with that USSR thing... And Iran is VERY far away from even having Nuclear Power, let alone weapons. But perhaps they would use Nukes as a last step to avoid destruction, We would do no different.

So if you wanted to prove that we are more alike then we think, you did a great job

jesus christ you are so full of yourself you are completely missing the point dude.

I made a comment about the iranian president using nukes if he was backed into a wall. Then you said they didnt have nukes. I replied about the USSR thing, which while you think its grasping at straws i think its a very real reality. Then your brain screwed up the translation and type your last comment.

I feel like john madden commentating on the obvious and the redundant.

Only thing that ensures the avoidance of total destruction is an Ohio class nuclear sub > all.

The Iranian President, who I personally think is a goof-ball, has stated that Iran needs nuclear power to bring the country up to speed with an energy grid that can power the country and not have to rely on fuel oil. It is widely known that Iran imports a majorioty of their energy resources much as we do, because they have a limited refinery capacity.

What I have not seen in all the BS coming out of Washington and the other folks trying to determine the rights of another country is an offer to assist in constructing refineries within Iran. This would not be a long term solution, seeing that oil fields eventually run dry, but it would show that there were options available.

All I am hearing is Iran being told they cannot do what at least eight other countries already have.

I am not a fan of Iran, but I do know that we have created a situation with our actions over a period of several decades, and until we have someone in a leadership role take some responsibility and say what is really the end game plan, I will at the least ask for some basic diplomatic integrity, and options other than sending more of our troops to their deaths for a few businessmen's bank accounts.

What I have not seen in all the BS coming out of Washington and the other folks trying to determine the rights of another country is an offer to assist in constructing refineries within Iran.
http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA14Ak01.html
The timing of the Iranian decision to take the lid off US company Halliburton's involvement in a giant gas field project in Iran comes at a point when the school of thinking in the US that the Bush administration must opt for a policy of constructive engagement with Tehran has incrementally gained currency in debates over Iran, including in conservative think-tanks.

This week, Iran said that a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Cayman Islands-registered Halliburton Products & Services Ltd would work as a sub-contractor with Oriental Kish Co, an Iranian company, in the South Pars field, believed to be the world's largest natural gas field. What was it you've been bitching about incessently for the past 2 years? Oh that's right, this very thing you're now advocating.

Personally I'd be happy if it's was only about the oil to gas problem... but it's not and anyone who thinks this is the real issue is sadly misguided.

http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA14Ak01.html
What was it you've been bitching about incessently for the past 2 years? Oh that's right, this very thing you're now advocating.

Personally I'd be happy if it's was only about the oil to gas problem... but it's not and anyone who thinks this is the real issue is sadly misguided.

You post an article from January, 2005, stating that Halliburton is offering to assist in building refineries and it should take 29 months. Any update on that?
It is over 29 months since the article was published.

And I am even more curious now about what is going on over there, if Halliburton is still providing infrastructure construction but Cheney is wanting us to attack.

Why is the company that Cheney is so closely tied to, and which is contracted to provide so many varied services to the US Military troops in Iraq, also involved in doing business with a member of the "Axis of Evil"?

And why was this never publicized in the US, that Halliburton was going to be involved in building refineries in Iran as part of a solution to their nuclear energy program?

I think you have found an interesting red herring there, Akipt.

These big business folks have no integrity at all, apparently.

This morning's newpaper and the varied talk shows are all confirming that it was indeed a nuclear facility under construction that was the target of the Israeli airstrike in Syria. Project assistance apparently was provided by the North Koreans, who are the only country to have loudly voiced any outrage at the airstrike.

How does our diplomatic position now change with regard to both Syria and North Korea? Do we continue the process started with NK to provide assistance in return for shutting down their nuclear programs, seeing that they are exporting those programs?

Things continue to grow more complicated......:(

Yeah, it's an interesting mess, but no one's really talking about it outside of Syria and NK, and even they have been restrained.

The biggest potential story that almost noone is talking about.

Why isn't Syria up in arms? Why isn't there military backlash?

Because the classroom bully just came home with a bloody nose.

The biggest potential story that almost noone is talking about.

Why isn't Syria up in arms? Why isn't there military backlash?

Because when Israel has kicked your ass so many times it starts to get embarrasing.

Syria has a conventional army...it has proven to be suicidal to go head to head with the Israeli military.

Irans economy is 80 fucking percent dependent on Oil. You looking for an Achilles Heel? There it is.

Yep, if we hit them where it counts, the pocketbook, they will sit up and take notice.
I remember back in the 70's when the gas prices spiked, and Carter instituted the Even/Odd license plate fill up days, until the crisis passed.
The prices eventually came back down, because OPEC saw they weren't getting anywhere with raising the prices.
The question remains, until we get the alternative fuels and energy solutions in place, what do we do in the short term?
Conservation, would seem to be the rule of thumb....

The biggest potential story that almost noone is talking about.

Why isn't Syria up in arms? Why isn't there military backlash?

Children that are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, tend to look ashamed, rather that trying to punch their parents for having caught them.
Espically after they have had thier rumps whacked for doing the wrong thing.

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15


Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, scrambled to do business there.

"I don't think the issue of proliferation came up," Henry A. Kissinger, who was Ford's secretary of state, said in an interview for this article.

The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.

"If we were facing an Iran with a reprocessing capability today, we would be even more concerned about their ability to use plutonium in a nuclear weapon," said Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear specialist with the Institute for Science and International Security. "These facilities are well understood and can be safeguarded, but it would provide another nuclear option for Iran."

Nuclear experts believe the Ford strategy was a mistake. As Iran went from friend to foe, it became clear to subsequent administrations that Tehran should be prevented from obtaining the technologies for building weapons. But that is not the argument the Bush administration is making. Such an argument would be unpopular among parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which guarantees members access to nuclear power regardless of their political systems.

The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.

Despite the changes in Iran, now run by a clerical government, the country's public commitment to nuclear power and its insistence on the legal right to develop it have remained the same. Iranian officials reiterated the position last week at a conference on nuclear energy in Paris.

Mohammad Saeidi, a vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told the conference that Iran was determined to develop nuclear power since oil and natural gas supplies were limited.

U.S. involvement with Iran's nuclear program until 1979, which accompanied large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales, highlights the boomerang in U.S. foreign policy. Even with many key players in common, the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed.

Using arguments identical to those made by the shah 30 years ago, Iran says its nuclear program is essential to meet growing energy requirements, and is not intended for bombs. Tehran revived the program in secret, its officials say, to prevent the United States from trying to stop it. Iran's account is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is trying to determine whether Iran also has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

Since the energy program was exposed, in 2002, the Bush administration has alternately said that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program or wants one. Without being able to prove those claims, the White House has made its case by implication, beginning with the point that Iran has ample oil reserves for its energy needs.

Ford's team commended Iran's decision to build a massive nuclear energy industry, noting in a declassified 1975 strategy paper that Tehran needed to "prepare against the time -- about 15 years in the future -- when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."

Estimates of Iran's oil reserves were smaller then than they are now, but energy experts and U.S. intelligence estimates continue to project that Iran will need an alternative energy source in the coming decades. Iran's population has more than doubled since the 1970s, and its energy demands have increased even more.

The Ford administration -- in which Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as chief of staff and Wolfowitz was responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency -- continued intense efforts to supply Iran with U.S. nuclear technology until President Jimmy Carter succeeded Ford in 1977.

That history is absent from major Bush administration speeches, public statements and news conferences on Iran.

In an opinion piece on Iran in The Post on March 9, Kissinger wrote that "for a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources." White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited the article during a news briefing, saying that it reflected the administration's current thinking on Iran.

In 1975, as secretary of state, Kissinger signed and circulated National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the administration's negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today.

The shah, who referred to oil as "noble fuel," said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Asked why he reversed his opinion, Kissinger responded with some surprise during a brief telephone interview. After a lengthy pause, he said: "They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons."

Charles Naas, who was deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s, said proliferation was high in the minds of technical experts, "but the nuclear deal was attractive in terms of commerce, and the relationship as a whole was very important."

Documents show that U.S. companies, led by Westinghouse, stood to gain $6.4 billion from the sale of six to eight nuclear reactors and parts. Iran was also willing to pay an additional $1 billion for a 20 percent stake in a private uranium enrichment facility in the United States that would supply much of the uranium to fuel the reactors.

Naas said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all were in positions to play significant roles in Iran policy then, "but in those days, you have to view Kissinger as the main figure." Requests for comment from the offices of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went unanswered.

"It is absolutely incredible that the very same players who made those statements then are making completely the opposite ones now," said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Do they remember that they said this? Because the Iranians sure remember that they said it," said Cirincione, who just returned from a nuclear conference in Tehran -- a rare trip for U.S. citizens now.

In what Cirincione described as "the worst idea imaginable," the Ford administration at one point suggested joint Pakistani-Iranian reprocessing as a way of promoting "nonproliferation in the region," because it would cut down on the need for additional reprocessing facilities.

Gary Sick, who handled nonproliferation issues under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, said the entire deal was based on trust. "That's the bottom line."

"The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don't trust them."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

With as tight as Syria and Iran have been in bed lately I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Lord knows that France and a goodly portion of the EU see these two growing rogue nations as something to be dealt with.

If France and the US agree on something it's either bad television or a miracle!!!

Fandros

If France and the US agree on something it's either bad television or a miracle!!!

Fandros

LOL very true

A sober analysis of Iran

By only focusing on most extreme, radical notions coming out of Tehran, we let radicals win Trita Parsi Published: 10.14.07, 12:20 / Israel Opinion (http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3084,00.html)


Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3385131,00.html) received the worst possible welcome in New York, yet he managed to walk away the winner. He should dedicate his victory to Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University whose infantile introduction of Ahmadinejad provided the Iranian hardliner with an undeserved opportunity to present himself as a defender of academic integrity and freedom of speech.

As Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh commented: "I think it's generally a good idea when you're inviting people to your university not to tell them upon arrival that they're not welcome, because then you look crazier than Ahmadinejad."

Yet, the main point Ahmadinejad scored was the media’s willingness to let the limelight exaggerate his power and importance. For a few days, the media spoke of Ahmadinejad as if he actually determined Iran’s nuclear policy, as if he was in charge of the Iranian army and as if it was up to him whether Tehran would seek Israel’s destruction or not.

While the former Tehran mayor questioned the veracity of the Holocaust in New York, ordinary Iranians were glued to their TVs to watch a completely different drama – an Iranian series about the Holocaust, the suffering of the Jewish people and the heroic efforts of Iranian diplomats to help French Jews escape the Nazis by providing them with Iranian passports. The contrast with Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric could not have been any clearer. Apparently, the Iranian President even lacks the power to enforce his Holocaust theories on Iran’s state-run TV.

The contradiction between Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust rhetoric and the Iranian TV-drama exemplifies the dangers of the media’s infatuation with the Iranian hardliner – and all hardline statements coming out of Tehran. Not only does the unwarranted media attention make Ahmadinejad appear more powerful than he is, it also takes attention away from another side of Iran (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284215,00.html); one that doesn’t question the Holocaust, that understands the dangers of playing the anti-Israeli card to score points on the Arab streets and that is far more concerned about making friends with the US than making permanent enemies with the Jewish state.

Iran’s National Security Advisor Ali Larijani has carefully avoided echoing Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki’s has denied that Iran seeks the destruction of Israel (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284752,00.html). Their posture is far less sensational than Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, yet much more indicative of Iran’s real policy.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Iran’s position on Israel isn’t ideologically driven. Though the ideological component of Iran’s foreign policy is undeniable, it is secondary to Iran’s geostrategic considerations.

Ideology and geopolitics

Throughout the existence of the Islamic Republic, the Iranian theocracy has adopted a harsh, provocative and uncompromising rhetoric on Israel to boost Iran’s credentials as a leader of an imaginary Islamic bloc and use the anti-Israeli card to bridge Iran’s difficulties with the Arab states.

But the rhetoric has only been translated into actual policy when Tehran deemed that its ideological and strategic imperatives coincided. When these two pillars of Iran’s foreign policy have clashed – as they did in the 1980s during the Iraq-Iran war when Tehran quietly sought Israel’s aid and the Jewish state made many efforts to get Iran and the US back on talking terms – Iran’s geostrategic concerns have consistently prevailed over its ideological impulses.

Today, Tehran believes that its ideological and strategic imperatives coincide in regards to the Jewish state. On a strategic level, Iran opposes Israel due to a perception that the Jewish state seeks Iran’s prolonged isolation and exclusion from regional affairs. Whether in Washington or in Ashkhabad, Iran perceives Israel to be countering its interest. On an ideological level, the Islamic Republic’s pretense to leadership in the Islamic world compels it to pursue a line that often times make Iran more Palestinian than the Palestinians.

The key to changing Iran’s behavior vis-Ã*-vis the Jewish state lay in the dynamics between ideology and geopolitics. If these two forces of Iranian foreign policy once again can be arranged to counter each other, the force behind Iran’s belligerence against Israel can be put to rest.





This, however, cannot be achieved solely by increasing pressure or by making threats of war. Only through a larger US-Iran accommodation can Iran’s foreign policy impulses shift away from its current stance on Israel.

To explore this strategic opportunity, Israel must first adopt a more sober analysis of Iran; one in which it sees through Iran’s deliberately misleading hyperbole and pays attention not only to the dangerous rhetoric but also to the less sensationalist voices in the Iranian government. Iran’s pragmatists may not be friendly towards the Jewish state, but neither are they apocalyptic. By only focusing on the most extreme and radical notions coming out of Tehran, we let the radicals win. And their victory is a loss for all.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3459623,00.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday she has no plans to bring up a Senate resolution asking the Bush administration to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.

“This has never happened before that a Congress should determine one piece of someone’s military is (a threat),� Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week.� “If it's a problem to us and our troops in Iraq, they should deal with it in Iraq.�

The measure, sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.), passed the Senate last month. And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and other critics have said the vote gives the Bush administration a rational for military action in Iran.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/14/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3365492.shtml

At least some people in our government make sense.

Yes! We wouldn't want to kill any of those terrorists would we?

Evidence that came up false, pre emptive FTL

was a negative rep hit to "and we found evidence to check for WMD's in Bahgdad" post i made. It was made in sarcasm....jesus read the whole thread...anon rep hit for the win!

but back to the post.

One of the articles Jedd posted touchs on nuke development to ease oil dependency for a growing Iran. The issue that i have a hard time getting by, even with Putin now saying they should be allowed to develope it, is there is zero gurantees it will just be for power. It isnt like Iran is going to let UN led teams setup shop and oversee everything.

One of the articles Jedd posted touchs on nuke development to ease oil dependency for a growing Iran. The issue that i have a hard time getting by, even with Putin now saying they should be allowed to develope it, is there is zero gurantees it will just be for power. It isnt like Iran is going to let UN led teams setup shop and oversee everything.

There is always zero guarantees from anyone that wants nuclear power. They guarantee it and it always comes down to whether you trust them or not. Does it make you happy to know that they would most likely back up their claim with the risk of being destroyed by Israel and America if they do not?

There is always zero guarantees from anyone that wants nuclear power. They guarantee it and it always comes down to whether you trust them or not. Does it make you happy to know that they would most likely back up their claim with the risk of being destroyed by Israel and America if they do not? MAD ? If that was the only problem, but it's not.

Nuke plants, whether weaponizing or just for civil power, require huge infrastructure, refining and milling technologies, manufacturing, and other technologies that thankfully are very hard to do without some serious investments in both the knowledgebase and long term maitenance of such operations.

It's true, if Iran makes a nuke and then it's used somewhere in the world, it's quite easy to determine who made it. Iran would quickly become a parking lot.

The problem is, once Iran makes their nuke infrastructure and knowledgebase, think Pakistan. They can then sell that tech and intelligence off to whoever wants it so they can make their own. It'll spiral, because once Iran gets the bomb, every other middle eastern country will want the bomb.

Which is a curious point. It's basically assumed that Israel has the bomb today, yet none of its neighbors care much. It's only when Iran wants the bomb that the neighborhood goes to shit and everyone wants one. Why's that?

Which is a curious point. It's basically assumed that Israel has the bomb today, yet none of its neighbors care much. It's only when Iran wants the bomb that the neighborhood goes to shit and everyone wants one. Why's that?

I agree with the rest of your post somewhat, but this part i have an answer to...

Because of the United States. Do you think that if the US did not have a problem with it that anyone else would?

Yea I think most of Europe would.

Yea I think most of Europe would.

Possibly, but i honestly doubt it would be as big of a deal as it is now. I could be wrong.

There is always zero guarantees from anyone that wants nuclear power. They guarantee it and it always comes down to whether you trust them or not. Does it make you happy to know that they would most likely back up their claim with the risk of being destroyed by Israel and America if they do not?

Problem here Jedd is that an ounce of prevention is worth a metric shit ton of radiated Xbodies floating on the wind.

Iran has not shown itself to be stable enough to most to allow them the chance for the vocal few, yourself for one, to be proven wrong.

It will be little consolation to say ha ha Jedd you were fucking wrong they did make a nuke and they did drop it on Israel...

Anything we can do to prevent Iran from even getting close is worth it...well worth it imho..

Problem here Jedd is that an ounce of prevention is worth a metric shit ton of radiated Xbodies floating on the wind.

Iran has not shown itself to be stable enough to most to allow them the chance for the vocal few, yourself for one, to be proven wrong.

It will be little consolation to say ha ha Jedd you were fucking wrong they did make a nuke and they did drop it on Israel...

Anything we can do to prevent Iran from even getting close is worth it...well worth it imho..

See, i completely understand the stance of wanting to stop a horrific attack from happening before it is too late.

But by launching an attack against a country who has not done so, is in itself wrong. Lets look at this for a second from a non biased point of view for both of us.

Iran is the 18th largest country in the world, with a population of 70 million, and has endured countless years of sanctions and embargo's for an act that can be seen as evil, but more importantly simply wrong.

It is quite involved with both positive and negative groups around the world. The country also has no history of attacking any other country, but rather has a strong stance towards Israel and is quite unhappy with the "Zionist regime".

They have a history of reported human rights violations, with conflicting reports of both tolerance and intolerance towards minorities. We hear alot more about the intolerance, here in the United States, but to be fair, there are voices on both sides, of the issue. The United States also did have many issues with Intolerance in the past, as have many of the Nuclear countries today.

This country has a strong stance as being Anti WMD after its 8 year war with Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians were subjected to chemical attacks. The government is ruled by a Religious dictator, with branches of government that though they do function still report to the Leader.

The religion in which they practice is a peacefull religion when followed correctly, but has recently been distorted by other Islamic militants in other parts of the world.

Now If you want to add to that list feel free to do so, but as objectively as possible.

Now this country wants to be a part of modern civilization, and has a hefty and well educated population. They have some in government positions that are more extreme, but can easily be compared to some of the people we have in government positions in the US. No matter what is thought by the ignorant, it is well known that Islam is a peacefull religion and does not promote the murder of innocents.

What objection can be had with this country having nuclear energy? As always we are not talking about Nuclear Weapons, though that is what the debate gets turned to over and over again.

What is wrong with Iran having Nuclear Energy as is their right given to them by the United Nations?

Why is Diplomacy an afterthought to the United States with Military Action leading to such a high cost to all involved?

And last but not least. Why Does America demand that Iran follow the rules the UN sets before it, yet when the UN did not allow the war on Iraq, the United States pushed it aside and continued on its own path?

If i am wrong on a point, just correct me... and we can continue discussing it.

Putin's visit to Iran and his speech giving a warning against using military force against Iran was another step in reestablishing the Cold War relationship. He has this week spurned the US Secretaries of State and Defense, intimated that Russia will become involved if any military action is taken against Iran, and started speculation that he will not leave office when his term expires.

Russia is as much, if not more, at risk from Iran having a nuclear weapon program as any EU country. There has been little love lost between the Kremlin and the Muslim population of Russia and it's former(?) subordinates.
I would not be surprised if Putin and Ahmanutjob have come to an arrangement that would safeguard the developing nuclear energy program but also would have Russian technicians overseeing the nuclear material, to be able to maintain assurances that there is no potential for a nuclear weapons program.

This puts Russia back on the world stage as a Power to be reckoned with, and once we see China weigh in, we will know whether or not Bush, and particularly Cheney, have undone what Reagan and Bush Sr worked so hard to achieve. High school kids reading newspapers and surfing the net know more about Russia's oil monies and new military spending than apparently our own leaders do.

We will not be attacking Iran.

Lets look at this for a second from a non biased point of view for both of us.

Iran is the 18th largest country in the world, with a population of 70 million, and has endured countless years of sanctions and embargo's for an act that can be seen as evil, but more importantly simply wrong. I'm so glad you had that non-biased conversation with yourself.

Oh and thanks for calling me an idiot. I don't know how I'll ever recover that -1 rep hit. Grow up kkthx.

Oh and thanks for calling me an idiot. I don't know how I'll ever recover that -1 rep hit. Grow up kkthx.

You're not an idiot, you are a good bean. I have to spread some love before giving you some rep though. ;)

:devil

I'm so glad you had that non-biased conversation with yourself.

Oh and thanks for calling me an idiot. I don't know how I'll ever recover that -1 rep hit. Grow up kkthx.

Sigh... Grow up indeed, right back at ya

And btw it was "Illiterate idiot", but seeing as how you didnt understand that part, i can see why you left it out...

And btw it was "Illiterate idiot", but seeing as how you didnt understand that part, i can see why you left it out...

Priceless.

Your are quite frankly an illiterate idiot. - Jedd

That would be "You are..."

Priceless.



That would be "You are..."

lol touche

Which is a curious point. It's basically assumed that Israel has the bomb today, yet none of its neighbors care much. It's only when Iran wants the bomb that the neighborhood goes to shit and everyone wants one. Why's that?

One might rephrase that in that Israel has the bomb and the neighborhood has already gone to shit with every other major power either playing patsy to Israel's benefactor or scraping together any sort of strategic alliance with China or Russia they can. The whole spiral theory holds exactly the same water as the domino theory of communism, which is none.

Pakistan wants nuclear arms because we already turned a blind eye to their primary strategic adversary (India) having them.

The worst part of it, from our perspective anyway, is that thanks to our stupid economic and military decisions over the last thirty years, we essentially have zero influence over the region anymore unless we want to start wars that we can't afford. China and Russia are the key players; Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan are the prizes; Saudi Arabia and Israel are an also rans that are in deep shit when our reality check finally bounces; and we're rapidly selling ourselves into further irrelevance.

Well put Malse.

lol touche
I thought the Neg hit for intelligence you gave me was good as well....

You are a no intelligence piece of crap

Was that supposed to be "You are a non-intelligent piece of crap"?
or "You have no intelligence, you piece of crap"?

And last but not least. Why Does America demand that Iran follow the rules the UN sets before it, yet when the UN did not allow the war on Iraq, the United States pushed it aside and continued on its own path?

That's the ounce of prevention vs the metric ton of irradiated bodies.
A conventional war may cost lives, but it won't cost us civilization.
Iran is an unstable country. It has been an Islamic republic for less than 50 years.
Nuclear Power Plants require constant maintenance, and oversight. Given the volatile nature of Iranian society, there is a better than even chance of the Russians being evicted from the country.
Remember their Constitution?
Article 2 States:
Oppression in any form is not acceptable.
Article 3 States:
The elimination of imperialism and foreign influence
So by is very constitution, Iran has said it has the right to not have any oversight for any reason.
Nuclear energy/weapons are an area where a country no longer has any soverign rights. It must comply with the oversight by other countries that have nuclear power/weapons, as any accidents/attacks have not just reprecussions for that country, but others as well. That's what the IAEA is all about.

And yes, Malse, well put.

Remember their Constitution?



Is it so different from ours?

Do we allow for oppression of any kind?

Or allow foreign influence to lead our country?

We follow the guidelines of the IAEA.
We have also haven't had a revolution since the discovery of nuclear energy.
Yes, it's very different from ours. If you can't see that, you are blind.

We follow the guidelines of the IAEA.
We have also haven't had a revolution since the discovery of nuclear energy.
Yes, it's very different from ours. If you can't see that, you are blind.

Sigh... What i mean is when comparing thair constitutions the examples given were not good examples of why they are unstable.

However the Revolution is a better example, though how long must a country be revolutionless before they are stable enough is another question that would need to be answered no?

You cant just go with Never, or else do you really expect them to accept it?

You could always go with our's as an example.
We started nuclear energy research (non weaponized) in 1934.
If you want to go with the end of the Civil War in 1865 as a period of inner stablization, you could say 70 (69) years of no internal struggles.
This would allow Iran the right to pursue nuclear energy in the year 2049 ....

You could always go with our's as an example.
We started nuclear energy research (non weaponized) in 1934.
If you want to go with the end of the Civil War in 1865 as a period of inner stablization, you could say 70 (69) years of no internal struggles.
This would allow Iran the right to pursue nuclear energy in the year 2049 ....

Alright, I see the point to that, and i could live with it.

However there is still one question. Are there any other countries with Nuclear Energy who have had internal struggles more recently?

Also, would 2049 be the year the Iran could legally also create Nuclear Arms since they meet the criteria?

Sure, if they survived that long.
I don't see the need for nuclear weapons, however. They are of no viable use on the battlefield, and only assure that both sides will be destroyed.
Russia (With the fall of the Soviet Union) is the only country that I can think of that has had any recent struggles internally....

Sure, if they survived that long.
I don't see the need for nuclear weapons, however. They are of no viable use on the battlefield, and only assure that both sides will be destroyed.
Russia (With the fall of the Soviet Union) is the only country that I can think of that has had any recent struggles internally....

Hell, Offer to remove the sanctions and embargo's, make the agreement that by 2049 They will be able to move to producing their own nuclear Energy. Put it down in writing, with a stability clause. Perhaps have someone help them out with current needs.

Sign me up, If they reject that and push forward with their plans, then i could see a problem more clearly.

and only assure that both sides will be destroyed.

How is this not important or 'needed'? The elevation to world power is through nuclear weapons. If you do not have them, you cannot compete militarily. If you cannot compete militarily, you will suffer in other arenas. Whether you want them to have it or not, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons is entirely in their best interest.

How is this not important or 'needed'? The elevation to world power is through nuclear weapons. If you do not have them, you cannot compete militarily. If you cannot compete militarily, you will suffer in other arenas. Whether you want them to have it or not, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons is entirely in their best interest.Explain Japan. 2nd largest economy in the world, practically no military, and zero nuclear weapons.

Japan is a protectorate of the United States. In regards to foreign policy, they may as well have nuclear weapons. Were they to be attacked by a nuclear power, rest assured there would be US response. Were it not for this safeguard, traditional MAD scenarios would take place.

There is a reason every permanent member of the UN security council is nuclear. It's really simple - if you have nuclear weapons you cannot be fucked with - period. Bush labels three countries as the axis of evil - one gets invaded, the other two are scrambling to develop nuclear technology. Why? We couldn't invade a nuclear-capable Iran or North Korea. It is the greatest safeguard against foreign intrusion.

Edit: The ABM treaty is worth mention here. The idea of MAD is so sensitive in world politics that creating a defense against nuclear weapons is seen as aggressive. The results of our withdrawal from this treaty will be interesting to watch.

Russia (With the fall of the Soviet Union) is the only country that I can think of that has had any recent struggles internally....Pakistan has its own share of troubles, complete with Taliban/terrorist presence in its Waziristan region.

If Iran didnt constinatly say they would wipe out Isreal with one nuclear bomb the problem for the others in the region would be moot about Iran wanting nuclear power. But making threats openly doesnt win points or make people sleep better at night.

Like Japan the US is bound to protect others in the region Isreal Saudi arabia for example.

Explain Japan. 2nd largest economy in the world, practically no military, and zero nuclear weapons.

Okinawa has more long range force projection on it than the Imperial Japanese Navy ever did. They don't need a military because they have ours. Of note, however, has been a lot of talk in Japan about amending their constitution to allow the recreation of a true military (as opposed to the current Self-Defense Force, which while well trained and equipped is intentionally small and lacks any sort of long-range weapon systems -- this has actually been one of the major stabilizing forces in Asia as well as a contribution to why Japan has so much money), and that sort of talk really got going in the mid-90s when it became obvious that the USofA was giving its own economy a solid jolly rogering. No money, no army, no Fortress of Doom on their local irrelevant backwater province.


The ABM treaty is worth mention here. The idea of MAD is so sensitive in world politics that creating a defense against nuclear weapons is seen as aggressive. The results of our withdrawal from this treaty will be interesting to watch.

Said it before and I'll say it again, the entire world is mortally terrified that GWB2 is going to think he can use nuclear arms without fear of reprisal.

If Iran didnt constinatly say they would wipe out Isreal with one nuclear bomb the problem for the others in the region would be moot about Iran wanting nuclear power.

The countries who currently possess nuclear weapons have a huge vested interest in deterring nuclear proliferation. An ally today is an enemy tomorrow - ANY country gaining nuclear capabilities is bad for business. The intention of nuclear-pursuant countries is moot - it alters the world power structure. China, France, US, Russia, England, India, Pakistan, NK, and Israel all have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo. I don't care if Iran said they were developing nuclear technology to feed every last hungry person in the world - we don't want it.

As long as Iran is supplying the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and such ilk there is no way in hell they should have nuclear power of any kind.

That's it, it's over and done with you'll never get the majority of us to see otherwise.

I never even remotely implied that Iran should have nuclear weapons.

I was discussing the role of nuclear weapons in international relations. Any rational state would pursue nuclear capabilities were it within their ability. The only person placing a value judgment on that is you.

HuH Ainwein? I wasn't referring to you in the slightest ;P

http://aklemai.com/albums/july_jesuslol/jesus_oops_lol.jpg

just for the record if you have to attack someones spelling or grammer in a thread you automatically lose.