There's an interesting article about the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4895212.stm

Quoting Banco (Reply 49): OK, that's a logical position. But would you not accept that ruling out the possiblity of military action would remove one of the elements of compulsion to ensure they don't develop nuclear weapons?

Sure, I have never ruled out the possibility of military action, but this should always be done within the framework of the international community and with a verified body of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Iran refusing to stop enrichment is not grounds enough for military action, because theres no evidence presented to show that they are developing nuclear weapons and enrichment is allowed under the NPT.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 51):

But according to that BBC article what you are advocating is pretty much the US's approach anyway, don't you think?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 51): Sure, I have never ruled out the possibility of military action, but this should always be done within the framework of the international community and with a verified body of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

unfortunately, this adminstration doesn't seem to understand that....

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): But according to that BBC article what you are advocating is pretty much the US's approach anyway, don't you think?

they seem to be following this approach for now, but we've seen otherwise with this administration when they are in conflict with the international community..

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 3): The only way you'll see a nuke attack on Iran is if they use it on the US first. Period, end of story.

Not trying to be petty but I'd rather not be struck by a nuke first by an unpredictable regime. You know, biting off your your nose to spite your face, thing. An ounce of prevention actually comes to mind.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 12): The U.S. war games stuff like this all the time and those war games include the use of nuclear weapons. This is just another non-story that is being trotted out to bash Bush.

I rarely agree with B757300, but I agree 100% here. The U.S. does theoretical wargames all the time, on almost any contingency. War plans are constantly updated and refined. This is, in plain fact, a non-story, floated by the usual great gullibles who always look to slam the U.S.

Quoting Banco (Reply 13): The US is often rightly criticised for its actions, but I do think that when people accuse them of being the world's worst they should think, really think, what the world would have been like it been another country that had been a superpower these last sixty years. China? The Soviet Union on its own?

They should think, and remember-especially from some of these shrill voices emminating from Western Europe, who helped save their butts from the Nazis in WWII, and who acted as a forward shield for their butts, and, in many ways, still does act as that shield for them. Criticism isn't a crime, but it's as bad as one when it's done with no insight and no thought in the criticism.

Quoting SATX (Reply 14): Just another GOP apologist trotting out another non-answer to protect Bush?

I'm one of the biggest critics of Bush on this forum, SATX, but on this one, I agree that this is Bush-bashing, plain and simple.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 20): Which is pretty ridiculous considering that Iran is only pursuing them out of fear of the United States and its overwhelming military power.

   No, they're pursuing them to destroy Israel. They've mentioned several times they will wipe Israel off the map. There's only one way for them to do that, my friend.

And think back in history. Had people taken Adolpf Hitler a little more seriously in the 1930's, some 70 million might have lived. Where do you draw the line with people like this nut in Iran? I'm no proponent for first strike, but when does it become an option? When Iran tests a nuclear weapons. Or is that not even enough for people like you?

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 32): What I am saying is that US has no right to do anything.

We have every right to defend ourselves, and come to the defense of an ally if so asked. Do we not?

What is your view on Afghanistan? We were attacked on 9/11 with orders from Afghan soil, and the Afghan government knowingly protected the perps. Did we NOT have a right, in your estimation, to go to war there?

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 32): They have Nukes themselves and still to date, the only ones to use them

Yes, as was already said, in a war started by the other side. When you start a war, you take a combatants chances, and one of those risks is that the other side has more advanced weaponry than you do. Japan paid a terrible, terrible price for their militarism, and the U.S. has nothing to apologize for in that instance. Nothing.

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 32): and you have have no proof that Iran is making weapons.

No, just their unwillingness to cooperate with the IAEA; their public threats to wipe Israel off the earth; their public statement wanting a world without the U.S.

Again, when IS their enough proof for someone like you?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35): If anyone out in A-Net land doesn't think the US has continually planned, replanned and planned again for an eventuality in Iran (or anywhere else) in the last, oh - say fifty years - then you've concept of military planning on the tactical or strategic level and should not even be in this conversation.

  

Unfortunately, ANC, some people think the U.S. pulls a war plan out of their ass. Granted, Iraq made it look that way in this conflict, but that was because the politicians didn't use enough force in the invasion.

War plans, for any military worth it's salt, are constantly updated and refined. It's just common sense.

Quoting Mika (Reply 37): Couldn´t we have a so called mini nuke attack against the US nuclear missile facilities? That way the world is more sure of the fact that a nuclear war will not erupt. The rest of us could concentrate on sanctioning Iran and everyone would be happy.

And why would you be happy that Americans get killed in such an attack? What kind of nonsense is that?

Maybe you'd be happy, but you can't hit all our nukes-remember the subs?-and whoever was stupid enough to launch such an attack would pay a heavy price, my friend.

Quoting Mika (Reply 46): They don´t have them and neither will they

And how are you so sure? Because you're just wilfully blind? Ignorance is bliss, you know. The want them, and they are working to build one, of that I have no doubt. But I wish I was so pleasantly ignorant, my friend.

Quoting Mika (Reply 46): This is my belief.

Again, "ignorance is bliss."

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 48): Its not necessarily that we trust Iranian leadership, its that we believe that you need more than the current level of evidence for military action to be even acceptable as a consideration.

Again, what constitutes "proof" in your mind? To me, proof, and the justificaton to seriously consider military action would be if they test one. If we can't get in there and verify, that to me would be a trigger for looking into military action-unless you don't mind a few million dead Israeli's as "proof", RP.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 48): And no, the evidence currently against Iran is far from any level required.

I agree. But it's growing all the time. And to be willfuly blind to the fact that they DO want one is astounding.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 51): Sure, I have never ruled out the possibility of military action, but this should always be done within the framework of the international community and with a verified body of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Why should the U.S., if attacked, go to the U.N. and seek U.N. approval to defend itself? As a soverign nation, we have the right to do so. As a soverign nations, Israel has the right to defend itself, and, if needed request assistance from the U.S. We don't need the U.N. for that. There are the times when I do think the U.N. should be the conduit for action, but not if an attack is launched by Iran.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 42): And not just by the countries in the west . . . if you don't believe that, or can't understand that, you're way too naive.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 55): War plans, for any military worth it's salt, are constantly updated and refined. It's just common sense.

Agreed and agreed. I'm not allowed to talk about everything I've seen (plus my memory is shaky) but if people knew of even half the nations we target, half of a.net would be $hitting a brick right now.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34): Well this is difficult, and there's no point trying to second-guess here and say the US is automatically wrong.

They were convinced that Iraq had them, Where are they? If they had them
why didn't that use them?

PIA777

Quoting TWISTEDWHISPER (Thread starter): At least until November 5:th 2008

If nuclear war happened that day, then Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the houses of parliament would pale into insignificance!

Quoting Greyhound (Reply 56): but if people knew of even half the nations we target, half of a.net would be $hitting a brick right now

Yet there would be no reason for them to dump those bricks.  

The reason they shouldn't feel that way is that it's simply CONTINGENCIES. It could be something, say, like a contingency if India and Pakistan go after each other, or if China sent warplanes to bomb Japan. It could be any conceivable (or even inconceivable) possibility.

Anyone remember the 80's move "Wargames", with Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy? Remember the end, when W.O.P.R is finishing "the game"? It shows several hundred-at least-scenarios, on that big screen, that could trigger a nuclear exchange with the U.S.S.R., and how such an exchange could conceivably play out.

This is no different-it's just preparing for possibilities.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): The reason they shouldn't feel that way is that it's simply CONTINGENCIES

Oh I definetly agree.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): Anyone remember the 80's move "Wargames", with Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy? Remember the end, when W.O.P.R is finishing "the game"?

Greetings Professor Falken

Quoting Greyhound (Reply 60): Greetings Professor Falken

  

"Shall we play...a game?"

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 33): We have the right to defend ourselves against a nation that has declared the US as the Great Satan

what has Bush done by calling Iran the "Axis of Evil" and then against the International Community, invaded another "Axis of Evil" right next door?

all the while the 3rd "Axis of Evil", which has developed a nuclear bomb isn't getting as much flack as Iran is

whether you agree or not, that is a fact..

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 33): and have proven to have no qualms at all about supporting logistically and financially terrorist groups whose main strategy is to kill civilians in as large numbers as possible for the past 25 years.

the United States isn't too far behind..........part of the problem the United States has enemies is for this particular reason..

I don't know about you, but to me, a picture says a thousand words..

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 33): But when a nation is led by unelected religious hardliners with visions of sainthood or martyrdom, and guided by a religion that has plenty of literature pushing for the extermination of non-believers, there are no such restrictions.

the United States isn't too far behind with all the evangelical christians who provide a lot of support and have large influence on Congress

Quoting Banco (Reply 34): 'Till they drop one on Tel-Aviv?

Ahmadinejad talks a good talk, but at the end of the day, he can't do anything without backing of the mullahs..and they are smart enough to know that if they drop anything on Israel, they will get a few nukes lobbed over their heads..they aren't too stupid...they play a good game..

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 62): Ahmadinejad talks a good talk, but at the end of the day, he can't do anything without backing of the mullahs..and they are smart enough to know that if they drop anything on Israel, they will get a few nukes lobbed over their heads..they aren't too stupid...they play a good game..

Even if that is the csae, should the US and the west be so stupid as to simply not plan for such an event?

Something learned a long time ago - and learned because the military taught me to learn it - be as prepared for every contingency that you can imagine. Some preparation takes time and skill and intellect, some do not. And such preparations are always updated.

Once again - this is non-news. Only the naive and ignorant think the US just developed this plan last week . . .   

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 62): what has Bush done by calling Iran the "Axis of Evil" and then against the International Community, invaded another "Axis of Evil" right next door?

Jacobin, when's the last time we took their diplomats hostage? Enough said.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 62): I don't know about you, but to me, a picture says a thousand words..

Different day, dude. Back then, the Iranians were holding our people hostage, and right or wrong, we were trying to have Iraq as a counterbalance to them. Politics and war make strange bedfellows, that is for certain. Why not put a picture of FDR with Uncle Joe up here, Jacobin? Same thing.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 62): Ahmadinejad talks a good talk, but at the end of the day, he can't do anything without backing of the mullahs..and they are smart enough to know that if they drop anything on Israel, they will get a few nukes lobbed over their heads..they aren't too stupid...they play a good game..

You assume they play the same game we do. But they don't. They're driven, in large part, by religious fanaticism, that doesn't always follow what we could consider a logical script.

I believe the DO want to nuke Israel-their nut leader and all the Mullah's over there.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 63): Even if that is the csae, should the US and the west be so stupid as to simply not plan for such an event?

nowhere in my statement did I say the United States shouldn't be planning, as it would be the only prudent thing to do......certainly develop contingency plans, but attacking and/or invading a foreign country, especially without the backing of the international community or being provoked....is a bit of a faux-pas...

We will probably disagree on what level we should be "provoked" before possibly invading/attackick Iran, but that is the $64,000 question to which I dont' think any one of us has an answer to.....at least not yet....

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 63): Once again - this is non-news. Only the naive and ignorant think the US just developed this plan last week .

I doubt there are too many people on this board who think the govt has just started planning this recently........Iran has been on the radar screen for the past 20 years, and certainly with this administraton for the past 5-6 years...Bush-II basically has stated it himself.......

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): Jacobin, when's the last time we took their diplomats hostage? Enough said.

1)two wrongs don't make a right

2) we shouldn't have even put our hands in the cookie jar in the first place......

"In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from power in a plot orchestrated by British and U.S. intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). The operation was conducted following the Prime Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi."

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

the United States and Britian knew they were going to put an autocratic man into power (like his father was) who was going to crush civil liberites, etc...and it didn't matter who was going to lose lives or what the causualty was going to be..as long as the interests of the United States and Britian came first..

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): Different day, dude.

same guy in the adminstration.....people don't change....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): and right or wrong, we were trying to have Iraq as a counterbalance to them.

"right or wrong" ....... bit arrogant of a statement.....for our "counterbalance", we indirectly let 2 million people die and let a man gas his own people......for which we have him on trial now on "crimes against humanity"..even though we're the ones who baited him in the first place.......get real man...

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): You assume they play the same game we do. But they don't. They're driven, in large part, by religious fanaticism, that doesn't always follow what we could consider a logical script. I believe the DO want to nuke Israel-their nut leader and all the Mullah's over there.

You have a right to your opinion(s), and that's fine, but you have yet to prove that Iran is going to nuke/attack/bomb/etc. Israel/United States/Allies/etc.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): I doubt there are too many people on this board who think the govt has just started planning this recently........

Of course they haven't. As even you admitted, it's called contingency planning, and contingencies change as the geo-political map and the military threats change.

That's why this is a non-story. I guarantee you that in the Pentagon, the possibility of a nuclear Iran has been contemplated since the mid-to-late 1970's, when they became our enemy.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): ) we shouldn't have even put our hands in the cookie jar in the first place......

Come again? What does that mean?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): same guy in the adminstration.....people don't change....

No, they don't, but obvioiusly you don't understand the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and back when that photo was allegedly taken. Sometimes, to contain one nut, you may have to depend on another. I'm not saying it's right, or that it's the way things should be, but that's the way they are.

Look at WWII-the Soviet Union was at first our enemy, then became our "friends" after Hitler turned on them, and we were very strange allies. Later, we again became implacable enemies.

If you have a pristine, innocent view of how the world should be, you're ass is going to be in a sling some day, and you won't have a clue how it got there.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): "right or wrong" ....... bit arrogant of a statement.....

I'm not trying to be arrogant at all, but I'm also not naive about the world and how it works. In fact, we were required in history class in High School, when the flare-up with Iran and Scrambledbrains Khomeini was going on, to write, once a week, a current event paper, with our opinion on things. In one, I said the U.S. should use Saddam as a counter-balance to Iran's beligerance. Again, it's not based on some naive view of what should be, but how things are. And sometimes, they aren't pretty.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): but you have yet to prove that Iran is going to nuke/attack/bomb/etc. Israel/United States/Allies/etc.

No, we don't. But, unlike Iraq in '03, we do have solid proof of INTENTION, out of Iran's own government. I mean, the use of terms like wiping Israel off the map, and wishing of a world without the U.S. isn't exactly subtle language, and isn't language you saw often even at the height of the Cold War.

Their intention is clear: they want to destroy Israel; they want to do great damage to the U.S. and the West. That alone is enough to do serious planning based on contingencies already drawn up.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 66): Come again? What does that mean?

we knew we were going to stir a hornets nest....but as I stated previously, we really didn't care, as long as we got what we wanted out of it.....irrespective of what the consequence was......

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 66): No, they don't, but obvioiusly you don't understand the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and back when that photo was allegedly taken. Sometimes, to contain one nut, you may have to depend on another. I'm not saying it's right, or that it's the way things should be, but that's the way they are. Look at WWII-the Soviet Union was at first our enemy, then became our "friends" after Hitler turned on them, and we were very strange allies. Later, we again became implacable enemies. If you have a pristine, innocent view of how the world should be, you're ass is going to be in a sling some day, and you won't have a clue how it got there.

I hope I'm not too ignorant, I basically did a minor in history in college...on top of that, one of my professors, who used to write speaches for a former President of ours (won't mention names) told me if I ever needed a recommendation that I shouldn't even bother to make a formal request..."just walk in"..turns out I was one of the only students she's even discussed letters of recommendations to...

the point of my incessant comment is that I'm quite versed in history

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 66): No, we don't. But, unlike Iraq in '03, we do have solid proof of INTENTION, out of Iran's own government. I mean, the use of terms like wiping Israel off the map, and wishing of a world without the U.S. isn't exactly subtle language, and isn't language you saw often even at the height of the Cold War.

I counter by saying that years before this whack job of a president of Iran (I'm on record of saying that ad nauseam, you can cross-check if you don't believe me) came on public media mentioning the "wiping Israel off the map"..this current administration years ago talked basically of "regime change" in the "axis of evil"....that to me sounds quite belligerent...dont' you think? I can't recall hearing of ...."wiping Israel off the map" prior to last year.....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 66): Their intention is clear: they want to destroy Israel; they want to do great damage to the U.S. and the West. That alone is enough to do serious planning based on contingencies already drawn up.

I don't think we disagree on this particular part of the argument....I'm sure the Military/Pentagon have many different contigency plans based on many different probabilities/events.....but unlike North Korea, Iran isn't an isolated country with crackpot leaders (as mentioned, the Mullahs control Iran, not the President)-we disagree, thats fair, however I don't think they are too idiotic or psychotic enough to attack/destroy any particular country, especially a country such as Israel......

and I mentioned previously, I am sure we would probably disagree on the the depth of being "provoked" before we decide to attack/invade Iran

to me this speaks volumes about our current administration.....



cheers...

tax-time...time for me to fund the government so it can send the military to invade Iran..  

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): I doubt there are too many people on this board who think the govt has just started planning this recently........

Then you need to re-read this thread . . . and watch more CNN or something. The way it's told on CNN, and other media outlets, and displayed by a few people on this board, it's like the Pentagon got up yesterday morning and decided. . . . well, we better draw up a plan for nuking the shit out of Iran . . . . naive at best, complete ignorance at worst.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 66): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 65): but you have yet to prove that Iran is going to nuke/attack/bomb/etc. Israel/United States/Allies/etc. No, we don't. But, unlike Iraq in '03, we do have solid proof of INTENTION, out of Iran's own government. I mean, the use of terms like wiping Israel off the map, and wishing of a world without the U.S. isn't exactly subtle language, and isn't language you saw often even at the height of the Cold War.

Narrows it down pretty well for me as well . . . when it's publically announced that another country should be exterminated . . . well, I think the intent is pretty claer. Furthermore, I don't think it would take a lot of provocation. Iran and it's leadership are not the most stable . . . rather like the North Korea of the Middle East IMO.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 67): tax-time...

Thank goodness I'm done with that crap this year. . .

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 67): the point of my incessant comment is that I'm quite versed in history

This isn't history we're talking about: it's policy-making and doing, what sometimes is some unpleasant things in order to protect ones' country.

I don't know if you're naive on history or not-this isn't a discussion, really, about history. But I do think you're naive in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage, that, for better or worse, has to be practiced.

Again, I go back to the U.S. v. USSR. Both were willing to put aside differences and obvious mistrust to beat a common enemy. Same with the U.S. overtures to Iraq which, in reality, were not huge. But it was a common interest against a nation that was a common enemy.

The world isn't a pretty place sometime, and sometime, things have to be done, no matter how distasteful they might seem.

Quoting TWISTEDWHISPER (Thread starter): IMO, the only country that should not be allowed to have nukes is the US. At least until November 5:th 2008... then we'll take it from there.

   just try and stop us, lol

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 20): Which is pretty ridiculous considering that Iran is only pursuing them out of fear of the United States and its overwhelming military power. Bush has already demonstrated that he won't hesitate to use preemptive force, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear arms is largely an effort to deter the United States from invading them as well. I'm not saying that the Iranian regime's actions are justified, but it's not like the United States hasn't given them every reason to be concerned about an invasion similar to what we've seen in Iraq. I'm very concerned about the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons, but as long as the United States continues to harbor and develop them, we have no business telling other nations that they can't.

so we should just wait until they have the capability to wipe out more people than nazi germany did in WW2? the great thing about this is that now they don't have to target just one group they can wipe out all kinds of people.

If they are calling us the root of all evil and advocating a world without the US then they should be very afraid. If the US wanted to invade Iran they would nukes or not. they are not developing them to prevent a war they are developing them to start one.

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 32): What I am saying is that US has no right to do anything

we definitely have the right to defend our selves and our allies. we also have the right to take whatever action is needed to do so

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35): If anyone out in A-Net land doesn't think the US has continually planned, replanned and planned again for an eventuality in Iran (or anywhere else) in the last, oh - say fifty years - then you've concept of military planning on the tactical or strategic level and should not even be in this conversation.

   correct

Quoting AAden (Reply 70): we definitely have the right to defend our selves and our allies. we also have the right to take whatever action is needed to do so

Against what? Defend ourselves against what? The government could not
stop them on 911, what makes you think they will stop them now? Where is
Bin Laden? Whats going in N. Korea? Why isn't Dubya doing anything. He does not care, he will leave office in 2 years. Its not his problem.

PIA777

we have so much more security since 9/11. their hasn't been a terrorist attack in the us since

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 71): Why isn't Dubya doing anything. He does not care

and where do you get this baseless remark from   

Quoting AAden (Reply 72): we have so much more security since 9/11. their hasn't been a terrorist attack in the us since

I don't need you to remind me of what happend that terrible day.
Its is clearly visible in my head. How do you even know that they even
tried to commit another act. Did Dubya tell you? I think all of the USAs forces
should be in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden.

PIA777

It would be Interesting to hear from an Iranian Anetter.
regds
MEL

Didn't bin laden say he would never stop attacking the US and that the attacks would come with greater losses. well where are they. I thought he wanted to bring america to its knees

Quoting PIA777 (Reply 73): I think all of the USAs forces should be in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden.

I don't think if he's alive that he's in afganaistaN

Quoting AAden (Reply 70): so we should just wait until they have the capability to wipe out more people than nazi germany did in WW2? the great thing about this is that now they don't have to target just one group they can wipe out all kinds of people.

And why is it people take this to the extreme, whenever someone speaks out against the current situation against Iran?

Developing nuclear weapons is not a black and white situation, it is not a 0 or 1 case, you dont go from nothing to fantastic destructive power in the blink of an eye.

Theres a whole development program, where the steps from nothing to weapons is done in stages over years. Considering these steps produce isotopes that can conceivably be detected from space, or hundreds of miles from the actual labs, evidence should be abundant long before a nuclear weapon is possible.

At the moment, the only isotope discovered was in minute amounts outside one of the enrichment labs, and that isotope matched samples provided from Pakistan - it wasnt produced onsite, it came from insufficiently decontaminated equipment procured from Pakistan.

Everybody is looking at Iran, they cannot do this in the secrecy everyone believes they can.

Quoting AAden (Reply 75): Didn't bin laden say he would never stop attacking the US and that the attacks would come with greater losses. well where are they. I thought he wanted to bring america to its knees

Quite on the contrary...he offered a truce (not defending him, just stating the facts).

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627775.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-19-bin-laden-audio_x.htm

Quoting TWISTEDWHISPER (Thread starter): The US is planing a "nucular" attack on Iran, Seymour Hersh says.

This "planing" or perhaps planning is nothing more than a contigency plan. The US military establishment has contigency plans on invading South Africa if necessary. It is not a matter of determination, but preparation.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 77):

And you would believe that Bin Laden offered a real truce?, and that the truce would have no agendas attatched?`

He says, if Europe stops attacking Muslims, well how do you think that should be defined? Are we attacking Muslims, or are we attacking terrorists and nations?

Secondly if his demands are met, would you have any idea what it might inspire in the future? Just to quote a man that once lived:

Any society that would give up a litte liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both. - Benjamin Franklin

Boaz.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 79): Any society that would give up a litte liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both. - Benjamin Franklin

Awesome. Thanx.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 68): Then you need to re-read this thread . . . and watch more CNN or something. The way it's told on CNN, and other media outlets, and displayed by a few people on this board, it's like the Pentagon got up yesterday morning and decided. . . . well, we better draw up a plan for nuking the shit out of Iran . . . . naive at best, complete ignorance at worst.

I think we both (as well as most on A.net-well I hope at least) what to think of the media...."need a story, sensationalism"........I assume we can get past that....as we both know what the reasoning is for the media to hype it up.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 68): Narrows it down pretty well for me as well . . . when it's publically announced that another country should be exterminated . . . well, I think the intent is pretty claer. Furthermore, I don't think it would take a lot of provocation. Iran and it's leadership are not the most stable . . . rather like the North Korea of the Middle East IMO.

I think Iran is much more sophisticated and shrewder than North Korea, and unlike North Korea, basically a closed country with a psychopathic despotic dictator, Iran is a global player with open ties to most of the world......and certainly without a despotic ruler......

not to mention........again, when the President of the United States calls a country "axis of evil" and talks about regime change......and then goes about doing it to one particular country that didn't have nuclear technology-against the international community no less, if anything, I think Iran would be idiotic to not defend itself (if indeed its building nuclear weapons-which it probably is....but even that is questionable)

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69): I don't know if you're naive on history or not-this isn't a discussion, really, about history. But I do think you're naive in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage, that, for better or worse, has to be practiced.

history is rife with examples of this, heck, we even find the Muslims and Jews fighting together for a common cause during the Spanish Inqusition (though the situation was a bit differenent as Jews flourished under Muslims, nonetheless)......

wars and battles have been won and lost and history itself has been defined by short-term alliances amongst enemies

coincidentally, the quote "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is supposedly an old arabic proverb....

Quoting AAden (Reply 75): Didn't bin laden say he would never stop attacking the US and that the attacks would come with greater losses. well where are they. I thought he wanted to bring america to its knees

it's called "propaganda".......

cheers..

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 81): not to mention........again, when the President of the United States calls a country "axis of evil" and talks about regime change......and then goes about doing it to one particular country that didn't have nuclear technology-against the international community no less, if anything, I think Iran would be idiotic to not defend itself (if indeed its building nuclear weapons-which it probably is....but even that is questionable)

Hmmm. How about when Iran calls the US the great satan. I think the US would be idiotic not to defend itself.

Speaking of international community. Isn't Iran going against the international community and the UN by developing nuclear weapons - no less?

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 82): Hmmm. How about when Iran calls the US the great satan. I think the US would be idiotic not to defend itself.

The US has also denounced Iran as Evil, so wheres the justification?

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 82): Speaking of international community. Isn't Iran going against the international community and the UN by developing nuclear weapons - no less?

No, because theres no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. The issue at the moment is various countries dont want Iran to enrich uranium, because they have 'concerns' over a potential weapons programme that thus far no evidence has arisen for.

Enrichment is not banned under international law, indeed its one of the steps to nuclear power and is thus arguably allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

By attempting to force the ceasing of Irans enrichment, it can also be argued that the IAEA and the UNSC are violating international law. This isnt a simple case of 'do as we say'. (To answer the obvious arguements that will be brought up, invading a sovereign foreign country is also against international law, unless specifically authorised by the UNSC or directly threatened.)

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 81): Quoting AAden (Reply 75): Didn't bin laden say he would never stop attacking the US and that the attacks would come with greater losses. well where are they. I thought he wanted to bring america to its knees it's called "propaganda".......

Propoganda? After 9/11? After the USS Cole incident? After the bombing of two of our embassies in Africa? Based on OBL's record, it's far, far more than propoganda.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 84): Propoganda? After 9/11? After the USS Cole incident? After the bombing of two of our embassies in Africa? Based on OBL's record, it's far, far more than propoganda.

Not to mention the direct declaration of war against the US, in the late 90s.
That declaration was publicly declared at a news conference, with numerous journalists.

Even a boy in Vietnam told me: Me like Bin Laden...

I asked: why?!

Boy: Because he kill USA...

But you know what they say about truth and kids and drunks don't you?

Boaz.

[Edited 2006-04-11 17:59:19]

There is no way on god's green earth that there will be a nuclear attack. That article is just ridiculous. Another one of the leftist media's attempts to hurt the president. His rating are already bad enough. I am no bush fan either. I am middle of the road, but that article is just ludicrous.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 79): And you would believe that Bin Laden offered a real truce?, and that the truce would have no agendas attatched?` He says, if Europe stops attacking Muslims, well how do you think that should be defined? Are we attacking Muslims, or are we attacking terrorists and nations? Secondly if his demands are met, would you have any idea what it might inspire in the future? Just to quote a man that once lived: Any society that would give up a litte liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both. - Benjamin Franklin Boaz.

I was merely refuting the assertion made earlier that there's no way bin Laden would ever stop attacking the United States and Europe. I have no clue as to his true intentions. As far as not attacking Muslims go, I would imagine that an end of mass military aid to Israel and the occupation of Islamic nations would probably go a long way to ending terrorism.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 87): I was merely refuting the assertion made earlier that there's no way bin Laden would ever stop attacking the United States and Europe.

Yeah, right, whatever. If you REALLY believe that, I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

This man, and his organization-no matter WHAT the U.S. or the West would do, will stop attacking. He has built his worldly power on threatening people, and he doesn't want to lose that power. If we did everything he asked, he'd still find a way to war on us. If we abandoned Israel, pulled every soldier out of the Middle East-doesn't matter, he'll keep attacking.

And the one thing he said long ago, will NEVER happen-he wants all people in the U.S. to embrace Islam. Sorry, but I don't believe Mohammed or Islam is The Way, The Truth, and the Light. I believe there is only one who was like that. Islam even counts him as maybe the greatest prophet except for Mohammed. amd that's Jesus.

What amazes me, and disgusts me about people like bin Laden, and these fanatics, is they base much of their anger on religion-yet the Islamic, Jewish and Christian faiths all come from the same beginning. They all are the "People of the Book." But apparently, that's not good enough for these creeps.

Gunsontheroof: As far as not attacking Muslims go, I would imagine that an end of mass military aid to Israel and the occupation of Islamic nations would probably go a long way to ending terrorism.

You really believe that appeasement works?
If it wasn't for Israel or military presence of infidels here or there someone would probably blow himself up on a subway because of newspaper cartoons or Playboy magazine or whatever.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 88): And the one thing he said long ago, will NEVER happen-he wants all people in the U.S. to embrace Islam. Sorry, but I don't believe Mohammed or Islam is The Way, The Truth, and the Light. I believe there is only one who was like that. Islam even counts him as maybe the greatest prophet except for Mohammed. amd that's Jesus. What amazes me, and disgusts me about people like bin Laden, and these fanatics, is they base much of their anger on religion-yet the Islamic, Jewish and Christian faiths all come from the same beginning. They all are the "People of the Book." But apparently, that's not good enough for these creeps.

Unlike some jerk-offs on this board who enjoy having a pissing on match on who can best "bash" Islam just because they disagree with the principles, as a Muslim, even though I disagree with you, I certainly respect your right and decisions you have in Jesus, and as you mentioned previously, who is very well regarded in Islam...

I also agree that the Bin Ladens of this world will never be satisfied, to me they use religion as their ways and means..they are nothing more than hypocritical fascists who will stoop to any level to get attention and recognition..

that being said, I'm a bit concerned about the extreme right in the United States also....especially the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of this country....

to me, I find them almost no different than the Bin Ladens of this world...in fact, I would even say had Bin Laden and Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell roles be switched 180 degrees, we would see the same them spewing out the same vile rubbish.......

extremism in any religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. has always shown to be detrimental to society.......

"we don't need no stinkin' people" of that ilk............anywhere....ever..!

a funny little quiz (has been posted here previously)

http://funnystrange.com/quiz/"

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90): I also agree that the Bin Ladens of this world will never be satisfied

Ergo, if they're never satisfied, they'll never stop the terror, the bloodshed, the violence. They'll always find some excuse to prolong it, ad naseum.

As I've said before, the end of these thugs won't and can't from the west: it has to come from within the Middle East and the Islamic world. When they finally stand up as one and say they're tired of these guys defiling and perverting their faith, then and only then will it end. That hasn't happened, so it continues.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 90): that being said, I'm a bit concerned about the extreme right in the United States also....especially the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of this country....

I don't like them, either, but like the OBL's and the nut running Iran, they have a penchant for isolating themselves because of their own big mouths. That's happened with Pat and Jerry. Pat has gotten so far out, he's being ostrasized by his peers. And Jerry isn't the dominant figure he once was.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 2): There will be no freaking nuclear strike.

Too bad the president of Iran deserves it! But a nuclear attack would most likely ruin their oil reserves.
O would that add to them?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 76): And why is it people take this to the extreme, whenever someone speaks out against the current situation against Iran?

because we've learned from the past. we failed to take germany serously twice why shouldn't we take iran serously. Iran is not copoperating with the U.S or the UN. neither did hitler.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 77): Quite on the contrary...he offered a truce (not defending him, just stating the facts).

yes he did but at one time he declared and all out war on the US

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 81): it's called "propaganda".......

yes it is but he also attacked us witch is a little bit more than propaganda

Quoting AAden (Reply 93): yes he did but at one time he declared and all out war on the US

You think it was unprovoked? The United States has been exercising aggressive foreign policy in the middle east and pouring military aid into Israel for decades now, 9-11 was the result. Anyone who didn't see it coming wasn't paying attention.

Quoting AAden (Reply 93): yes it is but he also attacked us witch is a little bit more than propaganda

That doesn't even make sense.

Quoting AAden (Reply 93): because we've learned from the past. we failed to take germany serously twice why shouldn't we take iran serously. Iran is not copoperating with the U.S or the UN. neither did hitler.

Iran is not invading countries yet, bud. If that principle is applied as liberally as you think it should, where WOULDN'T we have conflict in the world?

Also, it would have been hard for Hitler to cooperate with an organization founded after his death.

Upon further review of the thread, AAden doesn't have the faintest idea what he is talking about.

[Edited 2006-04-12 08:00:50]

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 94): You think it was unprovoked? The United States has been exercising aggressive foreign policy in the middle east and pouring military aid into Israel for decades now, 9-11 was the result. Anyone who didn't see it coming wasn't paying attention.

So now Jews should start comitting suicide terror attacks on Russia for their continuing military feed to the Muslim countries?!
Weapons used and tactics used both on land, water and in the air during the wars fought in the region, were all Soviet made and crafted!

Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself, why can't the US support it?! Why do you not grant Israel a right to exist?

Boaz.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 96): So now Jews should start comitting suicide terror attacks on Russia for their continuing military feed to the Muslim countries?! Weapons used and tactics used both on land, water and in the air during the wars fought in the region, were all Soviet made and crafted! Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself, why can't the US support it?! Why do you not grant Israel a right to exist?

I don't think I suggested that the response to the U.S. actions was justified, I said it was predictable. The United States has been stirring the proverbial pot in the Middle East for decades by backing the removal of elected administrations (Iran in 1953), making Israel a disproportionately influential military power in world affairs (which has played an enormous role in the Israeli oppression of Palestinians) and supporting murderous dictatorships (Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War and The American-installed Shah of Iran from 1953-1979). 9-11 was the predictable result of these (among other) examples, and was hardly a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of U.S. foreign policy in the region. If the United States truely wants to put an end to global terrorism (as Chomsky suggests), it should stop participating in it.

Furthermore, I said nothing to suggest that I don't think Israel has a right to exist. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 97): Furthermore, I said nothing to suggest that I don't think Israel has a right to exist. Stop putting words in my mouth.

If military aid to Israel would stop, then so would Israel!

I am not putting words in your mouth, just letting you know, how I see your views.

You see the US' involvement in the Middle East as the cause of terrorism, yet Russia/Soviet has like wise been involved.
But how can you compare the Saudi dilemma, which gave birth to Bin Laden, to US foreign policy in Iran and Iraq in the 70s?

There has been Jewish/Arab violence since 1920! This is nothing new!
Haj Amin Al-Husseini back in 1936 to 1939, led an Arab revolt, he then later fled to... Nazi Germany!
There was an anti Semitic campaign run by Nazi Germany, in the Middle East at that time.

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam has the same name as the Hamas rockets, still being fired into Israel today, he was a jihadist, who revolted against the French in Syria back in 1921.
He then fled to Haifa, and became a registrar in the Sharia, which allowed him to tour the northern villages, whose inhabitants he encouraged to set up growing and distribution cooperatives. He recruited and arranged military training for peasants who were organized into clandestine cells of no more than five people.

al-Qassam was a militant preacher who rejected the moderate approach towards the British taken by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, and the Supreme Muslim Council. When the Mufti rejected his plans to divert funding for mosque repairs towards the purchase of weaponry, Qassam found support in the Arab Nationalist Istiqlal Party. Qassam continued to attempt an alliance with the Mufti in order to attack the British but failed as the Mufti was still committed to a diplomatic approach at the time. Qassam went ahead with his plans to attack the British on his own and was soon killed in 1935.

These were are all militants before the state of Israel was declared!

In 1945, anti-Jewish rioters in Tripoli, Libya killed 140 Jews, and the Farhud pogrom in Iraq killed between 200 and 400 Jews.


Now on to Russia.

After 2001, the government of Vladimir Putin intensified Russia's involvement in the region, supporting Iran in its nuclear ambitions and forgiving Syria 73% of its $13 billion debt.

Currently, Iran's Air Force is largely made up of Russian built aircraft, and trade relations between the two exceed USD$1 billion.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...ne/WTARC/2005/eu_russia_01_26.html

Russia and Syria have signed an agreement that could pave the way for a major weapons deal.

The two countries signed a military cooperation agreement that would facilitate the sale of Russian weapons to Damascus. Moscow and Damascus also agreed to resolve the dispute over Syria's $13 billion debt to the former Soviet Union.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3213707,00.html

Putin: Hamas not a terror organization

Another thing about Russia I might find offensive were the pogroms.
The pogroms against Jews in Russia left 2000 Jews dead in 1903-1906.

Many pogroms accompanied the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War, an estimated 70,000 to 250,000 civilian Jews were killed in the atrocities throughout the former Russian Empire; the number of Jewish orphans exceeded 300,000.
Two million Jews fled the Russian Empire between 1880 and 1914, many going to the United States.

Now how should Jews view all of this then?

Russia/Soviet have always backed the Arab world, and will continue to do so, Kalasjnikov and Islamic militants are inseperable, should I then also hold Russia acountable, for all crimes being done with such weapons?

Boaz.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 97): The United States has been stirring the proverbial pot in the Middle East for decades by backing the removal of elected administrations (Iran in 1953), making Israel a disproportionately influential military power in world affairs (which has played an enormous role in the Israeli oppression of Palestinians) and supporting murderous dictatorships (Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War and The American-installed Shah of Iran from 1953-1979).

Absolutely agree. I tend to think that casual, mainstream Americans think of past relations as well as current ones with Arab nations in a 'good versus bad' mindset. There is much more that has gone into the extremely complicated landscape that exists today. It's absolutely ignorant to see the U.S. in a holier-than-thou sense in a lot of these cases. If it wasn't for the CIA arranged coup that threw Mossadeq from power in '53, who knows what direction Iran would have taken without Pahlavi. I am, of course, not justifying any acts of terrorism- i am merely saying the Middle East should be objectively analyzed to find the real truths and motivations. Last month I gave a speech on the nineteenth century relations between the U.S. and Iran, and my reasearch really opened my eyes to how international relations are not as clear cut as they appear to most.