Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

After watching the documentary below, I'm convinced that Iran needs to be wiped out for their ugly, modern, god-less way of life:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Fullscreen]


Now the "evil" left-wing Guardian reports that Neo-Bush and Co would like to kick Iran's ass before leaving their offices in the White House. Of course - for the same old reasons every brainwashed Nut would support them again: Nuclear Weapons, Mushroom Clouds, Dictators, WMD, yadda, yadda, yadda - all in all, the same old Propaganda.

But what about the Skeptics in here - what's their opinion about this Issue:
Will the media play the same single-sided War-Drum, is it likely that there is a military intervention, is Ahmadinejad Saddams reincarnation and most importantly: Why did the US sponsored Irans Nuclear Program in the first place if they whine about it some years later? (as usual)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why did the US sponsored Irans Nuclear Program in the first place if they whine about it some years later? (as usual)

Because, Oliver, no one can tell the future, and the Shah was seen as an ally. Die Zeit fergeht. (I think I spelled that correctly, if no, my bad.) Time moves on, and things change.

You will note, that the Islamic Republic was not the sort of ally the US provided nuclear tech to.

Any idea why that might be?

Let's do a history lesson.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced Russia, and tossed out its royalty in favor of a Communistic, authoritarian rule. The Soviet Union was a different political entity than Russia.

The Islamic Republic was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced the Iran of the Shan, tossed out its royalty in favor of an Islamist authoritarian rule, and made a new political entity.

By the way, thanks for the video link. Enjoyed the first ten minutes, may get to watch the whole thing later.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Because, Oliver, no one can tell the future, and the Shah was seen as an ally. Die Zeit fergeht. (I think I spelled that correctly, if no, my bad.) Time moves on, and things change.

You will note, that the Islamic Republic was not the sort of ally the US provided nuclear tech to.

Any idea why that might be?

Let's do a history lesson.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced Russia, and tossed out its royalty in favor of a Communistic, authoritarian rule. The Soviet Union was a different political entity than Russia.

The Islamic Republic was the creation of a revolution, a creation that replaced the Iran of the Shan, tossed out its royalty in favor of an Islamist authoritarian rule, and made a new political entity.

By the way, thanks for the video link. Enjoyed the first ten minutes, may get to watch the whole thing later.

DR

Well, I guess it's the same old story again: The US didn't like the new Government - so "we need to get rid of the WMD-Threat we provided in the first place." (The simplified version)

I still wait for the Day when Musharraf cant control his pro-American stance any longer and the US declare war against Pakistan because their nuclear weapons, WMD's, Dictator Yadda Yadda Yadda.

It's a farce, isn't it? You were right with "die Zeit vergeht" ("Time goes on") - just replace the "f" with an "v" in vergeht.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, I guess it's the same old story again: The US didn't like the new Government - so "we need to get rid of the WMD-Threat we provided in the first place." (The simplified version)

False version. Nuclear reactors for power are not the same as a WMD program. The hard part is that the government in Iran has some trouble convincing more than America of its intentions regarding power alone, which is too bad. I am a huge fan of nuclear power for electricity.

I still wait for the Day when Musharraf cant control his pro-American stance any longer and the US declare war against Pakistan because their nuclear weapons, WMD's, Dictator Yadda Yadda Yadda.

That is a possible scenario.

You were right with "die Zeit vergeht" ("Time goes on") - just replace the "f" with an "v" in vergeht.

Arrrrrrrrrgggh! Yes. Danke. Man, it has been too long.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

False version. Nuclear reactors for power are not the same as a WMD program. The hard part is that the government in Iran has some trouble convincing more than America of its intentions regarding power alone, which is too bad. I am a huge fan of nuclear power for electricity.

And yet, as you state it, this is a great argument against nuclear power, since any country who tries to develop it could face accusations of using the technology for nefarious reasons.

After all, could you really see Dick Cheney claiming Iran was building "dual use solar panel farms"?

Neither could I.

 

[Policenaut]

I still wait for the Day when Musharraf cant control his pro-American stance any longer and the US declare war against Pakistan because their nuclear weapons, WMD's, Dictator Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Someone brought that point up in a political show last week. If Musharraf is overthrown then their nukes could be in the hands of radicals. Not only would the US likely go to war, but also India. It would be a big mess.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And yet, as you state it, this is a great argument against nuclear power, since any country who tries to develop it could face accusations of using the technology for nefarious reasons.

After all, could you really see Dick Cheney claiming Iran was building "dual use solar panel farms"?

Neither could I.

No, it is an argument against governments who can't be trusted to conform to a series of methods NOT to enrich uranium for weapons. By the time the NPT evolved into a great idea, the US, UK, USSR, France, China, and IIRC South AFrica all had nukes. SA volunteered to get out of the race, IIRC, back in the day. They still use nukes for electric power, right?

Did you notice that Japan has nuclear power reactors but no nuclear weapons? It can be done, the problem is trust and confidence.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

No, it is an argument against governments who can't be trusted to conform to a series of methods NOT to enrich uranium for weapons. By the time the NPT evolved into a great idea, the US, UK, USSR, France, China, and IIRC South AFrica all had nukes. SA volunteered to get out of the race, IIRC, back in the day. They still use nukes for electric power, right?

Did you notice that Japan has nuclear power reactors but no nuclear weapons? It can be done, the problem is trust and confidence.

DR

Not quibbling with your "no true Scotsman" defense here, as I agree that of course you can have nuclear power without weaponizing the materials. But, the fact remains that there are enough cases where the murkiness of the situations lead to bellicosity if not outright catastrophe, that to ignore that as an X in the "con" column of NPT is to live in denial.

 

[Oliver]

False version. Nuclear reactors for power are not the same as a WMD program. The hard part is that the government in Iran has some trouble convincing more than America of its intentions regarding power alone, which is too bad. I am a huge fan of nuclear power for electricity.

That is a possible scenario.

Arrrrrrrrrgggh! Yes. Danke. Man, it has been too long.

DR

Well, I don't wonder anymore about the world - but what's really annoying is, that the US Mainstream-Media always portrays the US side of the story.

Voters don't get a real chance to decide on a fair basis with historical backgrounds (with all the mud involved). That's not democratic at all - it looks much more like a bipartisan Dictatorship. And you can't refuse that Dems and Reps love their stronghold, can you?

 

[Badger]

Follow the money.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/oil.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

I didn't think this was the case with Iraq, in fact I argued against it. But I was incorrect.

It makes perfect sense that "Iran" will "do something" requiring the US to invade.

Halliburton stock is sitting around $35. I think it's probably a good buy about now.

This all makes me sad.

 

[Pardalis]

That's not democratic at all - it looks much more like a bipartisan Dictatorship.

Yes, Oliver, yes. Whatever you say...

 

[Oliver]

Yes, Oliver, yes. Whatever you say...

Well, that's true if the voter doesn't get the full picture. Even you should understand that, Goury. But let me ask - to understand your comprehension:

You can't refuse that Dems and Reps love their stronghold, can you?

 

[Solus]

This should be in the conspiracy theory section. There is no way the United States is going to invade Iran anytime soon with ground troops. The army is worn out as it is. If Bush loses his mind there could be an air attack but a ground invasion would make the US casualties in Iraq look very small in comparison. The backlash here in America would be incredible I think.

 

[Pardalis]

You can't refuse that Dems and Reps love their stronghold, can you?

I have no idea what you mean but I'll say whatever you want me to say.

 

[Oliver]

I have no idea what you mean but I'll say whatever you want me to say.

Your lack of comprehension and lacking opinion is fascinating - but you didn't add something useful to this thread so far.

 

[Pardalis]

Your lack of comprehension and lacking opinion is fascinating - but you didn't add something useful to this thread so far.

Sure, whatever you say... and you don't see anything inherently wrong with your "bipartisan dictatorship" theory.

ETA: btw, your movie starts to get really interesting at 1.13.30

 

[Oliver]

Sure, whatever you say... and you don't see anything inherently wrong with your "bipartisan dictatorship" theory.

ETA: btw, your movie starts to get really interesting at 1.13.30

What movie?

Look, Goury: If all your mainstream-media starts to sing in a choir about iran, for example - without showing the other side of the story: Do you think that's democratic and balanced? (A fair base for voters to decide about an issue).

That's exactly what happened in the Run-Up to the Iraq war. There was no "Hold on" -or- "What do the civilians over there think about it".

The same goes to UHC, Iran, etc...

Maybe you missed it, but as the Media already pointed out: "Your Canadian Universal Health Care sucks. There is nothing positive about the Canadian UHC."

Well, I guess you also agree on that, don't you?

 

[Pardalis]

What movie?

The movie you posted in the OP (I meant video)

Look, Goury: If all your mainstream-media starts to sing in a choir about iran, for example - without showing the other side of the story: Do you think that's democratic and balanced?

I don't know what democracy has to do with it. Iran makes the news everytime Ahmadinejad says something crazy, or when a earthquake hits, just like Japan makes the news everytime a typhoon hits, that doesn't mean the media is biased. We just don't regularly hear from these countries everyday, only when things out of the ordinary happen.

Maybe you missed it, but as the Media already pointed out: "Your canadian Universal Health Care sucks. There is nothing positive about your UHC."

Well, I guess you also agree on that, don't you?

The Canadian healthcare system has its many problems.

 

[Oliver]

The movie you posted in the OP (I meant video)

I don't know what democracy has to do with it. Iran makes the news everytime Ahmadinejad says something crazy, or when a earthquake hits, just like Japan makes the news everytime a typhoon hits, that doesn't mean the media is biased. We just don't regularly hear from these countries everyday, only when things out of the ordinary happen.

The Canadian healthcare system has its many problems.

Oh, you meant the demonstrating people in the movie. Well, I agree with you: Demonstrations should be forbidden - generally - and especially in evil dictatorships. So you have no opinion to the rest of the BBC-Docu?

Well, that's exactly what I said: There's nothing positive about the Canadian UHC. Someone should abolish it, don't you agree?

 

[Pardalis]

Oh, you meant the demonstrating people in the movie. Well, I agree with you: Demonstrations should be forbidden - generally - and especially in evil dictatorships.

I have a problem with government backed rallies that promote the destruction of Israel, but that's just me.

So you have no opinion to the rest of the BBC-Docu?

I think it's an interesting portrait of the Teheran people and lifestyle.

I also like the bit when the reporter is forced to pray with the president at the opening of the tunnel.

Well, that's exactly what I said: There's nothing positive about the Canadian UHC. Someone should abolish it, don't you agree?

No.