Why isn't there an outrage like there is against the USA?
WTF?
So WTF is up with Iran calling out Israel?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
So WTF is up with Iran calling out Israel?
"FLY THE AIRPLANE"!
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
The denial of Israel's right to exist has been the cornerstone of many Muslim (and Arab) countries since the late 40's. Iran has simply held onto it more firmly than most. I think the reason that this is happening post-Shah is partially because Iran is a theocracy, and partially because Iran hasn't paid the price in blood that the Arab states bordering Israel have in their attempts to eliminate the Israelis through military means.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
Hopefully the U.S doesn't waste to much time before invading iran. Hit them before they hit us. Our way of life is far more important to me then theirs.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
If we think that Iraq is a mess, invading Iran would be a nightmare. Doing so would also alienate the muslim world even more than they currently are. Pakistan is currently a partner in the "War on Terror", but an invasion of Iran would make them think twice about their position. Then again, they might not think that it's a good idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons given the fact that they live next door to them.
The fact that Iran has recently announced that they have successfully enriched Uranium is bad, bad news. U-235 is the fuel for a gun-type atomic warhead...which is far simpler to build than an implosion-type plutonium fueled warhead. The design is sufficently simple that in 1945, the US didn't feel the need to test their gun-type warhead before deploying it (the Trinity test was an implosion-type warhead).
I'd also wager that potential Iranian nuclear weapons are something that makes a LOT of people in Tel Aviv very, very nervous.
The fact that Iran has recently announced that they have successfully enriched Uranium is bad, bad news. U-235 is the fuel for a gun-type atomic warhead...which is far simpler to build than an implosion-type plutonium fueled warhead. The design is sufficently simple that in 1945, the US didn't feel the need to test their gun-type warhead before deploying it (the Trinity test was an implosion-type warhead).
I'd also wager that potential Iranian nuclear weapons are something that makes a LOT of people in Tel Aviv very, very nervous.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
It's a very messy scenario indeed. If the UN or the USA remains idle and lets Iran be, then they won't piss off the predominantly muslim population there and cause further alienation against the west; however, they risk the possibility that Iran will use their nukes and risk the possibility of more terrorist attacks against them. On the other hand, if the USA invades Iran and pushes for a regime change, then they risk more deaths of soldiers and extreme alienation.
They're damned if they attack, and damned if they don't.
They're damned if they attack, and damned if they don't.
"You may not believe in God, but He believes in you."
You're absolutely right! We're definitely in a jam right now. There's some pain that we'll face in the future. Either it's going to hurt now if we do something about Iran, or experience pain later on when they get 'da bomb'.priest wrote:They're damned if they attack, and damned if they don't.
Carrot and stick.
Let's keep in mind that the proverbial "stick" includes things other than as invasion of Iran. Limited air strikes. Blockading the Straits of Hormuz (although this won't have much effect if the Russians aren't on board). Sanctions. Special ops teams. There is a lot that can be done without invading, and a lot that can be done without killing anyone.
Of course, any one of those courses of action will be likely to drive up the price of oil. Not that anyone in Washington actually cares about that.
Sometimes I'm glad that a drive a VW. That way, an increase in gas prices just means that I'll be busier at work. A day's worth of overtime will pay to fill my gas tank many times over.
Let's keep in mind that the proverbial "stick" includes things other than as invasion of Iran. Limited air strikes. Blockading the Straits of Hormuz (although this won't have much effect if the Russians aren't on board). Sanctions. Special ops teams. There is a lot that can be done without invading, and a lot that can be done without killing anyone.
Of course, any one of those courses of action will be likely to drive up the price of oil. Not that anyone in Washington actually cares about that.
Sometimes I'm glad that a drive a VW. That way, an increase in gas prices just means that I'll be busier at work. A day's worth of overtime will pay to fill my gas tank many times over.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
-
tellyourkidstogetarealjob
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:11 am
- Location: Cascadia
Iran learned after the Israeli raid.Guido wrote:What I don't get is why Israel hasn't pulled the same stunt that they did when they took out Iraq's reactor in the 80's.
My tinfoil hat says that it's because Iran's bluffing and Israel knows it. Or, they're just not worried enough yet to bother with it...
The newer facilites have been broken up into several areas and built deep underground so a conventional air strike is out of the question.
The only way to destroy it is by ground forces or, as speculated in the media this week, by the use of small tactical nuclear weapons.
The U.S. (Bushco) is owned, lock and stock by the Zionists. I don't know if the zionists have video of Bush getting Brokebacked by ole rummy back in the good ole skull and bones days at Yale, or what the deal is, but they have them by the short hairs. Iran threatening Israel is just part of the game, for the consumption of the masses. If the U.S. Nukes Iran, it will be at the Zionists bidding (basically a redux of Iraq II), coming soon to a theatre near you. Mean time, while the U.S. has its military being stretched and decimated, civil war is being fomented right down in their home turf. The latinos are marching in through the porous southern border by the millions per year, and will bring the U.S. down to their 3rd world status in fairly short order. At the same time, UN "peace keepers" will likely be called in to quell the masses. Get your spot reserved at a detention camp near you.
http://www.rense.com/general70/glob.htm
http://www.rense.com/general70/glob.htm
I'm givin er all she's got..
-
tellyourkidstogetarealjob
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:11 am
- Location: Cascadia
Unlike Canada, of course, that prefers just to tax us into the same status. Despite the constant barrage of media propaganda we are not the industrialized envy of the world.swede wrote: The latinos are marching in through the porous southern border by the millions per year, and will bring the U.S. down to their 3rd world status in fairly short order.
As for the rest of that Swede, time for your meds.
That is exactly the mentality that has plunged the world into an endless war, almost doubled the price of gas and made North America more dangerous.Hopefully the U.S doesn't waste to much time before invading iran. Hit them before they hit us. Our way of life is far more important to me then theirs.
Fight for peace?
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Friday, April 14, 2006 by the Huffington Post
If You Liked the Iraq War, You'll Love the Iran War
by Cenk Uygur
If you liked gas at three dollars a gallon, you'll love it at five dollars or more. If you liked fighting 26 million people in Iraq, you'll love fighting 68 million in Iran. If you liked turning Sunni Muslims against us, you'll love turning Sunni and Shiite Muslims against us. If you liked war in the Persian Gulf, you'll love war all over the Middle East.
If you thought things were bad now, wait till Iran retaliates against our air strikes by bombing Israel. When Israel strikes back, the whole Middle East will have to get sucked into the war. And then the fun really starts.
Do any of you have any confidence that George W. Bush knows what he's doing when he contemplates starting a war with Iran? Do any of you believe he has carefully thought out all the possibilities and has a plan for every contingency?
I don't care how Republican you are, that is an inconceivable thought. No one could believe that's true. The man who lost New Orleans and accidentally started a civil war in Iraq is going to have a sound strategy for Iran?
Besides which, there is a very real reason why they actively don't plan for these wars. They don't want word of the worst case scenarios (or even realistic scenarios) leaking out and providing a disincentive to go to war. They think if they can convince people it will be easy, everyone will go along.
If there is a discussion of realistic contingencies, it will be harder to drive people into war. That is why they so fastidiously avoided making plans for "post-war" Iraq (I love that term, did anyone let the Iraqis know we're in the "post-war" stage?). If people realized how hard it would be to occupy Iraq and build that nation from scratch, do you think they would have been as eager to go in the first place?
The Rumsfeld strategy is to start a war with no planning and then complain that you have the war you have, not the one you wish you had. It's ironic because they do no planning specifically because they want the war they wish to have.
Why do you think every retired general is screaming at the top of their lungs to fire Rumsfeld? The generals have seen the mess we made in Iraq up close and it isn't pretty. They realize these guys in the administration have no idea what they're doing.
Right now, they're just getting a volunteer army and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, but if we have to fight the whole Middle East, it's all of us who are going to be dying for their arrogant, foolhardy mistakes.
By the way, is there anything more vile than a Republican telling you that the kids who signed up for our volunteer army knew what they were getting into, so they have no compunction about sending them into war? Yeah, I guess they had it coming.
Bush is a proven liar. Whether he's lying about biological weapons labs, leaks from his administration or warrantless spying, one thing is for sure, he cannot be trusted. He has no shame in continually and aggressively lying to the American people.
No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees? Please. Remember he said that after he sat through a long and extensive warning about how the levees might be breached. The man has no shame.
Would you trust George Bush to baby-sit your kids? How sure are you that he wouldn't fall asleep, or accidentally drop them on their head or forget to feed them? How sure are you that when he screwed something up he wouldn't lie to you about it afterward?
I wouldn't let him within a three state perimeter of my kids (and I don't even have any). And this is the guy we are going to trust to orchestrate a war against a much bigger, savvier, more organized enemy?
What I find really laughable is that in his own head, George Bush thinks he is chosen by God to lead America in perilous times, to bring freedom to the world and to "save" Iran.
He reminds me of a kid who is convinced he is Superman. He makes a cape out of napkins and jumps off the couch thinking he can fly. He crashes and cuts his head open. But little Georgy is so dense he doesn't get the memo. The next day, he's ready to jump again. He's sure it'll work this time.
Bush is the amalgamation of all the hideous and sad parts of the Republican Party. He is a Republican Frankenstein. He has the temperament of Barry Goldwater, the integrity of Richard Nixon, and the brains of Dan Quayle.
And we trust this guy with his finger on the button?
God help us all if he bombs Iran. And if you think he's not that stupid, you haven't been paying attention.
He says the idea of bombing Iran is "wild speculation." He also said we weren't wiretapping anybody without a court order. He says we're trying diplomacy first. That's exactly what he said about Iraq when we found out he was planning for the war all along. He says Iran is a gathering threat ...
Now, who do you trust more -- George Bush or General Anthony Zinni? General Zinni is the former head of US Central Command. He said he saw no evidence of Iraqi WMD before the war. He thought we didn't have enough troops to get the job done right. And now he thinks going into Iran is an even worse idea. Is there a single American who really believes George Bush knows better than General Zinni?
George Bush is the kid who was born on third and thinks he kicked a field goal. The slow kid on the short bus wants to drive us into Iran. Do you really want to go for that ride?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide. The Young Turks began as Sirius Satellite Radio’s first original program, and, while still on Sirius, is now nationally syndicated and available on itunes and online at http://www.theyoungturks.com and http://www.radiopower.org.
Kucinich Demands
Answers From Administration
About US Troops In Iran
4-15-6
WASHINGTON - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, sent the following letter to President George W. Bush today about the presence of US troops in Iran:
Dear President Bush:
Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.
The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.
Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.
It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.
Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
Published on Friday, April 14, 2006 by the Huffington Post
If You Liked the Iraq War, You'll Love the Iran War
by Cenk Uygur
If you liked gas at three dollars a gallon, you'll love it at five dollars or more. If you liked fighting 26 million people in Iraq, you'll love fighting 68 million in Iran. If you liked turning Sunni Muslims against us, you'll love turning Sunni and Shiite Muslims against us. If you liked war in the Persian Gulf, you'll love war all over the Middle East.
If you thought things were bad now, wait till Iran retaliates against our air strikes by bombing Israel. When Israel strikes back, the whole Middle East will have to get sucked into the war. And then the fun really starts.
Do any of you have any confidence that George W. Bush knows what he's doing when he contemplates starting a war with Iran? Do any of you believe he has carefully thought out all the possibilities and has a plan for every contingency?
I don't care how Republican you are, that is an inconceivable thought. No one could believe that's true. The man who lost New Orleans and accidentally started a civil war in Iraq is going to have a sound strategy for Iran?
Besides which, there is a very real reason why they actively don't plan for these wars. They don't want word of the worst case scenarios (or even realistic scenarios) leaking out and providing a disincentive to go to war. They think if they can convince people it will be easy, everyone will go along.
If there is a discussion of realistic contingencies, it will be harder to drive people into war. That is why they so fastidiously avoided making plans for "post-war" Iraq (I love that term, did anyone let the Iraqis know we're in the "post-war" stage?). If people realized how hard it would be to occupy Iraq and build that nation from scratch, do you think they would have been as eager to go in the first place?
The Rumsfeld strategy is to start a war with no planning and then complain that you have the war you have, not the one you wish you had. It's ironic because they do no planning specifically because they want the war they wish to have.
Why do you think every retired general is screaming at the top of their lungs to fire Rumsfeld? The generals have seen the mess we made in Iraq up close and it isn't pretty. They realize these guys in the administration have no idea what they're doing.
Right now, they're just getting a volunteer army and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, but if we have to fight the whole Middle East, it's all of us who are going to be dying for their arrogant, foolhardy mistakes.
By the way, is there anything more vile than a Republican telling you that the kids who signed up for our volunteer army knew what they were getting into, so they have no compunction about sending them into war? Yeah, I guess they had it coming.
Bush is a proven liar. Whether he's lying about biological weapons labs, leaks from his administration or warrantless spying, one thing is for sure, he cannot be trusted. He has no shame in continually and aggressively lying to the American people.
No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees? Please. Remember he said that after he sat through a long and extensive warning about how the levees might be breached. The man has no shame.
Would you trust George Bush to baby-sit your kids? How sure are you that he wouldn't fall asleep, or accidentally drop them on their head or forget to feed them? How sure are you that when he screwed something up he wouldn't lie to you about it afterward?
I wouldn't let him within a three state perimeter of my kids (and I don't even have any). And this is the guy we are going to trust to orchestrate a war against a much bigger, savvier, more organized enemy?
What I find really laughable is that in his own head, George Bush thinks he is chosen by God to lead America in perilous times, to bring freedom to the world and to "save" Iran.
He reminds me of a kid who is convinced he is Superman. He makes a cape out of napkins and jumps off the couch thinking he can fly. He crashes and cuts his head open. But little Georgy is so dense he doesn't get the memo. The next day, he's ready to jump again. He's sure it'll work this time.
Bush is the amalgamation of all the hideous and sad parts of the Republican Party. He is a Republican Frankenstein. He has the temperament of Barry Goldwater, the integrity of Richard Nixon, and the brains of Dan Quayle.
And we trust this guy with his finger on the button?
God help us all if he bombs Iran. And if you think he's not that stupid, you haven't been paying attention.
He says the idea of bombing Iran is "wild speculation." He also said we weren't wiretapping anybody without a court order. He says we're trying diplomacy first. That's exactly what he said about Iraq when we found out he was planning for the war all along. He says Iran is a gathering threat ...
Now, who do you trust more -- George Bush or General Anthony Zinni? General Zinni is the former head of US Central Command. He said he saw no evidence of Iraqi WMD before the war. He thought we didn't have enough troops to get the job done right. And now he thinks going into Iran is an even worse idea. Is there a single American who really believes George Bush knows better than General Zinni?
George Bush is the kid who was born on third and thinks he kicked a field goal. The slow kid on the short bus wants to drive us into Iran. Do you really want to go for that ride?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide. The Young Turks began as Sirius Satellite Radio’s first original program, and, while still on Sirius, is now nationally syndicated and available on itunes and online at http://www.theyoungturks.com and http://www.radiopower.org.
Kucinich Demands
Answers From Administration
About US Troops In Iran
4-15-6
WASHINGTON - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, sent the following letter to President George W. Bush today about the presence of US troops in Iran:
Dear President Bush:
Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.
The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.
Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.
It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.
Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
I'm givin er all she's got..
Who are you trying to kid, ISTP? Since when have financial realities had any bearing on the decisions made by a politician with an agenda?
As an aside, I heard something interesting on the BBC this morning. I'll provide a wee bit of background in order to provide the context that makes this fact significant.
U-235 and U-238 are two isotopes of uranium. Naturally occuring uranium consists of about 99% U-238 and 1% U-235. The purpose of enrichment is to increase the amount of U-235 and decrease the amount of U-238.
"Weapons Grade" uranium needs to be about 95% U-235. Obviously this requires a lot of enrichment. According to the latest reports, Iran has managed to enrich Uranium as far as 3.5%. This is still a long way from reaching the 95% necessary for weapons grade material. Iran won't be building a bomb tomorrow. That's not to say that they haven't taken some important steps down that road, but they're not there just yet.
As an aside, I heard something interesting on the BBC this morning. I'll provide a wee bit of background in order to provide the context that makes this fact significant.
U-235 and U-238 are two isotopes of uranium. Naturally occuring uranium consists of about 99% U-238 and 1% U-235. The purpose of enrichment is to increase the amount of U-235 and decrease the amount of U-238.
"Weapons Grade" uranium needs to be about 95% U-235. Obviously this requires a lot of enrichment. According to the latest reports, Iran has managed to enrich Uranium as far as 3.5%. This is still a long way from reaching the 95% necessary for weapons grade material. Iran won't be building a bomb tomorrow. That's not to say that they haven't taken some important steps down that road, but they're not there just yet.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
LOL That's a mighty big fish I caught there.CID wrote:That is exactly the mentality that has plunged the world into an endless war, almost doubled the price of gas and made North America more dangerous.Hopefully the U.S doesn't waste to much time before invading iran. Hit them before they hit us. Our way of life is far more important to me then theirs.
Fight for peace?
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
CIDCID wrote:Dust Devil,
You spend so much of your time calling me a troll I never suspected you would admit to being one. I guess I know better than to take you seriously now.
Unless someone agrees with you you don't take them seriously anyway, so it's not much of a loss. I also spend little of my time worrying about you being a troll as I don't really give a shit. I don't spend my time talking about how certin politicians are morons or clowns. I spend my time trying to explain the reality of the situation and why I support the politicans that I do.
As far as the situation in Iran. The fact is if they or any enemy of the western world are allowed to get nuclear weapons it jeoperdizes our way of life. Regardless what U.S foriegn policy is this is the reality of today and we have to defend ourselves.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Who the fcuk cares about your way of life, theirs is more important. That's what they think right?Dust Devil wrote:As far as the situation in Iran. The fact is if they or any enemy of the western world are allowed to get nuclear weapons it jeoperdizes our way of life. Regardless what U.S foriegn policy is this is the reality of today and we have to defend ourselves.
Why should you have nukes and not them? the u.s. has actually used theirs on civilians. Can you say that about iran?
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Re: So WTF is up with Iran calling out Israel?
Because people generally expect the US to act rationally and fairly. Iran.. isn't burdened by similar expectations.hazatude wrote:Why isn't there an outrage like there is against the USA?
