Bush on Iran

[Yao]

Re: Bush on Iran

yeah, but we're the good guys. :ROFLMAO:

No you're not.

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

yAO thats my problem with you. Your so far out there mate...I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but you disappoint me every time. If you dont feel were the good guys, with genuine intentions, your disallusioned and biased. Call me the same if you want...but I can prove to you...that the successful track record for humanitarian aid, liberating not occupying, and freeing the oppresed will FAAAAAR surpass ANY NATION on our globe. WARNING: DONT CHALLENGE ME ON THIS..YOU"LL LOOSE!

[ezzjoe]

Re: Bush on Iran

The US has many nuclear warheads despite the reduction of those (on the treaty with Russia). Then who.the.fuck.is.Bush to tell others they can't have 'em?

yeah, but we're the good guys. :ROFLMAO:

In a lot of places in the world that's quickly becoming a misconception.

[BSully828]

Re: Bush on Iran

Maybe so, but I for one would rather be considered a "bad guy" for ignoring the UN and deposing a brutal dictator than for beheading strangers and murdering schoolkids.

If the rest of the world wants to consider America the "bad guy" because it's taking the steps to ensure 9/11 doesn't happen anywhere ever again - then shit, call me Darth Vader.

[Civic_Zen]

Well said Sully. Personally, I don't know that countries like North Korea shouldn't be allowed to do the research their doing. Where as Iran is a whole nother ballgame. They could too easily fall into the wrong hands.

[davetlv]

Re: Bush on Iran

I don't believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, I rather believe the uranium is used for power.

Why would a country that boasts the world second largest oil fields (after Saudi Arabia) need to develop uranium for power?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html

As i understand it there are a number of countries who are looking at uranium as a legitimate source of power, don't be fooled, Iran does not require nuclear power they seek nuclear weapons. As they have signed treaties saying they well not develop these weapons, they should not be allowed to. Plain and simple

[factorg]

^^Very good point and I agree fully.

[Hos]

Well said Sully. Personally, I don't know that countries like North Korea shouldn't be allowed to do the research their doing. Where as Iran is a whole nother ballgame. They could too easily fall into the wrong hands.

explain this please

[Hos]

Re: Bush on Iran

I don't believe Iran is building nuclear weapons, I rather believe the uranium is used for power.

Why would a country that boasts the world second largest oil fields (after Saudi Arabia) need to develop uranium for power?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG18Ak05.html

As i understand it there are a number of countries who are looking at uranium as a legitimate source of power, don't be fooled, Iran does not require nuclear power they seek nuclear weapons. As they have signed treaties saying they well not develop these weapons, they should not be allowed to. Plain and simple

why should have different sets of standards for different countries. Just look at the immediate neighborhood Iran is in and see the examples galore; A military dictatorship with a government that came to power by a coup, is home to various fundamentalist religious groups, many of them with plenty of power and a history of active terrorism is next door and admits or even brags about it's nuclear capabilities. Yet you never hear anyone (not at least in these parts of the world) question Pakistan's nuclear ambitions or how realistically it can fall into the hands of terrorists. Why? Can any rationale and unbiased soul out there argue against the fact that some of the fundamentalists within the Israeli government and/or power structure are just as dangerous as their fundamentalist counterparts within the Iranian government? Then why isn't the danger posed by the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region in Israel never a concern? If you need more examples, look at former Soviet states of Central Asia.

Just because Iran has oil doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to devlop nuclear power capablilites. Afterall, did it ever cross your mind that oil is a non-renewable resourcer? there's only a finite amount of it, what will they do when they're all out of oil?

[Morgan]

Re: Bush on Iran

Was just going to raise that point, DTV. It?s a good one, and i?m sure you know this fact better than most. IMO Iran is going for the nuke for polictical reasons, their proximity to Isreal could well be a factor?!

Iran's nuclear program dates back to the years of the shah, who purchased nuclear technology from the USA in 1973

Just like any Iraqi WMD?s that may be found - still has the "Made in the USA" sticker on the urainum.
Source

I firmly believe the largest danger to world stablity is none other than POTUS, the famous shaved monkey in chief. It is Georges crazy ideas and suspect stratergies that threaten us all, also his realtionship to the loony house of Saudi really scares me.

[thrualoooop]

Hey Jibgolly aka crack endorser aka epidemic creator aka spokesperson for the misguided and the miseducated, you must be spending waaay too much time in your bedroom with the music on too loud in your earphones....

hahahahahahahaahaLOLhahahahahah
damn jibgolly,you sure know how to send a man to the brink of insane loss of control.this quote reminded me of the old school wrestling promos....

[Hos]

actually the larget danger to world stabilty is global warming. we are heading for disaster.

[Yao]

Re: Bush on Iran

Even if Iran has enough oil...most oil producing countries see more in exporting it for foreign currency. That is a fact. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, it's rather because they feel threatened, thus for defensive reasons, not offensive. Do you think it's strange they've been feeling treatened by either Israel or the US the past few decades? I don't.

And as I've stated before, quoting myself:

"Inside Iran there's still a struggle going on between the fundamentalists (religious) on one side, and the reform-oriented (politicians) on the other side. The fundamentalists are trying to keep the progressive Muslims from expanding their power and installing a more liberal kind of government. But, as one of the more liberal Muslims from parliament put it: "The train (reform) is moving, no matter who's on board. It'll keep moving."

Don't ignore this, it's the government that's still in power (although that may be hard to believe) and that government is definitely NOT intent to start a nuclear war or any kind of agression against Europe or the US. I personally think Iran is NOT the threat the Bush administration makes it look like, not in the way they want you to believe it.
However, I do not deny the possibility of the fundamentalists having contact with Al-Qu'aeda. But that is not to be dealt with through an invasion.

Give it some time...Iran is on it's way. But give it some time, for god's sake!

[Yao]

Re: Bush on Iran

And, for the record: Iran may not be as democratic as most European countries or the US, but it sure as hell is no dictatorship! President Khatami was elected in democratic elections, and is a progressive Muslim. Problem is that the religious clergy still controls much of parliament, and the council of elders is entitled to either discard a canditate or approve it. And they're the ones trying to put as much fundamentalists in parliamentas possible. But the government/Khatami is not accepting that.

That is the problem in Iran: the most influential religious people can wield their influence in politics, and that should be dealth with. It's not a totally secular state...hence the struggle between religious fundamentalists and the reform-oriented politicians. But the latter ones are still in power. Get it?

[davetlv]

Re: Bush on Iran

why should have different sets of standards for different countries. Just look at the immediate neighborhood Iran is in and see the examples galore; A military dictatorship with a government that came to power by a coup, is home to various fundamentalist religious groups, many of them with plenty of power and a history of active terrorism is next door and admits or even brags about it's nuclear capabilities. Yet you never hear anyone (not at least in these parts of the world) question Pakistan's nuclear ambitions or how realistically it can fall into the hands of terrorists. Why? Can any rationale and unbiased soul out there argue against the fact that some of the fundamentalists within the Israeli government and/or power structure are just as dangerous as their fundamentalist counterparts within the Iranian government? Then why isn't the danger posed by the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region in Israel never a concern? If you need more examples, look at former Soviet states of Central Asia.

Just because Iran has oil doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to devlop nuclear power capablilites. Afterall, did it ever cross your mind that oil is a non-renewable resourcer? there's only a finite amount of it, what will they do when they're all out of oil?

There are different standards ONLY becasue Iran has signed the NPT (in fact as of 2000 only Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed it). By signing it you have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and to open your facilities to regular inspection by the IAEA. Should every country on this planet be a signatory to the treaty? In my opinion yes, but thats another arguement.

Now to your points about Israel . . . Let me tell you the difference between between Israeli fundamentalists and Iranian ones. We imprison ours for plotting murder and carrying out terrorist attacks. Racists political parties are banned by law, where as Arab parties not only have 9 seats in the Knesset but also receive state funding. Where as Iranian fundamentalists are revered by a population who live in fear of a quasi religious state not many of them wanted in the first place.

Let me tell you another difference. Israel, for all its faults and believe me there are many, is a democracy, which is more then can be said about Iran. We dont fund anti arab or muslim organisation to blow up thousands of people on foreign soil, whereas Iran has for past twenty years have been the biggest sponsers of not only anti israel but anti jewish terrorism this world has seen in the last 50 years.

I don't know what stockpile of nukes my country has, but heres a simple reason why the world is not concerned. No Israeli sees it as his or her duty to kill innocent men, women and children as a way to get into paradise.

Now, back to oil. . . I understand that oil is a non-renewalble energy source and at the end of the day the whole world will have to find other sources of energy. If, and in my opinion its a big if, Iran is generally seeking a nuclear capability as a means of energy, then the NPT allows them to do so under strict criteria. If they meet this criteria they should be allowed to develop such a capablility under the supervision of the IAEA like every other signatory to the NPT.