i'm fairly liberal, and i never was against Bush going into Iran

I just never understood Iraq.

never. I've always been for vaporizing Iran. And Syria, and Somalia.

9/28/2009 6:26:52 PM

^^ What a giant truckload of bullshit.

I told you dumbasses all of this over a year ago (here's just one example):

Quote :

"3. Will some of you have the decency--for once--to admit that (1) Iran may have continued nuclear weapons development after they claimed to have stopped, and (2) that the NIE every Iran apologist was waving around and screaming about a while back is not even close to the final word on Iran's nuclear weapons development? 6/9/2008 12:38:39 AM"

message_topic.aspx?topic=504975&page=1

^ Somalia, too?! Wow--you're to the right of me, WJ.

9/28/2009 7:02:56 PM

iran has a generation of young people just waiting for a chance to take power, we don't need to screw that up and risk radicalizing any of them

9/28/2009 7:05:41 PM

^ So, what does that mean--exactly? Would you allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or not?

It appears the Obama administration is going to do just that. Hillary Clinton said something akin to they'll be using the North Korea model in dealing with Iran--so I guess Iran is getting nukes for sure now.

9/28/2009 7:12:02 PM

i predict some very bad shit is going to go down in the world in the next year. and to be fair, Bush didnt do so well preventing the shit storm about to strike either.

9/28/2009 9:28:54 PM

you're so wise

9/28/2009 9:47:44 PM

i know my son, i know

9/28/2009 9:57:37 PM

Iran Insists on Its 'Rights' to Nuclear Program
September 29, 2009

Quote :

"PARIS — One day after it said it test-fired missiles capable of striking targets 1,250 miles from its soil, Iran said Tuesday that it would soon offer a timetable for international inspectors to visit a hitherto secret nuclear enrichment facility, but that it was not prepared to renounce its nuclear program or debate its 'rights' to operate the previously undeclared plant."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/middleeast/30tehran.html

Yep, sounds like Iran's really ready to negotiate.

9/29/2009 11:43:05 AM

Under all non-nuclear proliferation treaties, ever country has the right to explore nuclear energy.

Or, are you proposing we carve out a special exemption in the case of Iran and say it has no right to nuclear energy?

9/29/2009 11:48:00 AM

^ Oh, here's an Iran apologist now--right on cue.

1. The plant in question was "undeclared," which is a violation.

2. The Obama administration has said that the plant in question was not for peaceful purposes.

What don't you get?

9/29/2009 11:50:28 AM

Oh yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your bomb first ask questions later mentality is an Iranian apologist.

9/29/2009 11:57:21 AM

^ Don't change the subject. You were wrong about Iran in your post above--now own that wrong or shut the fuck up.

Quote :

"Under all non-nuclear proliferation treaties, ever country has the right to explore nuclear energy. Or, are you proposing we carve out a special exemption in the case of Iran and say it has no right to nuclear energy?"

nutsmackr

QFT.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 12:02:43 PM

Not wrong at all. Hell, even the quote you selected Iran said he was setting up a timetable for inspections.

As long as the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful purposes bombing would be the worst action possible. For the US to go to war with another country, there has to be something more substantial than a minor violation.

9/29/2009 12:04:33 PM

^ You're stupid and ill-informed--and I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Sweet Jesus!

Quote :

"'I think that, certainly, the intelligence people have no doubt that ... this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only ... because the Iranians kept it a secret,' Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on CNN's 'State of the Union' program. 'If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a ... secret for a protracted period of time,' Gates said in the interview recorded Friday."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/27/us.iran/index.html

Quote :

"The Iranians must 'present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program. We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence, that it's only for peaceful purposes, but we are going to put them to the test,' [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton told CBS' 'Face the Nation.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8685365

9/29/2009 12:07:57 PM

Every single one of your quotes you have selected backs me up. Thanks Hooksaw.

9/29/2009 12:08:56 PM

^^^ my hunch, considering how secretive Iran has been about the whole thing, is that this is not simply for electricity generation.

If I were the leader of Iran, given their situations, i'd want nuclear weapons, and if I had the people with the skills to build a bomb, i'd do it, and this is probably Iran's goal. They want to be just like the US, ironically.

But, you can't really stop science, and as their population develops, they will eventually always get the bomb, if they want it. We can either push things in a direction that makes sure they don't want the bomb, or just continually bomb them back to the stoneage.

Bombing Iran will never stop Iran from having nuclear weapons, it might slow them down technically, but it won't push their social factors in the right direction. Before Bush, the Iranian people were relatively pro-US, and we need to get them back there.

9/29/2009 12:23:45 PM

^

Quote :

"Before Bush, the Iranian people were relatively pro-US, and we need to get them back there."

LMFAO! You're an idiot!

Iran hostsage crisis, c. 1979



Family holds out hope for hikers detained in Iran
(AP) – 6 days ago

Quote :

"PHILADELPHIA — The brother of one of three American hikers detained in Iran says the family hopes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ah-muh-DEE'-neh-zhahd) brings the trio with him when he visits the United Nations."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwfcwj7RtO89Lb2kzGwTjjig6iuQD9ASGG901

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 12:29:12 PM

^ ahmedinjad is not the Iranian people. Learn to read before you make a fool of yourself...

or do you seriously believe that the Bush admin actions has enhanced the common Iranian's perceptions of America?

Quote :

"Candle Power Iran mourns America's dead September 18, 2001: Ordinary Iranians hold candles during a vigil in Terhan to mourn the loss of life in the United States after hijackers crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the attacks which have been blamed on Saudi-born Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is believed to be in hiding in the mountains of neighboring Afghanistan, a country which Iran has no love for.. "

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 12:39:05 PM

I too can post pictures from 30 years ago.

the fact of the matter is, outside of our allies Israel and Turkey, Iran is the most western country in the Near East. Also, its median age is 26. The bulk of the Iranian people were not alive during the 1979 Revolution and do not want to have anything to do with MA, hence the overwhelming support for Mousavi in the past election.

9/29/2009 12:44:06 PM

Those pro-American Iranians you refer to can grasp the concept of coup d'état, yes?

9/29/2009 12:48:44 PM

It's easy to tell someone to kill their countrymen when you're thousands of miles away in front of a computer keyboard.

9/29/2009 12:54:42 PM

^ They've done it before--and that's what it'll take. The fascists aren't just going to hand it over peacefully.

9/29/2009 1:00:10 PM

Have you paid any attention to what has happened in the past year domestically in Iran?

9/29/2009 1:30:55 PM

Yeah, this guy and his thugs continue to crack skulls.



And there's this:

Iranian Police Chief Admits Prisoner Abuse
TEHRAN, Iran, Aug. 9, 2009

Quote :

"(AP) Iran's police chief acknowledged Sunday that protesters detained in post-election unrest were abused in custody but said the deaths of prisoners were caused by illness, not torture. Iran's opposition reformists say young people protesting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's June 12 re-election were tortured to death at Kahrizak detention center."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/09/world/main5227794.shtml

I haven't heard enough from you fuckers about this. I guess it's only fun to criticize America.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 1:48:47 PM

what in the fuck are you talking about? i'm the one who started the other iran thread. it was quite successful actually. you're just the one who wants the obama administration to stick its nose where it doesn't belong (and where it would likely harm the cause)

9/29/2009 1:50:01 PM

^ Tell her that. But you can't--she was killed.

9/29/2009 1:52:10 PM

tell her what? that if the protesters' cause had been further-linked with america that it would have been more delegitimatized? the US gov't spoke out against the violent way in which iran was treating its protesters. what else do you want?

9/29/2009 2:00:54 PM

9/29/2009 2:02:35 PM

that would have REALLY helped the democratic cause.

9/29/2009 2:04:00 PM

^ Perhaps. But it will slow production of nuclear weapons in Iran--and this is my overarching goal.

9/29/2009 2:05:42 PM

then why are you pussyfooting around posting pictures of dead protesters?

9/29/2009 2:06:24 PM

Quote :

"overarching goal"

I have other goals.

9/29/2009 2:15:36 PM

well bunker buster bombs would seriously threaten your other goal.

9/29/2009 2:49:38 PM

^^^^ That's a pretty shortsighted and narrow goal.

^ unless his other goal is further long-term destabilization of the region... increasing the chances someone is going to get a hold of a nuke and use it.

You should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between-America/dp/1400063159

Written by the guy who wrote this one: http://www.amazon.com/Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading-Iraq/dp/0375509283 "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq"

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 3:02:44 PM

The more I think about this, the more it seems Iran can't be dealt with in any democratic way. Note, this isn't me studying the issue, just the "feel" I get from the news stories.

9/29/2009 3:08:55 PM

^ the theocratic half of their government certainly makes things thorny.

We at least have to try the diplomatic way first before anything else, we owe at least that much to the Iranian people.

9/29/2009 3:20:39 PM

'Owe'? Are you fucking out of your mind? We owe the Iranians nothing.

Nuke those ragheads and make their country a big parking lot (and pump the oil, of course).

[/conservative warhawk]

9/29/2009 3:26:37 PM

Quote :

"unless [hooksaw's] other goal is further long-term destabilization of the region... increasing the chances someone is going to get a hold of a nuke and use it. You should read this book: [blah, blah, blah]. . . ."

moron

Apparently, Obama should read the book you suggested--since he is the one who stated that Iran is (1) already destabilizing the region--and the world, for that matter--with its nuclear ambitions and (2) that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons:

Quote :

"'Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.'"

--President Barack Obama

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/obama_warns_ira.html

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power

Furthermore, my position and goals concerning denying Iran nuclear weapons remain unchanged and are in line with the stated position and goals of the Obama administration--yet many of you seem to disagree:

Quote :

". . .[Iranians are] going to choose their leadership. The president has discussed our goals for reaching out in order to ensure that [Iran] doesn't develop a nuclear weapons program. Those continue to be our goals."

--Robert Gibbs, propaganda minister, August 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOlLQd_MsLg

9/29/2009 4:20:18 PM

^ You seem to want military action to be the primary course, where as the Obama admin clearly prefers diplomacy. Your position on Iran is practically 180 degress from the admin.

Your position is probably more in-line with Israel's.

And it's good to see you taking Obama on his word now.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 4:27:50 PM

^ That's not the Obama administration's stated position.

Quote :

"The president has discussed our goals for reaching out in order to ensure that [Iran] doesn't develop a nuclear weapons program. Those continue to be our goals."

--Robert Gibbs, propaganda minister, August 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOlLQd_MsLg

Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power
Jul 02, 2009

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power

Defense Secretary: "All Options On The Table" Over Iran
Sep 27, 2009

http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=190322

So, what you're saying is that the Obama administration is saying a bunch of shit but they don't intend to back it up?

PS: And there's this from candidate Obama:

Obama: Iran threatens all of us
Won't rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group
March 3, 2007

Quote :

"Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called 'a threat to all of us.'"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : LOL!]

9/29/2009 4:31:51 PM

^ haha, are you kidding?

Of course they're not going to take any options off the table, but where does it say they are looking for reasons to bomb them? Did you happen to catch Obama's UN address? Diplomacy is their main goal, not military action.

9/29/2009 4:46:47 PM

^ No, I'm not kidding at all. And David Harris has it exactly right:

Quote :

"Some have suggested that if only Washington would drop its belligerent tone and extend an olive branch, Iran would respond in kind. Well, as of January 20, 2009, that's exactly what the U.S. has done, offering serious 'engagement' to Tehran -- only to be met by the disclosure of the second enrichment facility, new ballistic missile tests, arrests and killings of protesters, and defiant language from Iranian leaders about their determination to press ahead on the nuclear front. The moment of truth is at hand."

Quote :

" A toughened approach may not be a sure-fire recipe for success. But, then again, waiting, hoping, blustering, and dispensing an occasional slap on the wrist -- the core elements of the global strategy to date -- haven't exactly done the trick, either."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/irans-nuclear-program-cru_b_302719.html

9/29/2009 4:59:37 PM

^ so you agree with the Obama admin’s approach of not taking anything off the table, but trying more peaceful, diplomatic tactics first?

9/29/2009 6:54:25 PM

what exactly is a "toughened approach"? the guy you reference seems to be talking mostly about toughening sanctions and is wondering if the EU/Russia/India/China will go along with what the US already seems prepared to do.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 7:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 7:02:12 PM

^^ Yeah, we tried that for the past eight months and longer.

Quote :

"Well, as of January 20, 2009, that's exactly what the U.S. has done, offering serious 'engagement' to Tehran -- only to be met by the disclosure of the second enrichment facility, new ballistic missile tests, arrests and killings of protesters, and defiant language from Iranian leaders about their determination to press ahead on the nuclear front."

^ Apparently, you didn't catch this rather harsh diplomatic language from the UK's Gordon Brown:

Brown on Iran: We're drawing a line in the sand
September 25, 2009

Quote :

"'Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program,' Brown said."

http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/2009/09/25/Brown-on-Iran-Were-drawing-a/1253886737.html

And there's this:

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran
An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420641457091318.html

9/29/2009 8:04:21 PM

Quote :

"^ Apparently, you didn't catch this rather harsh diplomatic language from the UK's Gordon Brown: Brown on Iran: We're drawing a line in the sand September 25, 2009 Quote : "'Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program,' Brown said.” "

Umm… Iran still maintains that their goal is solely energy with the current plant, and that they have no specific “military ambitions” yet. That’s not really all that harsh of diplomatic language, when it’s been the US’s stance since forever.

And considering we haven’t really had any talks with Iran, I don’t know how you can say we’ve tried diplomacy and it’s failed.

9/29/2009 10:02:43 PM

^ Wow. You're either trolling or you're just plain stupid.

Quote :

"'If [Iran] wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a ... secret for a protracted period of time,' [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates said in the interview recorded Friday."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/27/us.iran/index.html

Quote :

"We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence, that it's only for peaceful purposes. . . [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton told CBS' 'Face the Nation.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8685365

Obama: Iran threatens all of us
Won't rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group
March 3, 2007

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

Quote :

"Well, as of January 20, 2009, that's exactly what the U.S. has done, offering serious 'engagement' to Tehran -- only to be met by the disclosure of the second enrichment facility, new ballistic missile tests, arrests and killings of protesters, and defiant language from Iranian leaders about their determination to press ahead on the nuclear front."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/irans-nuclear-program-cru_b_302719.html

9/29/2009 10:15:59 PM

^ wow, reading comprehension fail, again.

9/29/2009 10:20:35 PM

^ Dude, eat shit. Seriously.

Quote :

". . .offering serious 'engagement' to Tehran. . . ."

9/29/2009 10:22:19 PM

I'm surprised noone has mentioned how eerily similar this to the run up for the War in Iraq. In that instance we were told that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire WMD's, most specifically nuclear weapons, and how his regime was a threat to the US and her allies. Roughly 7 years later, we still have no WMDs. Now I'm not saying Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but I believe the threat is greatly over-exaggerated. Furthermore, given the US response to North Korea, it would make sense for Iran to attain nukes, especially given the history between the US and Iran (with the US usually always the antagonist). I will re-iterate that noone has fleshed out the long term effects of de-stabilizing or even overthrowing the Iranian government.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ..]

9/29/2009 10:33:34 PM