quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more? I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead. So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name.

Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner...

Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner... Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.

A lot of us over here share the same sentiment. I'm almost envious of people that fought in WWII - the enemy was so definably evil that you felt good about what you were doing.

There's so much grey area in this war that the black and white are rarely seen.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more? I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead. So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name. p.s. Everyone know the term October Surprise? October is when the Israelis estimate Iran will have completed their nuclear warhead.

Israel is shitting their pants... if the Mullahs get a nuke.. thats when things will get really intense. But why can ISrael have Nukes and Iran cant? The US is afriad of its other miltiary base being destabilized in that oil rich region.. so they want to protect them from these anti-semites.

As much as i want to see those mullahs rot in hell.. i think a whole other hell would be unleashed (geo-politically) in that region if Israel/US MILITARY BASE NATION bombed Iran.

This is a huge dilemma.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I thought that this was a fun column, particularly since no one seems to disagree with the claim that Iran is months, not years, away from operational nuclear weapons. I think the time is ripe for a strike, but I don't think it will be the US will be the one to do it. Israel has a history of this sort of thing, and what's going to happen? The Arab nations will hate them more? I'm all for democratic revolution in Iran solving this problem. But, I have been in Los Angeles for the past month or so hanging out with a ton of expat Persians, (there's a reason it's called Tehrangeles), and they all seem to think revolution is coming, but it won't happen soon enough. And keep in mind that these folks keep very good tabs on what's going on in the home country, and many would like to return someday when the mullahs are dead. So, I bring you another column from the author with the kick-ass last name. p.s. Everyone know the term October Surprise? October is when the Israelis estimate Iran will have completed their nuclear warhead.

First off, let me start by saying that I don't agree with this being a "fun" column... the last thing I want to see is all my relatives being bombed because "the time is ripe for a strike".

Do you think Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon on the US if they were never attacked? What would they have to gain from this? The people do not want this and would not support the government. They may even immediately overthrow the government. I've mentioned this before, but the media here never showed the people in Tehran on the days after 9/11. People were upset and crying in the streets, lighting candles for those who lost their lives:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil

And let's not forget the retalliation from the Americans that would destroy the country. So I think it's safe to say that Iran will not attack the US with a nuclear (or any other WMD) weapon.

So if you agree with this, then they do not pose any greater of a threat than they have been for the past 25 years. How is it exactly that Iran poses a threat to the United States?

By the way, from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/index.html
The latest figures (2000) from the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book, say that 31.6 per cent of the population – about 21 million out of the population of 66 million – are 14 or younger. Other estimates say that 70 per cent of the population is under the age of 30.

You may not notice here in the Western world, but things are slowly changing as the majority of the population is becoming younger and less tolerant of the Islamic regime. I don't think there will be a revolution like there was in 1979, but hopefully more and more reformers will be elected and the Council of Guradians will lose its powers over time.

I'm sorry, but it pisses me off when people pass judgment on a country that they know nothing about. Who are you to decide that it's a good idea to attack Iran? How would you feel if there was a greater superpower that decided it was time to attack the US right now because they thought you posed a threat?

Bush does not want to go to war with IRAN, even if they pose such a threat..for the obvious reasons, wheres the credebility that Bush administration helped the US loose??? there is none to convict such a war now..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

not to mention all the spending he's done on the war in Iraq. All the taxpayer's money went to war I don't think there's even enough taxmoney to spend on another war

quote:

Originally posted by Superstar First off, let me start by saying that I don't agree with this being a "fun" column... the last thing I want to see is all my relatives being bombed because "the time is ripe for a strike".

Sorry - fun in the sense that Krauthammer columns usually bring out the best (worst) in debate, particularly on the Israel/Palestinian issue.

quote:

I've mentioned this before, but the media here never showed the people in Tehran on the days after 9/11. People were upset and crying in the streets, lighting candles for those who lost their lives

I fully understand this...coming from a family that actually has a few Persians in it who got out in the early 1970's. And I don't think that your families have anything to worry about in terms of being bombed by the US/Israel. There is little to no chance of an all-out American aggression against Iran. But what I think is likely is some sort of conventional strike on the nuclear facilities by either Israel or the US. I honestly hope that nothing happens to the people of Tehran - I believe that most have the desire to return to the westward-looking nation that they had 30-40 years ago.

quote:

So if you agree with this, then they do not pose any greater of a threat than they have been for the past 25 years. How is it exactly that Iran poses a threat to the United States?

I don't agree, because another nation with nukes - particularly one run by the mullahs - is not a benign event/occurrence. As was shown with the Pakistanis, once a nation figures out how to build the bomb, the people who built it like to show others how as well. And no one knows what an Iranian nation strapped for cash would do with a completed bomb, particularly since they show no interest in being involved with international arms control regimes.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King But why can ISrael have Nukes and Iran cant?

If you see all nation-states as equal, you have a point. But that is not the case here, nor anywhere on the globe, because we're not operating in some theoretical game of Risk. Did Israel publicly state that they would nuke Tehran the day they made their first nuclear weapon? That's what the mullahs say about Tel-Aviv when they talk about their bomb. If you want to see a shit-storm in the Middle East, fine, let Iran have their bomb. Israel won't be the first one to fire. But she'll be perfectly happy to retaliate. And keep in mind, any nuclear strike on Israel would now have a "return address," regardless of the perpetrator.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Boy the neo-cons never cease to amaze me. True, the Iranians pose a threat, actually a much greater threat than Saddam ever was. If only we worked on the Iran problem sooner... Oh yeah, that's right, Saddam had nukes being pointed at our heads, and we had to deal with him immediately. It just sucks having to fight so many damn wars now. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that Bush is in office.

youre in KC you have nothing to worry about, i'm sure the last place the terrorists would target is that inbred town of yours in the middle of BFE.

>JM<

I have no clue what the hell you guys are talking about!

Iran isn't developing any nuclear weapons program. They've clearly told the world they are just developing nuclear energy program, peaceful nuclear programs.

Afterall, why in the world would the Russians and Frenchies help the Iranians???

You guys are completley clueless and out of touch of this world. Iran stated numerous times to the IAEA it has a peaceful program.

Iran building nuclear weapons hah! Good one.







fuel: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=860

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Every other damn country has nuclear bombs,so I dont see why Iran shouldnt.If Isreal ever attacks Iran,it would bring alot of problems in the region.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Every other damn country has nuclear bombs,so I dont see why Iran shouldnt.

But they AREN'T building any nuclear bombs. Gee. Keep up!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.