Powell fires parting salvo at Iran

[Almighty Colin]

CNN. "The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says. Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic weapons by next year"

[RawAlex]

Where have I heard this song before? A little to the west of there, there is a little country called Iraq. Full to the brim with WMD, I tell ya! They have some many weapons that Saddam has to sleep with a missle just to keep them out of site.

Why don't I believe anything coming from the warmonger boy's administration?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Alex,

Americans are willing to take over the entire Middle East to preserve the Western World while everyone else stands idly by, twiddling their thumbs, thinking once again - like in the period between 1871 and 1914 that the world is safe for democracies. Islam is a killer religion. Fooled me once shame on me fooled me twice shame on... uhh shame on.. well you know how it goes.

[RawAlex]

Fooled me once shame on me fooled me twice shame on... uhh shame on.. well you know how it goes

The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well...

It sounds like the same sort of "someone said to somebody that knew a guy who heard about someone who..." sort of non-intelligence that got the US in trouble the last time out. Perhaps they can get someone in South Africa to confirm this one, too.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 09:45 AM
The american people were fooled once on WMD in Iraq... fool them a second time in Iran, well...

Sorry, Neville Chamberlain resigned. King George is in charge. Get used to it! You have NO choice.

[Mike AI]

Alex, you are so out of touch - it's almost scary to try and comprehend.

Iran is a major problem. One that needs to be solved soon. I predicited after Bush's win that they would nuzzle up the the Europeans and make a "deal". The deal would include free nuclear technology and help for power plants in return for stopping weapons program - just like the N. Koreans got from Clinton.

But just like N. Korea, Iran would lie ( shock) and still work on their nukes.

Iran needs to be handled - sooner rather then later.

I am glad we have a President who will take action, not sit on his hands while problem gets worse to appease ignorant people like Alex.

[dantheman]

someone will have to do "something" to persaude the iranians that they can't have their own nukes. Over the next decade or more there will be some very hard decisions to make and alex and others might not like some of them but to insure the safety of the world(yes it's our responsiblity) we'll have to.

the question is. How long do we wait untill we take some sort of action?

[Mike AI]

I have a strong idea who that "someone" will be.

Fortunnately we have Iran surrounded already.

The reality is we need to see Iran, Syria and Iraq as the same problem. The people who are fighting us in Iraq, the insurgents are being armed, supplied, encouraged, led by Syria and Iran.

I am sure Syria and Iran's arguement is the same as ours - better to fight them in Iraq then in our own streets.

[PornoDoggy]

I don't doubt that Iran is trying to become a nuclear power.

I don't dispute that something needs to be done about it.

I do not believe that the United States has the capabilites (at this time) to make a unilateral military move against Iran in view of our current obligations.

Alex AI - it's not just the U.S. who is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. Even the Bush Administration can be right once in a while.

Raw Mike - Whle we do have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think saying we have them surrounded is a bit overstated.

[Mike AI]

I do not believe that the United States has the capabilites (at this time) to make a unilateral military move against Iran in view of our current obligations.

Can you explain this to me?

I am assuming you mean we do not have the political support of the UN, our allies, France, the Arab street, Bin Laden, etc....

Physical military capabilities, we could move against Iran tommorow and destroy their entire military infrastructure in a matter of months - JUST FROM THE AIR!!!
Do not underestimate the military might of the US.

Now politically, and diplomaticly to have the will to go against UN, and world setiment might be tough to deal with. Fortunately we have a President who does puts OUR interests above "the worlds".

Someone ( US/Israel) better act soon.

[Evil Chris]

Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!

[Nickatilynx]

My guess is to "save the world" a great part of it is going to have the shit blown out of it.

IMHO there is no doubt the world is less safe ,rather than safer , since GW came to power.

[Mike AI]

Chris to compare the US having Nukes to Iran getting them shows how out of touch you are. I just hope not all Canadians are as ignorant as you.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...84-e011cb8fd2fa

After reading some of the comments at the bottom, I think there may be same sane people in Canada.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 18 2004, 12:00 PM
My guess is to "save the world" a great part of it is going to have the shit blown out of it.

IMHO there is no doubt the world is less safe ,rather than safer , since GW came to power.

The world has never been a safe place. It is only an illusion. One that is dissapating quickly because of technology.

With modern weapons, bio, chemical and ease of trasporting them - with the rise of Non State Actors ( al quada, other terrorists groups) the world is much more dangerous.

Bush merely inherited the situation. He also acted decisively, rather then passing the buck as past President's have - as well as the rest of the world - especially Europe. ( canada is too inconsiquental to matter)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 18 2004, 11:46 AM
Alex AI - it's not just the U.S. who is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. Even the Bush Administration can be right once in a while.

Raw Mike - Whle we do have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think saying we have them surrounded is a bit overstated.

rotflmfao.....

[SykkBoy]

I think I've stated publicly more than once that Iran and/or Syria should have been our first target instead of pussyfooting around with Iraq...
maybe we should just get it over with and launch our nukes already...

I mean, we can't even find Osama Bin Laden, we got lucky in finding Saddam...so, what happens if we fully invade Syria AND Iran (I guess we'll have to destroy North Korea too so they'll shut the fuck up)? We can only put out so many fires at once.

maybe we can dust off old copies of those nuclear scare movies of the 80's...just update them a little with nasty arabs instead of those evil russkies....

[wig]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Nov 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Doesn't the US have nukes? ack!

Someone should do something.

We can have nukes, but you, you, and you... can't. We can be trusted with them.. You, you and you... can't. So here's the plan. We're going to declare war on you, invade your homeland, destroy it, rebuild it at our own profit, steal your natural resources, and leave you in ruins.

Next!

US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 18 2004, 11:54 AM
Can you explain this to me?

I am assuming you mean we do not have the political support of the UN, our allies, France, the Arab street, Bin Laden, etc....

Physical military capabilities, we could move against Iran tommorow and destroy their entire military infrastructure in a matter of months - JUST FROM THE AIR!!!
Do not underestimate the military might of the US.

Now politically, and diplomaticly to have the will to go against UN, and world setiment might be tough to deal with. Fortunately we have a President who does puts OUR interests above "the worlds".

Someone ( US/Israel) better act soon.

No, Mike ... I wouldn't bother to mention international support to someone who does not consider it important. And just so you know, I consider Iranian nuclear capabilities a grave threat to the stability of the region AND the security of the United States - I just don't think there is a simple solution to it.

We probably could do considerable damage to their military infrastructure from the air (although I suspect at a much higher cost than we faced in Iraq).

I'm talking strictly about military capabilities, but I was assuming you are advocating invading and occupying Iran the way we have Iraq. We do not have the boots to put on the ground for that, and I question the value of a "quick-fix" strike to take out nuclear facilities only (assuming we really know where they are).

BTW ... I am personally of the opinion that the long-term effects of the unilateral intervention will serve the interests of the United States in pretty much the same way isolationism did in the period 1920-1941 ... but we'll both be dead by the time my theory can be proven.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
US has been in the position to nuke since Japan, but has not.

Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

I think your comparison is silly at best.

I'm not so sure about that ... the theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will probably come into play between smaller states just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by wig@Nov 18 2004, 12:26 PM
Iran, along with the rest of the muslim countries, would nuke Israel. Their stated goal is to drive them into the sea, to eliminate them as a race.

Pakistan=moslem country and has nukes but has not yet blown up Israel

And No, I do not want to see Iran with nukes (or anyone else for that matter). Just merely pointing out a fact.

Carry on....

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by sarettah+Nov 18 2004, 09:40 AM-->