Iran, a Real Look at the Country's Peoples

[Catchme]

Maybe the best thing to do is ignore her, (catchme) a lot of the babble seem to be a bit on the unbalanced side.

There's no doubt about what Amajahdeen (sp) said, or his intent, only people who agree with him would downplay his meaning or spin it as something else.

Please do try to rebutt what is stated with facts, as opposed to giving your personal opinion. Facts were, which were not, and are not my opinion presented. If you feel they are not balanced, again I invite you or others to provide facts that will back up your partisian and personal opinions.

Please do read the links and what is posted you may have a clearer view, rather than epousing opinions based on who knows what.

Also, nothing was downplayed at all, funny that you would say so, please provide me with an example of me downplaying his words? As I even agreed that he wa a fool.

Howver, the truth was told about him, and his being a mouth piece figure head with NO political clout at all.

No potlical clout = no ability to conduct any actions just a fool that is much less dangerous than the other fool making lying threats.

How do you feel about the majority of Iranians wanting him gone? And their wanting a democracy? Do you think they should be nuked?

[southerncomfort]

Canadian, I think catchme's just trolling. It's just too far out there. Maybe this is catchme's entertainment for the evening.

I agree, I just scroll on by from now on, there's always the ignore button if it gets worse

[M.Dancer]

That's a badly formatted question......

I mean, I would support the use of any weapon against an enemy if the situation warrented the use.....

Why not ask something equally as silly like, would you support the use of firearms against criminals?

sometime yes, sometimes no.....

If Iran is developing nuclear weapons in contravention to the solemn treaties she has signed , then yes, military action is warrented. Whether the action invloves the need for deep penetration N weapons is not for me to decide.

[Catchme]

It would appear that Weds is a key date in regards to Iran and the USA.

Rep. Jane Harman, David Kay, Bruno Pellaud, Flynt Leverett, Thomas Donnelly, Lawrence Wilkerson, Francis Fukuyama, Joe Cirincione Headline Conference on US Policy Options Toward Iran

In my capacity as head of foreign policy programs at the New America Foundation, I along with Trita Parsi, who is President of the National Iranian American Council, have produced a conference together that will take place in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Room, Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 628, on Wednesday next week, 14 February.

The conference will feature several important discussions that are key parts of the current US-Iran debate.

First, former Bush administration National Security Council and CIA official Flynt Leverett and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson will be sharing "more" on the question about the provenance of the March/April 2003 alleged Iranian negotiations proposal that was presented to the United States via Swiss diplomatic channels.

Recently, then National Security Advisor and present Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice disavowed direct knowledge of the proposal and claimed as reported in a recent Glenn Kessler authored article in the Washington Post that she had never seen the "fax" from the Iranians.

Flynt Leverett, in a conversation with TWN before flying to Rome where he was meeting with former Swiss Ambassador to Iran Tim Guldimann, questioned whether Condoleezza Rice was attempting to purposely deceive the American public about the realities of the 2003 Iranian proposal.

Rice, in the Glenn Kessler article, dismissed Flynt Leverett's recent commentary about the proposal:

"First of all, I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about, quite frankly," she said. "Maybe I should ask him when he came to me and said, 'We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it.' "

It is clear from earlier interviews with Rice that she was familiar with the content of the Iran proposal and seemed not to raise doubts about its provenance. If it is true that she never actually saw a proposal as important as this one would have been given the level of US strategic concern about Iran, this exchange raises serious questions about her management of the National Security Council -- particularly that Elliott Abrams may never have showed Rice the proposal, and alternatively -- that she never asked to see it.

Leverett has reported to this blogger that about 90% of what is available on the internet and in the press about the "content" of the Iran proposal is correct -- but there is another 10% that has not been disclosed and that is critical to understanding the seriousness and consequential nature of what Iran put forward

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

Again it seems the Bush admin are being exposed for the lying liars they are, and that most Americans are not buying what they are trying to sell.

[Catchme]

So, a country and it's peoples should be nuked for oil and shoring up the US dollar?

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450

Some people really need to think about what they are advocating and why.

[Army Guy]

I'd like to know "how many of you guys have started to dig your Nuk shelter yet" ...I for one are convinced that the us and israel leaked a highly secretive plan to bomb Iran back into the stoneage.

I got shovels here going cheap...anyone...

where did i put that damn tin hat again...WILMA....

[Catchme]

In the face of much evidence to the contrary, it seems some will deny USA/Israel intentions towards Iran. Howevr, no matter how much some deny it and try to discredit others, who are exposing it, a plan to do so is indeed in the works.

Justifications for attacking Iran on shaky ground

"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is escalating its confrontation with Iran, sending an additional aircraft carrier and minesweepers into the Persian Gulf as it accuses the Islamic regime in Tehran of arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq for attacks on American troops.

A new U.S. intelligence estimate on Friday, however, concluded that Iranian and other outside meddling is "not likely" a major cause of the bloodshed in Iraq, and a new McClatchy analysis of U.S. casualties in Iraq found that Sunni Muslim insurgents, not Iranian-backed Shiites, have mounted most - but not all - of the attacks on American forces."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16609594.htm

Israel's Plans to Nuke Iran

From a lengthening series of reports, it is now clear that the Bush-Cheney administration has been severely weakened by the recent midterm elections, and they apparently no longer feel capable of launching a direct nuclear strike against Iran using American forces, American weapons and America’s formidable nuclear arsenal. In negotiations that took place in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George Bush – as well as in the highly publicized negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia – it would now appear that the joint planning to strike Iran has altered only slightly from the grandiose schemes originally designed by Donald Rumsfeld prior to his abrupt retirement on the day after the midterm elections last year.

According to The Sunday Times, there has been a slight re-calibration of the plans for the war against Iran. Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.

...If Israel attacks Iran, it will be playing Russian roulette on a grand scale. The retaliation from a broad spectrum of nations and multinational militias in the Middle East could bring about a concerted series of devastating hard power attacks against both Israeli and American forces arrayed in a dense cluster from Iraq to Kuwait, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011607CARMICHAEL.shtml

US Interests

A US attack on Iran has been predicted by analysts for several years. The US policy vis-a-vis Iran is clearly directed towards confrontation rather than accommodation. There are many reasons for the US to attack Iran, including the control of energy resources, suppression of a regional power opposite to US and Israeli interests, etc. However I have argued for many months that the key reason for the US to seek a military confrontation with Iran is that it will "force" the US to cross the nuclear threshold and use low yield nuclear weapons against Iranian installations. And this is seen as essential to further US geopolitical goals.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=2807

[GostHacked]

Let me get 'right'eous in here for a moment along with Sharkman, Canadian Blue, Army Guy, southercomfort.

I GOT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS AND I AM NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

STOP BEING AN IDIOT.

YOU ARE HELPING THE TERRORISTS BY SAYING THAT

YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT

STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS

COMPLY OR DIE

So really, I could have not posted at all. Since this really does not carry further any kind of rational debate. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I will point this out every time you responde like this. If you cannot debate, then get out and stay out. If you cannot put your words together to make your points sound intelligent at all then please DON'T POST.

This is a tactic of the right. Clutter up a good debate with nonesense till they 'Cartman' it up and screw you ALL by going home. This is part of the left's frustration. But at least we still point to the proof we had before, and is still true and accurate.

Now how about that Iraq war?!?

-lies about going to war

-when at war, lies to cover up the failed lies to get into the war.

-lies about lies to KEEP us in Iraq

-'last throes', 'mission accomplished' ect ect.

Now replace that Q with an N, and we can redebate all this shit in 5 years after Iran has been attacked by the US.

[Catchme]

Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place," he said.

"We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous," he added.

Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.

Last month Bush ordered a second battle group, led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.

In another sign that preparations are under way, Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.

The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was underway.

"Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording. All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation," he said.

One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/arch...2/11/2003348506

Again, Canadians need to start pressuring the Harper government to speak out against any action against Iran. Start pressuring your MP's and other political party leaders, because if Israel does nuke Iran, innocent Iranian blood will be on our hands. After it is all over it will be way too late and how will any of us be able to sleep at night?

Millions of innocents burnt to crisp instantly, those that survive will wish they hadn't, and the world will weap burning tears of sorrow and remorse for not doing something sooner. For not speaking out sooner.

First they came for....

[scribblet]

Let me get 'right'eous in here for a moment along with Sharkman, Canadian Blue, Army Guy, southercomfort.

This is a tactic of the right. Clutter up a good debate with nonesense till they 'Cartman' it up and screw you ALL by going home. This is part of the left's frustration. But at least we still point to the proof we had before, and is still true and accurate.

Hmm, seems like the tactic of the left is to clutter up the forum with innuendo and propaganda, (well, one poster in particular) if there was anything worth debating maybe we would. The U.S. is not going to nuke Iran or invade, Israel has made noises about taking out facilities, Clinton style, nothing more.

I don't see the point in regurgitating useless innuendo about nuking Iran, and personally I'n not interested in reading what she posts, but am willing to read other opinions.

What we should be debating is how the world can help Iraq and stop the terrorist carnage, they are killing their own people by the thousandsd. There has to be a way for all countries and the U.N. to somehow help broker peace. Rehashing woulda shoulda coulda doesn't help, and pulling out as Obama wants won't help either, there has to be a better solution.

[Figleaf]

I can't answer this poll. Use of nukes against Iran?? When??? Tomorrow? Next wednesday?

What on earth for???

[Canadian Blue]

Dr Seuss told Catchme that their was going to be a massive nuclear attack on Iran killing all people in the country.

Again, Canadians need to start pressuring the Harper government to speak out against any action against Iran. Start pressuring your MP's and other political party leaders, because if Israel does nuke Iran, innocent Iranian blood will be on our hands. After it is all over it will be way too late and how will any of us be able to sleep at night?

Millions of innocents burnt to crisp instantly, those that survive will wish they hadn't, and the world will weap burning tears of sorrow and remorse for not doing something sooner. For not speaking out sooner.

First they came for....

Nuclear war, what a fascinating imagination you have. I thought Iran was the one threatning to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel responded that any such action would have immediate negative consequences for Iran.

People, Iran can do no harm, we have to watch out for those evil Jews in Israel.

[Catchme]

Then that would no, figleaf.

[Catchme]

Let me get 'right'eous in here for a moment along with Sharkman, Canadian Blue, Army Guy, southercomfort.

I GOT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS AND I AM NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

STOP BEING AN IDIOT.

YOU ARE HELPING THE TERRORISTS BY SAYING THAT

YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT

STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS

COMPLY OR DIE

So really, I could have not posted at all. Since this really does not carry further any kind of rational debate. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I will point this out every time you responde like this. If you cannot debate, then get out and stay out. If you cannot put your words together to make your points sound intelligent at all then please DON'T POST.

This is a tactic of the right. Clutter up a good debate with nonesense till they 'Cartman' it up and screw you ALL by going home. This is part of the left's frustration. But at least we still point to the proof we had before, and is still true and accurate.

Now how about that Iraq war?!?

-lies about going to war

-when at war, lies to cover up the failed lies to get into the war.

-lies about lies to KEEP us in Iraq

-'last throes', 'mission accomplished' ect ect.

Now replace that Q with an N, and we can redebate all this shit in 5 years after Iran has been attacked by the US.

Good points!

[GostHacked]

Rehashing woulda shoulda coulda doesn't help, and pulling out as Obama wants won't help either, there has to be a better solution.

There was a better solution 4 years ago. That was NOT TO GO IN. So really anything that is proposed now is just damage control, or utter complete bullshit. Since the Right got us into this mess, the Right should get us OUT of this mess. But you don't see that at all. Oh it's all about the war on terrorism.

One thing I will blame the left for was the recent troop deployment to Iraq. The Left for all I know will be able to stop the escalation (or augmentation, right Condi?) of US troops in Iraq. It could have helped out some. But then again, a full force at the beginning and not reducing the troop levels constantly after 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' to keep peace and stability was a huge mistake on the Right's part. So really both can be blamed. But you will NEVER hear that from the "Right".

Lies to get into a war, lies to keep us there, lies about the upcomming war with Iran. If the Right offers anything NEW, I will be inclinced to listen. But when the RIGHT rehashes all the crap over and over again, (and quite a bit of what is rehashed is false) it is hard to take the RIGHT seriously.

Open your eyes man. Please. Iran may be a threat to Israel, but not to the United States. But to most Americans, Isreal IS part of the United States. *bangs head against desk* Yeah yeah, I know I am an anti-semite for saying anything like this. MY APOLOGIES SO SORRY!!.

[Argus]

I haven't read any reports that Harper would support a nuclear attack against Iran, and to say such is an innane argument. How many nation's have shown some support towards Israel, many.

I think Catchme explained quite clearly that it's Israel that plans on nuking Iran, and Harper has expressed unconditional support for Israel's policies.

Bullshit. I think you people on the left just have a problem with Jews.

Catchme's ludicrous hysteria over Israel nuking Iran is a case in point. Iran has all-but stated openly they want to destroy Israel. In fact, one of its previous presidents openly told a cheering, howling crowd that the moment Iran gets nukes it must use them on Israel. And he was the moderate in the last election!

And now Iran is doing its best, according to just about the entire world, to build itself nukes.

And you wonder that Israel is concerned about that? Wouldn't you be? I mean, if you were sane?

Of course Israel has plans on nuking Iran - and plans on nuking every other Muslim state too. Those are the kinds of plans every nation's military has in place in case of emergencies. But I highly doubt Israel will be the first to use nukes. Much more likely will be raids with very powerful conventional explosives to wipe out key components of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

[Argus]

If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

And so in conclusion conservative friends, can you spot the fear, the loathing, and yes, the hatred at Harper in the above comment?

Yes, but can you spot the sanity? Noooo.

[Argus]

To shoot someone because you believe they MIGHT get a gun, and they MIGHT shoot you if they did - is the ultimate act of hypocrisy.

In a criminal court, it wouldn't be enough grounds for "self-defense" and the same should be applied to international law.

I'm not surprised that your ignorance of criminal law is as vast as your ignorance about international politics. In point of fact such kinds of defenses have been successfully used before in many courts in Canada. In particular, it has been used in cases where husbands have been murdered by their wives. The fact there was no imminent threat was deemed irrelevant. Even in cases where there was no actual evidence of past abuse or mistreatment wives have been freed after murdering sleeping husbands on the presumption that the wife had a legitimate fear of some kind.

Now let us suggest that your neighbour, a religious wacko - one you can identify with, say, a "eek!" Christian fundamentalist - had repeatedly threatened you, told you he was going to wipe you and your family out as soon as he got a gun, that God had told him to cleanse the earth of your ilk, and then, day after day, told you how he was shopping for a gun, applying for his paperwork, waiting his days, and then, on the last morning says "It's ready! I'm going to get my gun now, scumbag!"

And there are no police, and no courts.

Now given the lack of intelligence displayed in most of the posts here by the representatives of the Left, you'd probably just cower in your basement until he went and got his gun, came back, kicked in your door, and shot you.

Some of us would just shoot him first.

The fact that two people on this board agree with such a position is actually quite frightening.

They're the ones with brains.

[Argus]

Open your eyes man. Please. Iran may be a threat to Israel, but not to the United States. But to most Americans, Isreal IS part of the United States. *bangs head against desk* Yeah yeah, I know I am an anti-semite for saying anything like this. MY APOLOGIES SO SORRY!!.

I would not discount the possibility that Iran, posessing nukes, would give one or two to a terrorist organization to smuggle into New York and Washington. I'd certainly not put it past that group of religious wackos and nutbars running that shithole of a country.

Even excluding this, the possibility that Iran would nuke Israel legitimately threatens the US. Israel would certainly nuke them back, and almost just as certainly nuke the surrounding Arab states, as well. That has been stated as its' unofficial policy in the event it got nuked for some time, that it would nuke all the surrounding Arab states both as punishment to its age old tormentors, and to keep them from organizing to attack Israel during its time of weakness. So a nuclear war between Iran and Israel would kill tens of millions and basically render most of the world's oil supply unusable, thus bringing about a new, world-wide depression.

[Argus]

With the ramping up of rhetoric againgst Iran, with equally phoney Intell, like that of Iraq, having a good look at what is Iran is a must. How better to do it with pictures.

Each link shows a different aspect of Iranian society.

You forgot this one.

Iranian feminist celebrations

and this one

Iranian Gay Pride Demonstrations

and let's not forget this one

Celebration of Iranian Youth

And of course

Iran celebrates humour

[BC_chick]

If they use nukes, it will not only be another peoples, and country, destroyed, but as considerable area in the ME as well. And it will affect the whole globe, and more than just environmentally.

People should look at the links in the first page to the pictures of the peoples and cities after the one and only prior atomic bomb drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and then go look at the pictures of Iranians.

Again the youth, who are a majority in Iran, are struggling for a democracy, they want the Mullahs and the President gone. We should be supporting them, NOT supporting those who want to nuke them.

At this point in the thread, 23+ percent of the people believe that nuking Iran is fair game. That means these 23+% of the people don't feel either way about killing thousands of people given the claims made by the same people who brought you the farce of WMD's.

Then they wonder why the rest of world has reached a point of nuclear arms race.

[BC_chick]

Of course Israel has plans on nuking Iran - and plans on nuking every other Muslim state too. Those are the kinds of plans every nation's military has in place in case of emergencies. But I highly doubt Israel will be the first to use nukes. Much more likely will be raids with very powerful conventional explosives to wipe out key components of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

And I'm supposed to disregard all the international figures who are saying otherwise and believe you because.... you said so?

[Catchme]

So what, you are saying that Iran should be nuked because of these articles? What is your point of posting inposting them they are not in anyway pertinent to the US pplans to nuke Iran.

Again, the Iranian youth, who are the largest demographics in IRan are trying to get rid of the mullahs, who actually conrol the country and get rid of the figure head president. They want democracy and they will gain it. apparently some would like to radicalize them instead by bombing them when they are innocent.

[BC_chick]

I'm not surprised that your ignorance of criminal law is as vast as your ignorance about international politics. In point of fact such kinds of defenses have been successfully used before in many courts in Canada. In particular, it has been used in cases where husbands have been murdered by their wives.

Speaking of ignorant.... A woman in an abusive relationship is not in a position of power. Israel has the world's fourth largest army. But nice try.

Now let us suggest that your neighbour, a religious wacko - one you can identify with, say, a "eek!" Christian fundamentalist - had repeatedly threatened you, told you he was going to wipe you and your family out as soon as he got a gun, that God had told him to cleanse the earth of your ilk, and then, day after day, told you how he was shopping for a gun, applying for his paperwork, waiting his days, and then, on the last morning says "It's ready! I'm going to get my gun now, scumbag!"

More like your neighbour is the only person on the block who won't turn a blind eye to you beating your step-child and you're starting a smear campaign full of non-sequitur arguments about your life being in danger so you and your thugs can go and do to him what you did to the last guy on the block who spoke out against your child-abuse.

The fact that two people on this board agree with such a position is actually quite frightening.

They're the ones with brains.

You mean they're the prime candidates to become terrorists if they were born in the Middle-East.

[Catchme]

Great analogy BC Chick, you are quite correct, that was a created straw man position to try and kick down something that wasn not even applicable.

A Shaky Briefing on Iran?

For a long time now, Bush admininstration officials have been promising reporters proof that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weaponry to Iraqi militants.

The administration finally unveiled its case this weekend, first in coordinated and anonymous leaks to a trusting New York Times reporter, then in an extraordinarily secretive military briefing at which no one would speak on the record, journalists weren't allowed to photograph the so-called evidence, and nothing even remotely like proof of direct Iranian government involvement was presented.

..."With so much official U.S. buildup about the purported evidence of Iranian influence in Iraq, the briefing was also notable for what was not said or shown. The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops. Also, the military briefers were not joined by U.S. diplomats or representatives of the CIA or the office of the Director of National Intelligence."

And Partlow offers this useful perspective: "Iraq's deputy foreign minister, Labeed M. Abbawi, said in an interview Sunday that the Iraqi government remains in the dark about the full U.S. investigation into Iranian activities in Iraq. 'It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence,' he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5041100879.html