Add Reply
Related Information to USA vs IranUSA vs Iran - Page 17 of 95
BRITAIN TO MEET OVER POTENTIAL IRAN ATTACK: - Page 17 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 3rd Apr, 2006 - 11:50am
Posts: 758 - Views: 85512
versus 
Will Iran end up like Iraq? Related Information to USA vs Iran
USA vs Iran - Page 17
I don't see any evidence that the US is considering "invading" Iran. There is lots and lots of news about how Iran is thumbing its nose at the rest of the world, in restarting its nuclear program, in direct defiance of the UN.
Iran has long been the loving home of Islamist "extremists". The President of Iran recently claimed that the Holocaust never occurred. Iran supports all sorts of terrorist organizations. Not even arvhic can dispute that fact.
But, what evidence is there that the US is preparing for an invasion? And I DON'T mean, and am not interested in, the delusional conspiracy theories about George W. Bush that are so common. 
Edited: Nighthawk on 1st Mar, 2006 - 3:55pm
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 
85.4%
Sponsored Links:
Iran USA
Iran has not been in direct defiance of the UN as is incorrectly reported in the media.
This is from a report I read earlier today. It clears up this nonsense that Iran has begun developing nuclear weapons or has defied the UN.
| QUOTE |
| The IAEA DID NOT report on Iran's "noncompliance" to the Security Council, because there is no evidence that Iran has done anything wrong. In fact, as nuclear physicist Gordon Prather points out in his recent article, "March Madness", "THE BOARD DIDN'T REPORT ANYTHING." Then why does the media keep insisting that Iran is being called before the Security Council for noncompliance? Could it be that the media is simply executing an agenda that is deliberately designed to deceive? There was no "referral" and there will be no "punitive action" because there are no violations. "Rather", as Prather ads, "the IAEA Board `REQUESTED' that Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council""¦"calling on Iran to-among other things-implement `transparency measures'". These "transparency measures" have nothing to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT. They are additional demands made at the behest of the Bush administration (through strong-arm tactics with nations on the IAEA Board) that will force Iran to provide access to "individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military owned workshops, and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations". |
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Post Date: 2nd Mar, 2006 - 11:11am / Post ID: #
USA vs Iran History & Civil Business Politics
While I agree that the media has been blowing this out of proportion, that statement above is indeed wrong. Quote from Iran in independent news organizations involve statements such as "I this goes before the security council, we will up our program to its fullest extent." What ever that means, it sounds bad. Either way, even in independent news, they have been hostile.
That being said, they have decidedly not been shown to be violating the UN in direct defiance. There is not really any proof that they are trying to build a bomb, just a suspicion. However, I should note, if that was a serious real immediate threat, we would already be in Iran.
As for the US invading, Bush already said that we would invade Iran if it came down to that, and we have a staging ground on both sides of the country. However, the US has made it clear that any decision to invade, as well as the investigation going to the security council rests squarely with the UN. We will not be doing the same thing we did with Iraq, this time it will be something the majority of the world wants to do. This is not being pushed by the US, it is being pushed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. So lets not pretend that this is a Bush thing or a US thing, its a UN thing.
Page 17 Iran USA
There is a stark difference between posturing and being in defiance of the UN, but I take your point on Iran being provocative.
I won't judge Iran's nuclear aspirations until I see proof. They might want a civilian program and I don't think that is such a bad thing. If they want do develop nuclear weapons, that is more serious, but let's not speculate.
Iran's government should be carefully watched because they are a major player in the region. And with Iraq's government seemingly falling into Shiite hands, Iran could have some influence over their neighbour's affairs.
Nighthawk, I don't believe the US is planning an attack on Iran. They aren't capable of launching an attack given their problems in Iraq. Maybe there are economic reasons for the US to attack Iran, but as you have suggested, this is not realistic.
I agree that Iran does harbour terrorists. They could even support terrorists, most countries in the Middle East are affiliated to some militias, even Israel. But Iran are not as bad as Pakistan when it comes to harbouring terrorists.
As for holocaust denial. Anyone who does this, bites off their nose to spite their face. It is such a ridiculous statement, nobody can take it seriously.
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Iran USA
| QUOTE |
| "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain," Javad Vaeedi, a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, told reporters at the end of the meeting. "But it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll." The threat did not seem to be an off-hand remark. The threat was included, in almost the same wording and with the same mixed metaphor, in Iran's speech to the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in a separate formal statement. In Iran, meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that those who want to "violate the rights of the Iranian nation will quickly regret their actions." Iran's threats came a day after Vice President Dick Cheney declared, without any specifics, that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" on Iran if it proceeded with uranium enrichment activities. He did not indicate how he was able to predict the outcome of Security Council deliberations before the body even met. Mr. Cheney, speaking Tuesday to an overflow crowd of nearly 5,000 applauding guests at a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, used blunt language that seemed to hint of military action or possibly the overthrow of the government in Tehran, though he mentioned neither option explicitly. "For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," he said of Iran. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." He also said "America supports as well the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran" and the removal of what he called its current "fanatical regime." |
www.nytimes.com
"Them's fightin' words" as the old saying goes. This situation bears watching as it develops, and it would behoove us all to be prepared for anything in the next 6 to 12 months. The entire Middle East is simmering, ready to boil, and unfortunately for us, American troops and the American people are sitting ducks while the Administration takes a "hard ball" stance on "our" behalf. This frightens me very deeply.
Edited: FarSeer on 10th Mar, 2006 - 5:47amInternational Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Post Date: 12th Mar, 2006 - 12:08pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
USA vs Iran
IRAN RULES OUT RUSSIA NUCLEAR PLAN
Iran will no longer consider a proposal to move its uranium enrichment program to Russian territory and is instead considering large scale uranium enrichment at home, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters Sunday.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/12/...r.ap/index.html
Post Date: 15th Mar, 2006 - 12:14pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
USA Iran - Page 17
Iran's Nuclear Program
If Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, why are there concerns?
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/nuclearprogram.html
Post Date: 3rd Apr, 2006 - 11:50am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
USA Iran Politics Business Civil & History - Page 17
BRITAIN TO MEET OVER POTENTIAL IRAN ATTACK: REPORT
Senior British defence officials are scheduled to meet Monday to discuss the possibility of a U.S.-led military campaign against Iran, according to a news report that was later denied.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/
IRAN: HIGH-SPEED UNDERWATER MISSILE TEST-FIRED
Iran announced its second major new missile test within days, saying Sunday it has successfully fired a high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying huge warships and submarines.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/02/...e.ap/index.html
TOPIC: USA vs Iran