PDA

View Full Version : WMD's in Iran?



SnakebyteXX
11-19-2004, 06:51 PM
Link (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/20/content_2239184.htm)

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 11:19 PM
Yeah, great link. This article offers no actual evidence.

It has a funny quote though.........

[ QUOTE ]
"I have seen some information that would suggest that they've been actively working on delivery systems to deliver," Powell said <hr /></blockquote>

Peace
~DC

Qtec
11-20-2004, 12:04 AM
If the US has a right to defend itself, why shouldnt that apply to other countries?

Iran has just seen what the US has done in Iraq. Its understandable they they might get nervous and feel a need for security.
According to GW its now ok to attack a country just because you think that they might be a threat sometime in the future!? I dont think the Iranians have forgotten that the US backed Saddam when he was at war with Iran, despite the attacks with WMDs! The west also backed the Shah of Iran when he oppressed the Iranian people.
You never hear of these things on Fox. Thats for sure.

The neo-cons belive in the apocalypse. The begining of the Ap. begins with an attack on Israel. I think they are trying to provoke an all out war. Sooner rather than later.

Q

SecaucusFats
11-20-2004, 02:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If the US has a right to defend itself, why shouldnt that apply to other countries?

Iran has just seen what the US has done in Iraq. Its understandable they they might get nervous and feel a need for security.
According to GW its now ok to attack a country just because you think that they might be a threat sometime in the future!? I dont think the Iranians have forgotten that the US backed Saddam when he was at war with Iran, despite the attacks with WMDs! The west also backed the Shah of Iran when he oppressed the Iranian people.
You never hear of these things on Fox. Thats for sure.

The neo-cons belive in the apocalypse. The begining of the Ap. begins with an attack on Israel. I think they are trying to provoke an all out war. Sooner rather than later.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

It is undeniably true that the US backed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's ascension to the Peacock Throne, and also equally undeniable that it was CIA intervention that restored him to the throne after his first ouster. It is also a fact that the US helped train the Iranian SAVAK (secret police) which murdered tens of thousands of Iranians. Should it have come as any kind of surprise therefore, when the Shah was ousted and men who swore vengeance against "The Great Satan" rose to prominence in the heady days of their revolution?

It is also undeniably true that we backed Iraq in the Iraq/Iran War. We provided just enough aid to prolong the war as long as we could, in order to weaken the Iranian regime whom we saw as the more dangerous enemy. As far as Iraq was concerned, we were content to look the other way as Saddam gassed, tortured, and terrorized his own people (at least as long as the oil kept coming). We looked askance as his air force tore apart one of our destroyers with an Exocet. Saddam was our boy! He was convinced that we loved him and would welcome his natural talent for controlling the restive multi-ethnic masses. He would be the man we could "do business" with. He gambled that we would not object too strenuously as he took over the Middle East.

The US has in the past committed very grave errors in the conduct of its foreign policy. And please understand that I am not excusing such errors, nor trying to minimize their gravity, but then again, let's be honest, so has every nation of any true note. That's not to excuse it but to help put it into perspective.

I can see your point as regards Iran's possible heightened concern vis a vis the Iraq situation. After the first Gulf War, a respected Indian defense analyst was quick to point out that given the immense technological advances of US forces over what, at first, appeared to be superior and far more numerous Iraqui forces, the only possible way to militarily combat such an enemy was to have a nuclear option as a credible deterent.

To me the crux of the matter lies in whether one has faith in a people that persist in acting like they are still in the ancient past, replete with all its religious hatred. That is the real fear, and the reason we will not permit nukes in the hands of mullahs.

We are already facing a deadly situation in Pakistan. If Musharaf gets overthrown or assasinated, we would be forced to destroy Pakistan's nuclear capabilities or risk having them used against the world by Islamic fundamentalists.

I don't have a lot of faith in a peaceful resolution to what is sure to be an ongoing struggle between Islam and the world. The Apocalypse has already begun, the end of the world will be televised.

SF

highsea
11-20-2004, 03:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> If the US has a right to defend itself, why shouldnt that apply to other countries?
Q <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, let's let everyone have nukes. After all, it's their right, correct? So once Iran goes nuclear, then KSA and Egypt will have to follow, but hey, it's their right. Then Syria, Yemen, Morrocco, Lebanon, etc. Of course, the US will put nukes in Iraq to counter.

Iran has the State policy of the destruction of Israel, which happens to be a US ally. In their most recent military parade in Tehran, they displayed their Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 medium range ballistic missiles, draped with banners that said "Death to Israel" and "We will crush the US beneath our feet". Apparently you think the US should not come to the aid of her allies. I wonder what you would be saying if those banners said "We will crush Holland"?

And who is behind the proliferation in the ME? 4 of Iran's 5 test reactors are Chinese. The reactor at Bushehr is Russian. The French built the Dimona facility in Israel, as well as the Osirak reactor in Iraq (which Israel destroyed). One thing about France, they don't care who they sell to. Pakistan's tech came from Holland and Germany. India's from Russia.

Funny, the US seems to be the only nation that's not proliferating nuclear weapons these days. Will Europe cry foul when KSA buys a few nukes from China? After all, shouldn't they be in the club also?

But it's okay, I'm sure Iran's Ayatollahs can be trusted...Now that Europe has undermined the US wrt Iran, and the IAEA is bought and paid for, let's see how long it takes Iran before their first test.

I'll tell you what Q, you are right about armageddon being on the way, at least for the ME. In 10 years, there won't be a country over there that doesn't have nuclear weapons. I wonder how long the religious fanatics in Iran and KSA will be able to own these weapons before they use them? 2 years? 5 years?