What is Iran going to do?

[Monkeybone]

That is the question.... are we getting fed a line? Or is this a legit threat?

Are they going to shut off/deny oil production?

Do they have a nuke?

Worst case in my mind is that they have a nuke, be it their own or someone else's, and one of those satellites that they sent up to space is armed with it and it will be set off over us. Emp everything and effectively taking us out. So I hope that is just my crazy/paranoid side talking.

[CSM]

That is the question.... are we getting fed a line? Or is this a legit threat?

Are they going to shut off/deny oil production?

Do they have a nuke?

Worst case in my mind is that they have a nuke, be it their own or someone else's, and one of those satellites that they sent up to space is armed with it and it will be set off over us. Emp everything and effectively taking us out. So I hope that is just my crazy/paranoid side talking.

Problem with EMP is it does not discriminate. China, Russia, the US .... they will all be affected but so will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc.

All those countries pissed because they can't watch American Idol or listen to Al Jazeerah. Heck even Al Quaeda wouldn't be able to set off their IEDs

[Monkeybone]

Problem with EMP is it does not discriminate. China, Russia, the US .... they will all be affected but so will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc.

All those countries pissed because they can't watch American Idol or listen to Al Jazeerah. Heck even Al Quaeda wouldn't be able to set off their IEDs

True. Everyone would be screwed. Just with all of the other sats that would get it.

But if that is what they were going to do... you think that this guy would really care that much?

[CSM]

True. Everyone would be screwed. Just with all of the other sats that would get it.

But if that is what they were going to do... you think that this guy would really care that much?

He has to care. Yeah he would cripple some of his opponents but he would cripple his own efforts more.

[glockmail]

If they set off a nuke in Israel the Democrat Party in the US would be destroyed. That's not in Iran's long term interest. They'll wait until January 21, 2013, when a new Republican is in office.

[KarlMarx]

What is Iran going to do?

The answer is obvious! Make Barak O'Bummer look like a world class fool! But then, that's not too hard to do!

[CSM]

What is Iran going to do?

The answer is obvious! Make Barak O'Bummer look like a world class fool! But then, that's not too hard to do!

Iran won't make Obama look like fool....Obama will do that all by himself.

[Gaffer]

They still have protests and rioting going on there. It could be they will get bloodier. There's a good possibility they will test a nuke. Could also be something to do with economics. Effecting the world economy.

Keep in mind that those in power in iran believe that a cataclysmic war is necessary for the return of the 12th imam and they want to make this happen. They have publicly stated that the destruction of iran and even most of the region is perfectly acceptable in achieving their goal.

The problem with the west is that they all think as westerners. Plan for the future build a better life, give more to your kids. Mom, home and apple pie. That's not how the muslims of the middle east think. Their primary concern is not with how they live, but how they die.

[crin63]

That is the question.... are we getting fed a line? Or is this a legit threat?

Are they going to shut off/deny oil production?

Do they have a nuke?

Worst case in my mind is that they have a nuke, be it their own or someone else's, and one of those satellites that they sent up to space is armed with it and it will be set off over us. Emp everything and effectively taking us out. So I hope that is just my crazy/paranoid side talking.

They are such a threat that all the muslim countries surrounding Israel are quietly supporting Israel so they will take out Iran's nukes. Of course its a 2 edged sword. They take out the nukes and everyone else is safe around them, plus then they have another reason to hate Israel.

A friend of mine just got back from being in Israel for 2 weeks. That's what he heard from enough credible sources for me to believe it.

[Gaffer]

They are such a threat that all the muslim countries surrounding Israel are quietly supporting Israel so they will take out Iran's nukes. Of course its a 2 edged sword. They take out the nukes and everyone else is safe around them, plus then they have another reason to hate Israel.

A friend of mine just got back from being in Israel for 2 weeks. That's what he heard from enough credible sources for me to believe it.

That makes sense. And if there is any serious immediate threat from iran Israel will take action. And you can bet they know a lot more about what's going on than anyone else.

[revelarts]

Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked?

[jimnyc]

Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked?

Do they need attack first before being considered a threat?

[Nukeman]

Problem with EMP is it does not discriminate. China, Russia, the US .... they will all be affected but so will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc.

All those countries pissed because they can't watch American Idol or listen to Al Jazeerah. Heck even Al Quaeda wouldn't be able to set off their IEDs
This is true only if it was blown up at the level of other satalites, however if it was dropped to within 100-150 miles above the US it would only take out the US, southern Canada, and Northern Mexico. We would be thrown into the 1800's in the blink of an eye.....


He has to care. Yeah he would cripple some of his opponents but he would cripple his own efforts more.


Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked?It only takes one time my friend!!!! By the way, they (Iran) are always attacking Isreal, by way of funding, supplying, and training Hamas!!! Iran has waged a covert war against Isreal for decades as well as the US since we have been in Iraq.....

[Gaffer]

Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked?

The last country they attacked was iraq. Just last year. They have also attacked US forces in iraq. They have attacked Israel numerous times using hezbo forces in lebanon and hamas forces in gaza. They have 50,000 Qoms forces throughout the middle east and europe actively involved in attacks and planning. They have repeatedly declared their intent to start a major world war. They are the number one supplier of all the terrorist organization throughout the world.

Just crawl under your covers and pretend they don't exist.

[revelarts]

Maybe, maybe not. But I remember not to long ago some folks telling us that Iraq was such a horrible "threat". I think we ought to ask a 2nd 3rd and 4th questions as to why we should believe that Iran wants to attack the U.S.. "Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" I'm having some dejavu here. I mean talk is one thing but if they have never even attacked a small country in the neighborhood to my knowledge. Stirred up trouble by sending folks to other countries oh yeah, but we done that a time or 2 ourselves on a higher level -1953-. (do we really want to compare covert action against other counties, I don't love iran but they are amateurs in that dept compared to US.) Other than a little more payback there, why should we think they want to come all the way over here? Or even the poke a stick at Israel who they know is our ally. What benefit is it to them? I mean lets say that the leaders are a lil crazy with their world view, I still don't think they are !CRAZY!. If so they could have attacked someone long ago with baseball bats and a putty knifes.
the other thing it seems to me is that they have kind of a crappy Military. Defensively countries do what they have to do but www.globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060501-iran-military.htm) websites says they are generally in bad shape and conclude.

"Bottom line
It is hard to envision Iran’s ramshackle forces giving a modern Western force the “burning hell” Iran’s leaders have promised. Only Iranian ingenuity has kept the military from falling into complete disarray, according to Pike. “Their understanding of war is about a century behind America’s understanding of war,” he says. Given that reality, it is not surprising that Iran may want the ultimate defense: a nuclear weapon."

As far as them having a nuclear weapon goes we'll We've got 1000's I doubt them getting one gives them any real advantage. Korea has Nuclear weapons and there leader is just as crazy probably moreso. why aren't we going to take care of them. Maybe it's because they have a nuclear weapon. we said it often here in the U.S. the fact that we have Nukes is a defense. We'll what's good for the goose. I don't like it, but we live in a dangerous world.

[CSM]

Maybe, maybe not. But I remember not to long ago some folks telling us that Iraq was such a horrible "threat". I think we ought to ask a 2nd 3rd and 4th questions as to why we should believe that Iran wants to attack the U.S.. "Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" I'm having some dejavu here. I mean talk is one thing but if they have never even attacked a small country in the neighborhood to my knowledge. Stirred up trouble by sending folks to other countries oh yeah, but we done that a time or 2 ourselves on a higher level -1953-. (do we really want to compare covert action against other counties, I don't love iran but they are amateurs in that dept compared to US.) Other than a little more payback there, why should we think they want to come all the way over here? Or even the poke a stick at Israel who they know is our ally. What benefit is it to them? I mean lets say that the leaders are a lil crazy with their world view, I still don't think they are !CRAZY!. If so they could have attacked someone long ago with baseball bats and a putty knifes.
the other thing it seems to me is that they have kind of a crappy Military. Defensively countries do what they have to do but www.globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060501-iran-military.htm) websites says they are generally in bad shape and conclude.

"Bottom line
It is hard to envision Iran’s ramshackle forces giving a modern Western force the “burning hell” Iran’s leaders have promised. Only Iranian ingenuity has kept the military from falling into complete disarray, according to Pike. “Their understanding of war is about a century behind America’s understanding of war,” he says. Given that reality, it is not surprising that Iran may want the ultimate defense: a nuclear weapon."

As far as them having a nuclear weapon goes we'll We've got 1000's I doubt them getting one gives them any real advantage. Korea has Nuclear weapons and there leader is just as crazy probably moreso. why aren't we going to take care of them. Maybe it's because they have a nuclear weapon. we said it often here in the U.S. the fact that we have Nukes is a defense. We'll what's good for the goose. I don't like it, but we live in a dangerous world.

I don't think Iran will try to invade the US (or anyplace else) with ground forces. By the way, I guess you have dismissed the whole Iran - Iraq wars thingy. Unfortunately, quite a few dead from those little parties.

In any case, I wouldn't put it past them to detonate a small nuke ... just to get the world's attention.

[Kathianne]

I think it most likely they'll attack their own people who have been and are protesting the regime. Another possibility would be an announcement that they've allied with Venezuela or another bad player.

[revelarts]

I don't think Iran will try to invade the US (or anyplace else) with ground forces. By the way, I guess you have dismissed the whole Iran - Iraq wars thingy. Unfortunately, quite a few dead from those little parties.

In any case, I wouldn't put it past them to detonate a small nuke ... just to get the world's attention.

I agree, I don't think Iran will try to invade anyone either. And I don't think they are serious threat to us at all. But Israel could take a big hit if Iran ever got a solid nuke program together and used it, but there would be nuclear hell to pay from the U.S.. So it seems to me it's kind of a stalemate as long the Iranians are only half crazy. which i think is the case. They've been fairly shrewd and cautious in the way they maneuvered despite the loud rhetoric which has pepper their talk. Just reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister. I don't understand the heavy war talk as if they are going to wipe us off the map or even Israel . Israel out classes them on every level alone.

As far as the Iraq -Iran war yeah that was pretty bad Iran was attacked by our former Ally Saddam in Iraq. They fought a basically defensive war.

And I could see them test a Nuke in a couple of years once they got it all together. Sadly I think we will see more nukes in the hands of countries we don't like in the days ahead.

Alling with Venezuela makes sense but Venezuela hasn't attacked anyone either, i don't think. They just don't do what we say, and Some folks in our Gov't really don't like that.

[Monkeybone]

I think it most likely they'll attack their own people who have been and are protesting the regime. Another possibility would be an announcement that they've allied with Venezuela or another bad player.

If all it is just an announcement that they allied with Venezuela... 'then who cares.' should be our response. Have fun in your circle jerk of American hate.

[Gaffer]

Your a real piece of work. Are you a professional excuse maker by any chance? Have you ever studied history especially recent history?

Iraq was a threat. They had WMD's and were trying to develop nukes as well. The WMD's went to syria and lebanon well before the US invaded. iran has WMD's as well and wants nukes. They want as many as they can build and they want to launch them against Israel.

Being a friend of the US is more likely to a country attacked rather than a deterrence from attack.

North Korea is a puppet of China. If they stray too far the chinese will go through them like shit through a goose. NK has no army of agents scattered throughout the world, much as they may like too. They are stuck on a peninsula with no navy. They have only one real goal and that is to take over SK.

I think you really believe the rest of the world thinks like the brainless TV watchers that live here in the states. Sorry to bust your rose colored world bubble, but that's not the case.

Iran is a theocracy. They are having protests and riots now. Not over freedom, but over which sect will rule over the country. The ones in charge now are the more dangerous as they don't care what happens to the country. The ruling clerics have moved their personal wealth (we are talking billions) to banks in Malaysia and Singapore where they will run to if things get out of hand. They want carnage in the world but they also intend to survive it. They are an economic threat as they control so much of the worlds oil. China gets most of it's oil from them, as does India. Russia is making a mint from the money spent for enriched uranium.

In a straight up fight iran doesn't stand a chance against the US and they know it. But they want to control the region and the only way to do that is through military threat. And the only way to face off everyone else is to have weapons like nukes. But if you have them you have to be able to deliver them. So they have a serious rocket program going. Medium rockets, which they have, are capable of reaching Israel and southern europe. But planes and ships can also be used. They have battalions of suicide bombers willing to kill themselves to kill infidels.

Now days distance from your enemy doesn't mean safety.

[glockmail]

Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked? Haven't they threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" on several occasions? I tend to take threats like that at face value.

[revelarts]

Your a real piece of work.
thanks


Are you a professional excuse maker by any chance?
lol.. those are called lawyers and no I'm not one.



Have you ever studied history especially recent history?
I little, I'm sure you have plenty info that i don't and I might have some that you don't. There's to much to know really.



Iraq was a threat. They had WMD's and were trying to develop nukes as well. The WMD's went to syria and lebanon well before the US invaded. This could derailed the tread but a couple of things. Yes, Iraq had chemical and bio weapons long past tense, he got a lot from us. Yes, he was trying to develop nukes but hadn't been doing that for many years prior to the current war. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni said they weren't a threat. LT. COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI (http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069) worked in the Pentagon and saw the classified intell that Iraq wasn't a threat and saw the intell get twisted to make it look worse than it was. Many CIA any analyst said "no threat". Powell a year before the war said Iraq was know threat. C Rice had said the same. Iraq was not threat to the U.S.. but I think we might have to agree to dis-agree.
But let's says that these heavy duty WMD's, we were mainly concerned about, did go to Syria and Lebanon. That would be even worse for Israel. They both have been to war with and attacked Israel before. Syria and Lebanon are well known to harbor, supply and grow terrorist. Why didn't we go there and get those WMD's? If WMD's are really the problem. Syria was part of the outer "axis of evil" at one point now they are.. um .. firen-emy or something, i don't know. But if WMD's are in those countries THAT'S where we need to go IF countries we don't like having WMD's is such a threat, it seems to me. Gaff



iran has WMD's as well and wants nukes. They want as many as they can build and they want to launch them against Israel.
WMD's Maybe ,show me , I honestly don't know.
And want's nukes, probably, if i were a small country at this point in time so would I. We should make it difficult for them to get them but Until they attack us or one of our allies then i say we got no reason to attack them. A lot of people say they want to destroy America and Israel, do we attack everyone of them "before they get us"? We are suppose to have a Department of DEFENSE not offense. Invading countries is offensive in every sense.



Being a friend of the US is more likely to get a country attacked rather than a deterrence from attack.
Get them disliked or hated, absolutely. Attacked maybe.



North Korea is a puppet of China. If they stray too far the Chinese will go through them like shit through a goose. NK has no army of agents scattered throughout the world, much as they may like too. They are stuck on a peninsula with no navy. They have only one real goal and that is to take over SK. Hmm yeah, you make good points here. Not sure how much of Puppet to China but strong influence absolutely.



Iran is a theocracy. They are having protests and riots now. Not over freedom, but over which sect will rule over the country. The ones in charge now are the more dangerous as they don't care what happens to the country. The ruling clerics have moved their personal wealth (we are talking billions) to banks in Malaysia and Singapore where they will run to if things get out of hand. They want carnage in the world but they also intend to survive it. They are an economic threat as they control so much of the worlds oil. China gets most of it's oil from them, as does India. Russia is making a mint from the money spent for enriched uranium.
I didn't know the clerics where packing cash outta Dodge, Interesting. They are an Economic threat but as you mention they like money too. Carnage? maybe a few do, Some want an Islamic region rule by them, as you've mentioned. Others an Islamic world, others money and women probably. I dont know this but with so many problems at home a lot of them would probably just like things to just to settle down in Iran and really aren't to keen on starting any fights with foreign powers.



In a straight up fight iran doesn't stand a chance against the US and they know it.
I agree 100%



But they want to control the region and the only way to do that is through military threat. And the only way to face off everyone else is to have weapons like nukes. But if you have them you have to be able to deliver them. So they have a serious rocket program going. Medium rockets, which they have, are capable of reaching Israel and southern Europe. But planes and ships can also be used.
I agree



They have battalions of suicide bombers willing to kill themselves to kill infidels.
You loss me here.



Now days distance from your enemy doesn't mean safety.
I agree but just because your enemy has weapons doesn't mean he's going to use them. Until he does we got no fight.

I see this kinda like the 2nd amendment issue just on a much bigger and uncomfortable scale. We got guns they got guns, If they don't like you, you keep yours eye open but if your a "good guy" you don't try to shot them 1st just because you saw them go into the bazooka store and come out with a part or 2 and bazooka layaway receipt. Especially if all they've done is talk and instigate the neighbors against you.

[Kathianne]

Haven't they threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" on several occasions? I tend to take threats like that at face value.

I think that is one of their ultimate goals, just don't think they are there yet.

[Gaffer]

This could derailed the tread but a couple of things. Yes, Iraq had chemical and bio weapons long past tense, he got a lot from us. Yes, he was trying to develop nukes but hadn't been doing that for many years prior to the current
war. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni said they weren't a threat. LT. COL. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI worked in the Pentagon and saw the classified intell that Iraq wasn't a threat and saw the intell get twisted to make it look worse than it was. Many CIA any analyst said "no threat". Powell a year before the war said Iraq was know threat. C Rice had said the same. Iraq was not threat to the U.S.. but I think we might have to agree to dis-agree.
But let's says that these heavy duty WMD's, we were mainly concerned about, did go to Syria and Lebanon. That would be even worse for Israel. They both have been to war with and attacked Israel before. Syria and Lebanon are well known to harbor, supply and grow terrorist. Why didn't we go there and get those WMD's? If WMD's are really the problem. Syria was part of the outer "axis of evil" at one point now they are.. um .. firen-emy or something, i don't know. But if WMD's are in those countries THAT'S where we need to go IF countries we don't like having WMD's is such a threat, it seems to me. Gaff

So all these people just lied when asked about WMD's? everything reported by the CIA and every other countries intelligence agencies said that saddam had the weapons. He had also kicked the inspectors out and ignored all the un directives. He refused to follow the terms of the cease fire established after being kicked out of Kuwait. He repeatedly over 12 years fired on US and British planes enforcing the no fly zones. Any of which could have been considered an act of war. The invasion of iraq was simply Gulf War part 2.

He DIDN'T get his WMD's from the US. He got them from the russians and the french. You can bet anything that could have been traced back to either the russians or the french went back to those respective countries, through syria. Untraceable stuff would have been moved into lebanon or kept by the syrians. Some of it may have ended up in that nuke plant the Israeli's bombed a few years ago.


I didn't know the clerics where packing cash outta Dodge, Interesting. They are an Economic threat but as you mention they like money too. Carnage? maybe a few do, Some want an Islamic region rule by them, as you've mentioned. Others an Islamic world, others money and women probably. I dont know this but with so many problems at home a lot of them would probably just like things to just to settle down in Iran and really aren't to keen on starting any fights with foreign powers.

Yes, the clerics are moving their billions into Asian banks where they can't be frozen by the western countries. Lots of in fighting going on there right now as the different sects jockey for power.

The few that want carnage are the ones currently in power. That's what makes them so dangerous.

The suicide bombers can be used in transport of nukes by plane or ship. Planes with a crew of these nut jobs can fly to any where and set the bomb off over most any city. A ship manned with a suicide crew can sail to any port or even just a coastal city and set off the bomb. Nukes are like horseshoes and hand grenades, you just have to be close. They can have all the guns and armor and planes and boats they want. But when it comes to nukes that's a different story. The anti has been raised and it's time to call them on it.

[revelarts]

So all these people just lied when asked about WMD's? everything reported by the CIA and every other countries intelligence agencies said that saddam had the weapons. He had also kicked the inspectors out and ignored all the un directives. He refused to follow the terms of the cease fire established after being kicked out of Kuwait. He repeatedly over 12 years fired on US and British planes enforcing the no fly zones. Any of which could have been considered an act of war. The invasion of iraq was simply Gulf War part 2.
Yep they lied. Personally i believe Colan Powell was lied too and he just repeated lies he thought were true. But Rumsfiled and Cheney just flat out lied. Bush I'm not so sure what he knew.


We didn't go to war because of Inspectors, or no fly zones, or U.N. Directives. Israel doesn't obey all the U.N. stuff and we shouldn't either if they come up with something against our best interest. We went to war because they told us that Saddam Had WMDS and Nukes that could kill us all in our sleep. Sadly yes they lied. But what's new. I don't care anymore if it's a conservative or a liberal politician. If they lied they lied, it's wrong I don't like it and God don't like it either. I'm not going to cover over there stink just because i voted for them. Especially when so many people have died and we've loss so much money.




He DIDN'T get his WMD's from the US. He got them from the russians and the french. You can bet anything that could have been traced back to either the russians or the french went back to those respective countries, through syria. Untraceable stuff would have been moved into lebanon or kept by the syrians. Some of it may have ended up in that nuke plant the Israeli's bombed a few years ago.


CBS News - Washington post
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
"...a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague....
...Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
... "

Your right he didn't get all of his weapons from the U.S. or U.S. Companies but he did get plenty. I can't put my fingers on it, but Major Doug Rokke, the man in charge of cleaning up all the Chemical and Bio weapons in Iraq after Gulf WarI, says that he and his crew saw loads of chem and bio weapons with U.S.A. and English markings, stamped on it. And they got a lot of it but didn't get it all before they left.

[Gaffer]

R I haven't given cbs any credibility since 1968. I stopped watching all the news shows in 1980 and only started watching news again when FOX came on the scene. Even they are disappointing a lot of times. Misinformation and propaganda are all the news media produce any more.

Back to iran. There's a lot going on there the media is not covering. Tons of twitter messages and cell phone video's have come out of there for the last 8 months and the media is ignoring it. Their latest threat could be against their own people.

[glockmail]

I think that is one of their ultimate goals, just don't think they are there yet. Isn't it better to stop them before they are?

[Gaffer]

isn't it better to stop them before they are?

yes

[Kathianne]

Isn't it better to stop them before they are?

You won't get disagreement from me, but I'm not part of this administration. They are for talking and getting their teeth kicked in, no?

[Kathianne]

R I haven't given cbs any credibility since 1968. I stopped watching all the news shows in 1980 and only started watching news again when FOX came on the scene. Even they are disappointing a lot of times. Misinformation and propaganda are all the news media produce any more.

Back to iran. There's a lot going on there the media is not covering. Tons of twitter messages and cell phone video's have come out of there for the last 8 months and the media is ignoring it. Their latest threat could be against their own people.

That's what I said. Why is everyone ganging up on me? LOL!

[glockmail]

You won't get disagreement from me, but I'm not part of this administration. They are for talking and getting their teeth kicked in, no? If it was only their teeth I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Kathianne]

If it was only their teeth I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So what do you propose 'we the people' do? The administration is in control.

[Gaffer]

That's what I said. Why is everyone ganging up on me? LOL!

I certainly won't gang up on you. Your one of the few that has actually followed what's going on over there. You and I are probably more informed on iran than the administration.

[glockmail]

So what do you propose 'we the people' do? The administration is in control. Vote the bums out.

[Kathianne]

Vote the bums out.

Working on it. Fall may be too late though.

[Kathianne]

I think it most likely they'll attack their own people who have been and are protesting the regime. Another possibility would be an announcement that they've allied with Venezuela or another bad player.

Hmmm...

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/02/10/another-showdown-at-the-mullahs-corral/


Another Showdown at the Mullahs’ Corral
Posted By Michael Ledeen On February 10, 2010 @ 1:33 pm In Uncategorized | 11 Comments

I believe that the Iranian regime has assembled the largest armed force in history to protect it from the Iranian people’s righteous indignation on Thursday the 11th. There will be hundreds of thousands of police, revolutionary guards, Basij, and people bused in from the countryside to Tehran.

Additionally, the regime is shutting down communications, especially in Tehran. Iranian Tweeters say internet is largely gone, and cell phones are not working. None of this is new, and in the past the dissidents have managed to beat the censors [1]; it will be interesting to see if the mullahs’ trusted advisers (mostly Chinese) are more effective this time. They certainly have failed in China, and the Iranian authorities have demonstrated an almost supernatural ability to screw up their own plans.

A case in point: the political center of the city is Azadi Square, and workers have been stringing loudspeakers (and probably cameras) all over the square and the approach routes, in order to drown out the chants of the demonstrators. So today they tested the system by broadcasting the national anthem. Except it was the shah’s anthem, not the Islamic Republic’s.

Was it sabotage, or that incredible knack of ruining even a simple dry run? Who knows? Whatever it was, it reinforces the regime’s popular image of a bunch of thugs who can only kill, maim and torture, but not build anything of value.

The regime is very nervous, as well it should be. Lots more at site, including links.

[glockmail]

Working on it. Fall may be too late though.Its not in Iran's best interest to drop a nuke during Obama's term; they have the same agenda, which is to weaken or destroy America.

[Gaffer]

Hmmm...

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/02/10/another-showdown-at-the-mullahs-corral/

Lots more at site, including links.

Thanks interesting read.

[revelarts]

umm, All right Only Because this is the debate forum I'll touch this one more time.

R I haven't given cbs any credibility since 1968. I stopped watching all the news shows in 1980 and only started watching news again when FOX came on the scene. Even they are disappointing a lot of times. Misinformation and propaganda are all the news media produce any more.



OK dude, FoX is to Liberal for ya, wow. What do you read or listen to?
I doubt this will make a difference you, you already "KNOW" what happened but here are Direct Congressional reports and some of the previously classified docs for those who might, when they get new info, adjust their views a bit even if it's uncomfortable.


The Riegle Report
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War
http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000894
..."In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."....

Original Confidential Gov't doc Approving "dual use" Items for sale to IRAQ
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq57.pdf

U.S. Gov Confidential List of Approved licenses for companies to sell to items IRAQ.
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/Approved_Licenses_to_Iraq.pdf

[jimnyc]

Yep they lied. Personally i believe Colan Powell was lied too and he just repeated lies he thought were true. But Rumsfiled and Cheney just flat out lied. Bush I'm not so sure what he knew.


The Riegle Report
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994

First off, threats by Saddam himself and 12 years of failed and outright ignored resolutions was enough justification to go into Iraq. Secondly, the missing anthrax, botulism and other deadly chemicals. They were accounted for and tagged in 1998 by the UN inspectors, then the inspectors were kicked out. When they were allowed to return in 2001 those very tagged chemicals were missing. The inspectors demanded of Iraq to account for these chemicals and supply proof. They never did so, and to this day those chemicals that were once accounted for remain missing. These chemicals were enough to ultimately be used, and if used, were enough to do MAJOR damage if used as weapons. The UN resolutions demanded they account for these things and Iraq not only didn't come forth but outright denied to comply.

These are not lies, these are facts. Here is a report on their chemical weapons. I don't have time right now to gather more links for you, but will be happy to do so later. Also, you can do a search on my name and these keywords I just mentioned and prior posts of mine on this board will detail it in length.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9567.pdf

[revelarts]

Jim I should have qualified my statement, they told a lot of Lies, not everything that said was said was a lie. However as sited in the previous post. The U.S. had allowed the sale and U.S. companies sold Saddam the stuff. As well as Russians, French, Germans and other western nations. We knew who he was and what he was about then. We didn't go to 1st war over WMDs and In the 1st war we crippled those abilities. He killed his own people with them and it was OK as long as he killed Iranians to. We beat Saddam down in days, with tons of fresh Chem and Bio weapons in GW1. He was even less of a threat after sanctions, inspections, etc... He was not stronger he was much Weaker. Was he a good guy? no. Was he a real or a serious threat to the U.S.? no. Look I voted for All the Bush's And wanted to believe them but the more I looked at the details, nope, sorry I don't buy it. Other countries were more threatening AND we had the deal in Afghanistan supposedly looking for BinLaden and Al Quida but that another story.


On Iran, I'm curious, you guy thinks it's right to attack iran . Because it looks like it might attack it's on people? And it might get a nuke. And they might attack somebody?
I just don't get that. When did the U.S. become a country where it is right for us to up and attack folks for looking dangerous, being harsh to it's citizens. The Christian slaves in Sudan could use some help about now.
For those of us that are Christians can you give me a verse that would justify attacking another nation that has not done anything to us or anyone else yet.

I'm no pacifist, but I think I could find a bit of scriptural support for it, "Do unto other as you have them do unto you". "Turn the other cheek..." etc..
But i always think of the verses "A strong man armed keeps his house" as a good one for defense. And the example of Abraham getting his family back from the 5 kings. And David getting his wife back after an attack. the Jews did take over Israel of course , by direct command from God. But once it's borders where more or less established they basically defended them. They didn't have troops in Lebanon or Babylon to make sure the pagans acted right. They were purely defensive. Christians, Help a most of the time church goer out here.

Why should we attack Iran? Why would Jesus do it? Why would Moses do it even?

[Monkeybone]

This is it. They are a Nuclear State. Already kinda knew that.... this just means that they are one step closer to that bomb that they are most definitely not making...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585461,00.html


TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.

[PostmodernProphet]

If they set off a nuke in Israel the Democrat Party in the US would be destroyed. That's not in Iran's long term interest. They'll wait until January 21, 2013, when a new Republican is in office.

interesting thought....if Israel bombs Iran while Obama is president, what impact does that have on the voting habits of the pacifist faction of the Democratic Party?......

[PostmodernProphet]

Could someone remind me what's the last country Iran has attacked?

so can you say with all confidence that the world has nothing to fear from an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon?.......

and, if you say yes, since your confidence would obviously be a misguided delusion, why should the rest of us share it with you?.......

[Gaffer]

Jim I should have qualified my statement, they told a lot of Lies, not everything that said was said was a lie. However as sited in the previous post. The U.S. had allowed the sale and U.S. companies sold Saddam the stuff. As well as Russians, French, Germans and other western nations. We knew who he was and what he was about then. We didn't go to 1st war over WMDs and In the 1st war we crippled those abilities. He killed his own people with them and it was OK as long as he killed Iranians to. We beat Saddam down in days, with tons of fresh Chem and Bio weapons in GW1. He was even less of a threat after sanctions, inspections, etc... He was not stronger he was much Weaker. Was he a good guy? no. Was he a real or a serious threat to the U.S.? no. Look I voted for All the Bush's And wanted to believe them but the more I looked at the details, nope, sorry I don't buy it. Other countries were more threatening AND we had the deal in Afghanistan supposedly looking for BinLaden and Al Quida but that another story.


On Iran, I'm curious, you guy thinks it's right to attack iran . Because it looks like it might attack it's on people? And it might get a nuke. And they might attack somebody?
I just don't get that. When did the U.S. become a country where it is right for us to up and attack folks for looking dangerous, being harsh to it's citizens. The Christian slaves in Sudan could use some help about now.
For those of us that are Christians can you give me a verse that would justify attacking another nation that has not done anything to us or anyone else yet.

I'm no pacifist, but I think I could find a bit of scriptural support for it, "Do unto other as you have them do unto you". "Turn the other cheek..." etc..
But i always think of the verses "A strong man armed keeps his house" as a good one for defense. And the example of Abraham getting his family back from the 5 kings. And David getting his wife back after an attack. the Jews did take over Israel of course , by direct command from God. But once it's borders where more or less established they basically defended them. They didn't have troops in Lebanon or Babylon to make sure the pagans acted right. They were purely defensive. Christians, Help a most of the time church goer out here.

Why should we attack Iran? Why would Jesus do it? Why would Moses do it even?

There's another saying "The best defense is a good offense." I shouldn't have to turn the other cheek when I know the slap is coming and I can prevent it.

There is nothing peaceful about any of irans programs so why pretend there is and allow them to continue. Would you let a rabid dog run around your neighbor just because he hasn't bitten anyone? Will you only take actions if he does?

[jimnyc]

Jim I should have qualified my statement, they told a lot of Lies, not everything that said was said was a lie. However as sited in the previous post. The U.S. had allowed the sale and U.S. companies sold Saddam the stuff. As well as Russians, French, Germans and other western nations. We knew who he was and what he was about then. We didn't go to 1st war over WMDs and In the 1st war we crippled those abilities. He killed his own people with them and it was OK as long as he killed Iranians to. We beat Saddam down in days, with tons of fresh Chem and Bio weapons in GW1. He was even less of a threat after sanctions, inspections, etc... He was not stronger he was much Weaker. Was he a good guy? no. Was he a real or a serious threat to the U.S.? no. Look I voted for All the Bush's And wanted to believe them but the more I looked at the details, nope, sorry I don't buy it. Other countries were more threatening AND we had the deal in Afghanistan supposedly looking for BinLaden and Al Quida but that another story.

None of that changes the fact that Saddam threatened to us WMD's against our soldiers, refused to cooperate with 12 years of resolutions, and failed to account for TONS of chemical wepaons.


On Iran, I'm curious, you guy thinks it's right to attack iran . Because it looks like it might attack it's on people? And it might get a nuke. And they might attack somebody?

I'm not saying attack today, but...

What if someone outright told you that they were going to blow up your car or house with your entire family in it. Would you be proactive in preventing this? Instead of the UN, you would likely go to the police. Suppose the police were proactive in monitoring this person but could do little at the time, and the threats continued and they even publicized their ability to do what they claimed and even showed off their capabilities.

Do you just sit back and wait for your family to be blown up, or is some sort of proactive action taken to protect you, your family and your neighbors?

[jimnyc]

Let me also add that there is a big difference between my small analogy and Iran. Instead of threatening just one individual, they have threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Instead of a weapon to just blow up your car or home, they are talking of a weapon that would be capable of destroying an entire country/state. Instead of those being proactive being the police, it's an international community, and they are ignoring them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Let's expand that analogy.....your neighbor has a history of hostile activity.....he has announced his intent to build a bomb to use in blowing up your house....despite your complaints to the police all they have done is tell him they wish he wouldn't build a bomb......he is buying plastic explosive and storing it in a shed behind his house......he has bragged that he knows how to use an alarm clock to trigger it......you see him in his backyard holding an alarm clock.....he is waving it and laughing at you......the police's response is to tell you that they might tell him that they might ask him ought not to wave the alarm clock and that if he doesn't settle down they might not let him buy alarm clocks any more........

now, would you break into his shed and take away the plastic explosive?......

[revelarts]

Let's expand that analogy.....your neighbor has a history of hostile activity.....he has announced his intent to build a bomb to use in blowing up your house....despite your complaints to the police all they have done is tell him they wish he wouldn't build a bomb......he is buying plastic explosive and storing it in a shed behind his house......he has bragged that he knows how to use an alarm clock to trigger it......you see him in his backyard holding an alarm clock.....he is waving it and laughing at you......the police's response is to tell you that they might tell him that they might ask him ought not to wave the alarm clock and that if he doesn't settle down they might not let him buy alarm clocks any more........

now, would you break into his shed and take away the plastic explosive?......

History of Hostile activity is relative, the guy still hasn't attack anyone himself. He just talks big and sells guns to neighborhood thugs. But we've sold guns to some of the the same neighbors. We come from way across town And instead of a shed we've got a wal-mart sized warehouse of explosives and walk around his neighborhood dropping bombs on the his neighbor to the left because we said he was a "threat". (we used to be friends) and we have taken over the house on the guy's right because he did, past tense, have i guy staying in his house that killed some of our family (he use to be a friend of of our's too) but that bad guy left a the house a long time ago and we are still busting up the original families there a lil bit to help them out. sadly We killed a few of the kids of both families by accident and we are doing some patch up work. OH and our good friend the Jacobs that lives behind him has got a 5 story garage filled with weapons and a secret basement with stuff he won't tell anyone in the neighborhood about.


BUT I've never said Iran was not a problem. I can't guarantee that they won't attack anyone. But no one here can guarantee that they will attack anyone either. We held off the soviets for decades. Iran is a different problem but not a bigger one.

[PostmodernProphet]

Iran is a different problem but not a bigger one.

Iran is a different problem because Russia actually cared if someone launched a missile in retaliation.......

[jimnyc]

BUT I've never said Iran was not a problem. I can't guarantee that they won't attack anyone. But no one here can guarantee that they will attack anyone either. We held off the soviets for decades. Iran is a different problem but not a bigger one.

And I suppose you don't consider their announcements about enriching uranium coupled with their threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to be much of a concern. So do you think we should wait for them to do something along the lines of their threat before any action is taken? It's obvious thus far, just like Iraq, that UN resolutions mean jack shit to them.

[revelarts]

you guys keep talking about Iran "wants Israel 'wiped off the map' " but I think it's be shown that that is a slight mistranslation. It doesn't quite mean obliterate, but that he wants the "regime occupying Jerusalem" removed, as the Shah's regime was removed from Iran.
It was a quote from the Aiatola Khomeini. it's not quite the heated -We want genocide on Israel- cry some would make it out to be. BUT is that something that he says in every speech or even in more than 1 or 2 speeches because it's been mentioned here a lot, as if it's printed Iranian National policy. A lot of people in the U.S. and in Europe would like Israel to go way. And I just don't see the MAD SUICIDAL FERVOR that you guys want me to see. I see a seriously Anti Israeli state with some very militant talk and a few mildly militant leaders but a not so militant populace that the leaders still have to answer to somewhat. The Iranian people are just barely a generation away from an ugly war and as fervently as they may hate Israel i don't think they really want a war with them either.

Shimon Peres said in an interview with Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map,"

I think they do remember. People keep saying they don't care, OK, Show me some evidence, not words from 1 2005 speech, of this fanatical and TOTALLY unhinged Iranian warfare thats coming down the pike. show me, suicide groups or whatever actually killing Jews anywhere. Seems the Palestinians have killed more Jews than the Iranians to me. I could be wrong though. look I just haven't seen it demonstrated anywhere yet. Until then. Innocent until proven guilty. Great Moral countries do it that way right?

As far as what to do. I'm not so sure. I've got no easy answers. Disrupting their progress in some clandestine ways inside the country seems to be one way to go. But bombing the country is an act of war and they've done nothing to warrant that at this point IMO. The people of Iran sure haven't.

[revelarts]

-

[PostmodernProphet]

you guys keep talking about Iran "wants Israel 'wiped off the map' " but I think it's be shown that that is a slight mistranslation.

why?.....

[revelarts]

OK Here's where a gov't goes without restrictions, maybe you guys saw this already.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/11/us-says-it-has-right-to-kill-american-terror-suspects-abroad-without-trial/


"
US Says It Has Right To Kill American Terror Suspects Abroad Without Trial

February 11, 2010 by Sherwood Ross ·

Aping the assassination tactics of Josef Stalin, the U.S. has created an illegal “hit list” of Americans abroad marked for murder.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a House Intelligence Committee hearing February 3rd the U.S. may, with executive approval, target and kill American terrorist suspects, Inter Press News Service of Rome reported. ”We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said.

Blair’s statement recalls the policies of Soviet Russia’s secret police, who often murdered those who fled Stalin’s tyranny. Red Army founder Leon Trotsky, for example, was tracked to Mexico by a Soviet agent who killed him with an ice pick.

Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, ”It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified ‘threat.’”

Blair’s remarks followed a Washington Post article reporting President Barack Obama had embraced President George W. Bush’s policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.

The Post reported: “After the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for example, has to pose ‘a continuing and imminent threat’ to U.S. persons and interests....”"

"a continuing and imminent threat" that's a REAL CLEAR definition. I know EXACTLY what that means ... it means Americans that don't conform to U.N resolutions right? Or Says bad things about the president and owns guns. Or it could mean something very reasonable but we'll never know, dead men tell no tales do they. Do you guys think that this power won't (hasn't been) be abused? And Could someone show me this power in the Constitution.

We can't talk about small representative fed gov't on one hand and a gov't that has power to "protect us" with secret courts, secret prisons, no trials, and assassinations of citizens on the other. The gov't has to be small and accountable or you end up with tyranny. the founders knew it. We want to trust and CIA, DIA, the gov't's standing army and our leaders. The founders knew better. The laws are in place now everything that can been done to a "terrorist" can now be legally done to a U.S. Citizen based on the Patriot act, the Military commissions act and a few executive orders. All they have do is pronounce that your are "threat" and you magically transform from a U.S. citizen with rights to "enemy combatant". This is why i say we should "Do unto others as we have them do unto us". Because it will/has come back on us, to the soldiers in the field 1st, and then to the citizens.

[revelarts]

I'm more and more bothered by the war on terror it's showing us to be monsters. A whats next a War on kung-fu. I don't how to fix it but a police State is a hairs breath away if we don't find a way to stop it.

[Kathianne]

I'm more and more bothered by the war on terror it's showing us to be monsters. A whats next a War on kung-fu. I don't how to fix it but a police State is a hairs breath away if we don't find a way to stop it.

You don't see a threat to US or US interests?

[revelarts]

Not enough to justify the loss of rights, the abrogations of the constitution, torture and assassination of U.S. citizens. i think we've cross a line to the point where I'm more concerned about what our gov't can do to us than by what a hand full of unorganized terrorist can do.

Glen Beck and Judge Napolatano brought the MIAC report (http://www.mynetbox.info/other/miac-report.jpg) to light that was sent around to all of the State trooper in the Country and it describes Ron Paul, Conventionalist, Militias, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (who I voted for last time around) as Terrorist. I was focused on the terrorist over there but my own gov't has turned the word terrorist into anyone it doesn't like.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3943553/profiling-libertarians

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7CvLvwFjMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7CvLvwFjMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gAnjGobGXQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-gAnjGobGXQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[PostmodernProphet]

so if, for example, we knew Bin Laden was in a building in Pakistan, surrounded by a couple of thousand Al Quida, you would be opposed to dropping a bomb on the building?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

it describes Ron Paul, Conventionalist, Militias, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (who I voted for last time around) as Terrorist.

if you are talking about what you linked, that isn't true....I just read it.....

[revelarts]

if you are talking about what you linked, that isn't true....I just read it.....

I didn't link to the whole thing
here's the report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

[revelarts]

" Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for supporters of former militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.

Anti-Government Propaganda: Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement and "The New World Order" in a derogatory manor (sic). Additionally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, material may be displayed by militia members.
"

[Kathianne]

Ron Paul's voting record doesn't bother me terribly. However his supporters in presidential race did. His taking money from newletters that he claimed not to have read, did. Earmarks too.

I'm not for those who wish to propagate hate in the US. Too many of the folks that belong to those groups do.

[PostmodernProphet]

okay, I read your link...
your comment...

and it describes Ron Paul, Conventionalist, Militias, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (who I voted for last time around) as Terrorist.

was an outright lie....explain yourself....

[revelarts]

outright lie, mm I may have gone overboard a little bit. However That is what it implies of they're supporters ME. I got a bit carried away, i should have qualified it, I pulled Paul, Barr etc in by way of association. No one else would ever make that mistake I'm sure. They are not terrorist just some of the people who support them and have anti- U.N., anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration bumper stickers are possible militia terrorist.

you got me on that one.

So all that's O.K. with you then?
terrorist = AlQuida = "Militia Members" (3rd party supporters with guns, anti-U.N., anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration bumper stickers)

"If your not with the gov't your against it"?

[Kathianne]

outright lie, mm I may have gone overboard a little bit. However That is what it implies of they're supporters ME. I got a bit carried away, i should have qualified it, I pulled Paul, Barr etc in by way of association. No one else would ever make that mistake I'm sure. They are not terrorist just some of the people who support them and have anti- U.N., anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration bumper stickers are possible militia terrorist.

you got me on that one.

So all that's O.K. with you then?
terrorist = AlQuida = "Militia Members" (3rd party supporters with guns, anti-U.N., anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration bumper stickers)

"If your not with the gov't your against it"?

No, they are not on the level of al Quaeda, why is that mitigating? If it was just bumper stickers, that would be one thing. Nope, these are haters on a level that bodes only ill for our country. A different threat than the present administration or al Quaeda, but a real threat nonetheless.

[PostmodernProphet]

However That is what it implies of they're supporters ME.

got carried away again....unless you're a militia member it says nothing about you at all.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No, they are not on the level of al Quaeda,

well....there was this guy in Oklahoma City....but we hung him as I recall.....

[Kathianne]

well....there was this guy in Oklahoma City....but we hung him as I recall.....

Yep, but he was a 'militia type.' I fear the far right as much as the far left.

[revelarts]

I'm not saying that some of the hard core turner diary types shouldn't be watched, but we've got fa more to fear from a car accident than a coup by the minority of these meth crazed nazi types. There are some pen stripped suited Klansman that are allied with them to be sure but there are a of lot just plan decent folks that consider themselves militia and they get a bad rap. So nice christian ladies are afraid of them. Dang Liberal media.


I'm not sure what else to say...
but A poem comes mind, may be a little overkill here but....

Pastor Martin Niemöller
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[revelarts]

and speaking of OKC bombing
I've heard some interesting things about it. Too much to tell but.

Wife of the 1st policeman on the scene very disturbing story. (http://www.apfn.net/audio/6021016371001410-YEAKEY-clip.MP3)

[PostmodernProphet]

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.[/I]

when they came for me, I told them about you....we had a good laugh and they left......are they there yet?.....

[revelarts]

I would reply to that but someones at the door...

[jimnyc]

Forgive me if this has been answered already as I couldn't find it in a quick review of the thread...

With Iran's outright refusal to curb their nuclear program against resolutions from the UN, should the world wait for them to do something horrific with their program before taking any action? And if so, what's the point of the UN even making said resolutions?

[PostmodernProphet]

And if so, what's the point of the UN even making said resolutions?

the answer should be obvious.....where else can liberals stand while posing if they don't have the UN pedestal .......

[revelarts]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSEO16955920090401


North Korea launch will violate U.N. resolutions: officials
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea and Japan warned North Korea on Wednesday it would still violate U.N. resolutions if it tried to put a satellite into space, just days ahead of a planned rocket launch both see as a disguised missile test....

...North Korea was hit with U.N. sanctions barring it from ballistic missile tests and halting its trade in weapons of mass destruction after it tried unsuccessfully to test the Taepodong-2 in July 2006 and conducted a nuclear test a few months later.

Several missile-interceptor ships with sophisticated radar from Japan, the United States and South Korea are expected to be in waters along the rocket's flight path but there are no plans to intercept it unless it threatens their territories.

DO NOT MEDDLE

North Korea, which said any attempt to shoot down the rocket would be an act of war, issued a new threat on Wednesday.

"(Our army) will relentlessly shoot down U.S. reconnaissance aircraft if they intrude into our territory and meddle with our peaceful satellite launch preparation," it said in a state radio broadcast monitored in Seoul.

U.S. spy planes regularly fly in the South's airspace near the border to keep an eye on the North's troop movements.

The International Crisis Group think tank said in a report that if the outside world overreacted, it could harm talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear program and rattle security in North Asia, which accounts for one sixth of the global economy.

"In the worst case, it could risk a war with potentially devastating damage to South Korea, Japan and the world economy," the report said.

Analysts said they expect China, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council and the closest thing Pyongyang can claim as a major ally, to block any new sanctions or allow for the tighter enforcement of existing ones....

China has tended to side with iran in the U.N. as well.

Resolutions don't me much in the U.N. just as don't in the U.S. congress. Sanctions are another thing. But Sanctions would only make the Iran situation worse IMO.

[revelarts]

this is a an interview from C-span, interesting cool eyed overview.

"Brian Michael Jenkins talked about his book Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? (Prometheus Books; September 23, 2008). He discussed the likelihood of terrorists developing or acquiring nuclear weapons and using them. The guest interviewer was P.J. Crowley, senior fellow and director of Homeland Security at the Center for American Progress. ..."

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/198931

[Gaffer]

this is a an interview from C-span, interesting cool eyed overview.

"Brian Michael Jenkins talked about his book Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? (Prometheus Books; September 23, 2008). He discussed the likelihood of terrorists developing or acquiring nuclear weapons and using them. The guest interviewer was P.J. Crowley, senior fellow and director of Homeland Security at the Center for American Progress. ..."

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/198931

They have no means to develop nukes. However, acquiring them won't be too difficult once iran is producing them.

[revelarts]

That's one of the points the writer touches on in the interview. He makes the case that It's not in the best interest of any small nation to give nukes to a terrorist group for several reasons, 2 of them are: Iran would have zero control over what a terrorist group did with a nuke. And I'll Add.. but they could very likely get the blame. Advantage to Iran - Zero. The other is that there are a lot of double and tripled agents and stings within many terrorist groups weapons trading, so there's little guarantee that your giving the nukes to someone who's going to work Iran's best interest, (or their enemy's worse) in even in the best case scenario. Those are 2 that he mentioned I hadn't thought of.

[Gaffer]

That's one of the points the writer touches on in the interview. He makes the case that It's not in the best interest of any small nation to give nukes to a terrorist group for several reasons, 2 of them are: Iran would have zero control over what a terrorist group did with a nuke. And I'll Add.. but they could very likely get the blame. Advantage to Iran - Zero. The other is that there are a lot of double and tripled agents and stings within many terrorist groups weapons trading, so there's little guarantee that your giving the nukes to someone who's going to work Iran's best interest, (or their enemy's worse) in even in the best case scenario. Those are 2 that he mentioned I hadn't thought of.

That's why they have their own trained people to handle the job. And they are not worried about retaliation. They expect it. According to their belief a cataclysmic war will bring back the 12th imam. That is the goal.

[revelarts]

I've heard about that 12th imam thing, is that idea - War, apocalypse, return of12th imam. Is that something that's clearly stated in the Koran or is that a theological interpretation of a certain groups of Muslims . Similar to the "Rapture" for Christians or is it a Universal Muslim Idea? I've talked to some Left atheist who have told me that I want to INCITE a war in the middle east to encourage Jesus's Return. They tell me that's what I believe or at least they say that's what TV preachers Promote. And that they are anti Semitic because they want Jews to become Christians. Even though they are to Pro-Israel and anti Palestinian. -crazy-

I really don't know that much about the various Muslim positions but i don't want to fall into the same mistake the left makes with Christians so I'm a bit slow making those connections especially in a blanket way. the Koran definitely says things about killing the infidels but it also says some things about living in peace with the other people of the book Christians and Jews. I don't know enough yet. I still make mistakes with Shia and Sunni. Point me to good source info on that Gaffer, i should know more.