No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Read Countdown to Crisis.

Iran is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iran was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Iraq right now.
 

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Read Countdown to Crisis.

Iran is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iran was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Iraq right now.

if you recommend that book, i recommend "By Way Of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. Profits of war is good, but forgot the author.... ;)
Cheers....
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,459
39,916
136
Old news about the enriched uranium they found.

The concern however was that Iran had not disclosed the existence (and scale) of the Natanz facility to the IAEA until it was leaked out.

Strange to go through the expense of building an enrichment program to make reactor fuel for reactors you don't have.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea

Agreed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

I think this is out best option right now. Hope the people of Iran overthrow their leaders and create a democracy.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea


We love the liberals in Iran, since they are opposed to the government's aggressive right-wing policies. We just hate liberals here at home... for the same reason!
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea

I still think we should have gone to Iran before iraq for the reasons you listed. Not to invade and reek havoc on the country but to empower the people and stimulate revolt and have our military there for support or at least available.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,578
73
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea


We love the liberals in Iran, since they are opposed to the government's aggressive right-wing policies. We just hate liberals here at home... for the same reason!
its the extremes dude. Iranian liberals would call Cheney a left wing nut.

 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
The reason the US is on bad terms with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear programs. The US went into Iraq to keep oil bought and sold in dollars to make up for it's $2 billion/day trade deficit. When other countries buy and sell oil, they do so in dollars, and reinvest these in the US economy, counterbalancing the huge trade deficit between the US and the world (specifically Asia).

Because Iran was strong-armed out of the western oil market, it wants to open up it's own oil commodities market accepting any currency, specifically from Asia, which would go against the US's desperate need for control over oil currency (not oil dependency).

Try telling American and Iraqi mothers their sons and daughters died for currency and trade deficits and it wouldn't fly, hence the lies and bloodshed.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea

Agreed.


Seconded.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Read Countdown to Crisis.

Iran is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iran was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Iraq right now.

DooD

Bush is funding more terrorism in Iraq than anyone. He lied to justify an unprovoked attack that is ultimately responsible for all of the bloodshed that occurs in Iraq. Now the Fool is trying to incite you geniuses into another unprovoked attack against Iran.

How many times can you fall for the same lies?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: raildogg
Read Countdown to Crisis.

Iran is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iran was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Iraq right now.

DooD

Bush is funding more terrorism in Iraq than anyone. He lied to justify an unprovoked attack that is ultimately responsible for all of the bloodshed that occurs in Iraq. Now the Fool is trying to incite you geniuses into another unprovoked attack against Iran.

How many times can you fall for the same lies?


Bush has neither the time, nor support, nor the funding, for an invasion of Iran.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Iraq is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iraq was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Afghanistan right now.

Fixed for 2003. You guys will have to be more creative with propaganda.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea

I still think we should have gone to Iran before iraq for the reasons you listed. Not to invade and reek havoc on the country but to empower the people and stimulate revolt and have our military there for support or at least available.

Iran has 3 or 4 times the population of Iraq, plus they're all one ethnic group. We would have had our asses handed to us without a million or more troops - and I'm not volunteering.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea

I still think we should have gone to Iran before iraq for the reasons you listed. Not to invade and reek havoc on the country but to empower the people and stimulate revolt and have our military there for support or at least available.

Iran has 3 or 4 times the population of Iraq, plus they're all one ethnic group. We would have had our asses handed to us without a million or more troops - and I'm not volunteering.

If the Fool tries this you won't have to volunteer.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
We should have gone to Iran first, Iran was/is/has been a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, we now have Iran in a rather interesting position with troops in Afgan and in Iraq we could easily put the squeeze on Iran.

military strike against Iran is the last thing we should do. the Iranian population loves American, especially the young ones. they are educated, smart and want freedom. then need our help in getting rid of the mullahs.

but using the military in Iran is a bad idea


We love the liberals in Iran, since they are opposed to the government's aggressive right-wing policies. We just hate liberals here at home... for the same reason!
its the extremes dude. Iranian liberals would call Cheney a left wing nut.

Nah, I think Cheney and the new Iranian president are birds of a feather. Both authoritarians.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: raildogg
Iraq is tied to al-qaeda, it is tied to Bin Laden. They are connected.

Iraq was involved in 9/11 and many other strikes against US. It is the one funding terrorism inside Afghanistan right now.

Fixed for 2003. You guys will have to be more creative with propaganda.


Hey if it worked before, why not try it again? ;)
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: novon
The reason the US is on bad terms with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear programs. The US went into Iraq to keep oil bought and sold in dollars to make up for it's $2 billion/day trade deficit. When other countries buy and sell oil, they do so in dollars, and reinvest these in the US economy, counterbalancing the huge trade deficit between the US and the world (specifically Asia).

Because Iran was strong-armed out of the western oil market, it wants to open up it's own oil commodities market accepting any currency, specifically from Asia, which would go against the US's desperate need for control over oil currency (not oil dependency).

Try telling American and Iraqi mothers their sons and daughters died for currency and trade deficits and it wouldn't fly, hence the lies and bloodshed.


good post. I too subscribe to this.

This article does a great job at explaining this situation for anyone else interested:

article
 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
Excellent article lozina - I didn't know Iraq switched to the Euro before they were invaded. I guess US foregin policy is basically "use our dollar or we will kill you." Besides being immorral, I don't think this startegy is sustainable in the long-term. The American public needs to demand a better solution, but before that, they need to get past all of the lies.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: novon
Excellent article lozina - I didn't know Iraq switched to the Euro before they were invaded. I guess US foregin policy is basically "use our dollar or we will kill you." Besides being immorral, I don't think this startegy is sustainable in the long-term. The American public needs to demand a better solution, but before that, they need to get past all of the lies.


indeed. news archive

what's interesting is I think that formally the Iraqi oil is still can be sold in euros today. I wonder when the switch back to USD only will happen (if it has not already). Perhaps this is a reason to rush their consitution so they can formally make this switch.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
No proof? Doesn't matter. History is already repeating itself:


U.S. Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/09/13/AR2005091301837.html
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 13 -- With an hour-long slide show that blends satellite imagery with disquieting assumptions about Iran's nuclear energy program, Bush administration officials have been trying to convince allies that Tehran is on a fast track toward nuclear weapons.

The PowerPoint briefing, titled "A History of Concealment and Deception," has been presented to diplomats from more than a dozen countries. Several diplomats said the presentation, intended to win allies for increasing pressure on the Iranian government, dismisses ambiguities in the evidence about Iran's intentions and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts.

The presenters argue that the evidence leads solidly to a conclusion that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons, according to diplomats who have attended the briefings and U.S. officials who helped to assemble the slide show. But even U.S. intelligence estimates acknowledge that other possibilities are plausible, though unverified.

The problem, acknowledged one U.S. official, is that the evidence is not definitive. Briefers "say you can't draw any other conclusion, and of course you can draw other conclusions," said the official, who would discuss the closed-door sessions only on condition of anonymity.

The briefings were conducted in Vienna over the past month in advance of a gathering of world leaders this week at the United Nations. President Bush, who is to address the annual General Assembly gathering Wednesday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, plan to use the meeting to press for agreement to threaten international sanctions against Iran.

The president's direct involvement marks an escalation of a two-year effort to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, unless Tehran gives up technology capable of enriching uranium for a bomb. U.S. officials have acknowledged that it has been an uphill campaign, with opposition from key allies who fear a prelude to a military campaign.

Several diplomats said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. "I don't think they'll lose any support, but it isn't going to win anyone either," said one European diplomat who attended the recent briefing and whose country backs the U.S. position on Iran.

Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, acknowledged last week that despite European support, the Bush administration has traveled a tough road in persuading others that Iran should face consequences for a nuclear program it built in secret.

"There's a great deal of resistance . . . on the part of many governments who don't seem to place, quite frankly, nonproliferation and Iran, a nuclear-armed Iran, at the top of their priority list," he told a congressional panel last week.

:roll: