Is Iran a threat to the US?

[Chachie]

Via the terror groups that the government funds, yes

Iran vs USA mano-e-mano, no

And the people of Iran are NOT a threat

Why didn't we close the thread after this post?

[JohnLockesGhost]

yea, from what I remember reading, like 2/3rds of the country disapproves of the job he is doing. Not much better than, Bush here. They had a real inflation problem a little while ago and I he took a lot of heat for it, and deservedly so.

Ultimately, all politics is local. (Tip O'Neill)

[chomerics]

I wasn't aware that being articulate excluded you from being labeled "crazy".

Maybe it's the entire holocaust denying thing.

Maybe it's the extreme anti-semitism.

He just doesn't seem like he's got all of his marbles.

BTW, here is an excerpt in his letter to Bush. . .

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, at what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President, Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth — including minerals — is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating in their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President, September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems — and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services — or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people — who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks — some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity — some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way — and was the justification — for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly — for the public to, finally, believe — and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President, In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist — to a larger or lesser extent — in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign — paid from the public treasury — be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention — which I am hoping you will agree to some of it — is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful — thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office — to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets — or not?

Mr President, How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity — raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction — haunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments? Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

Like I said a very smart and calculating man.

[skinfan133]

Switzerland is such a threat

maybe not directly, but if for some reason anyone fought a war with them it would be a huge mistake. the greatest military folly of all time wouldn't be invading russia anymore, it would be to attack switzerland. its easily the best defended country on earth, between the natural bariers in the mountains on all sides and their military defences.

[chomerics]

Ultimately, all politics is local. (Tip O'Neill)

LMAO, very true, so very true.

[MDRedskinsFan]

Actually, if you ever read what he writes, and ignore the snipits from the news, you would find that he is a hell of a lot more educated than our leader.

he is not crazy, not by a long shot, he is a very smart and calculating man, and that may be what scares everyone.

If you were Iran, would you build a nuclear bomb? Yes or no? Start with that question, and go from there.

I do sort of agree with you Chom, and I thought that was impossible.

He is educated and all, but do you seem to think that given what we've done so far to Iraq, Iran is just using its resources to protect themselves from the current US leadership going bonkos on them? If that's the case, then they likely see us as the threat to them, not the other way around.

Not that I can blame them, if I felt threatened, I'd do everything in my power to defend myself. That said, I still feel they are helping Iraqi insurgents under the table, and therefore, helping to defeat us in that region. That type of action is not acceptable, even if you disagree with us. It's going to take major concessions from both sides to come to the table.

[SkinsHokieFan]

maybe not directly, but if for some reason anyone fought a war with them it would be a huge mistake. the greatest military folly of all time wouldn't be invading russia anymore, it would be to attack switzerland. its easily the best defended country on earth, between the natural bariers in the mountains on all sides and their military defences.

I actually thought about that quite a bit when I was in Switzerland

Just dumb idle thought when walking to class but I thought "what if the town was invaded?"

We would have kicked anyone's ass, simply because of the high ground we had. You can see in the picture below the advantage we would have had as defenders

[TradeTheBeal!]

Iran is downright enlightened compared to many other countries in that region - that means you, Saudi Arabia - and are not nearly the threat to stability and peace that Israel/USA have proven to be.

Sucks to say it but we are the bad guys in the middle east these days and everybody knows it. That's why we are constantly pointing the finger at this madman or that despot, as a means of distraction.

Tragic, really and all because of boxcutters. How crazy is that?

[chomerics]

I do sort of agree with you Chom, and I thought that was impossible.

He is educated and all, but do you seem to think that given what we've done so far to Iraq, Iran is just using its resources to protect themselves from the current US leadership going bonkos on them? If that's the case, then they likely see us as the threat to them, not the other way around.

Not that I can blame them, if I felt threatened, I'd do everything in my power to defend myself. That said, I still feel they are helping Iraqi insurgents under the table, and therefore, helping to defeat us in that region. That type of action is not acceptable, even if you disagree with us. It's going to take major concessions from both sides to come to the table.

I agree with just about everything you said. I have no doubt they are fueling part of the insurgency in Iraq, I would be doing the same thing if I were them. Keep us occupied in Iraq so we don't have enough time to regroup and focus on Iran. In fact, I would not be surprised to see ties between Al Sadr and Ahmadinejad, their best defense as a country would be to play out the string in Iraq. Not only that, but it gives them a powerful ally in the region when we leave.

I have no love for Iran, believe me. I don't think their leader is crazy at all though, I think he is a very smart man who is doing what he thinks is best for his country. He is doing exactly what we did to the mujahadeen and the Soviets in Afghanistan. He is a teacher, and you can bet he knows his history. As for us, what can we do? We are effed when it comes to Iran. We can't invade, and there is no way Bush could ever go to the table with them because of what he has already done and said. The "axis of evil" and the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" BS took away our diplomacy route.

As for our country, our best option is to get Bush out of there, and hopefully Obama can talk some sense into him about his weapons program. If not, there is really not much we can do. Unfortunately, I could see him bombing Iran as a military stance to show that he has an itchy trigger finger, and not to **** with us either. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I think it might.

[Special K]

Via the terror groups that the government funds, yes

Iran vs USA mano-e-mano, no

And the people of Iran are NOT a threat

Very much agree with this post right here.

Actually, if you ever read what he writes, and ignore the snipits from the news, you would find that he is a hell of a lot more educated than our leader.

he is not crazy, not by a long shot, he is a very smart and calculating man, and that may be what scares everyone.

If you were Iran, would you build a nuclear bomb? Yes or no? Start with that question, and go from there.

Um, yes. I wouldn't launch it myself though. If I were Iran, I'd funnel it off to a terrorist group and claim no responsibility...kinda like the exact thing we are worried about the Iranian government doing at the moment.

Have you read anything he has written? have you listened to a speech he has given? He is very VERY articulate, and I would vanture a guess has better command of the English language than our president does.

OH. MY. GOD.... Are you for real? Hitler was pretty articulate and passionate as well chom. I did listen to a little of Ahmadenijhad's speech at Columbia or one of those east coast ivy league university's and I agree, his orator skills are impressive...especially when he took the time to so articulately describe how there are no gays in his country.... Good Lord, when are people like you ever going to wake up?

P.S. I'm impressed though, you made it a whole few posts without throwing out some vehement rant against our current president. And even this insult you kept to a minimal level. You deserve an award.

[twa]

As for our country, our best option is to get Bush out of there, and hopefully Obama can talk some sense into him about his weapons program. If not, there is really not much we can do. Unfortunately, I could see him bombing Iran as a military stance to show that he has an itchy trigger finger, and not to **** with us either. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I think it might.

You are putting faith in Obama talking sense to Iran?

What do you consider all the offers made thru the UN to reward them for stopping enrichment of uranium?

If they will not listen to the world,what new offer can Obama make to change the dynamic?

It comes down to if we will allow them to go nuclear.

[PeterMP]

OH. MY. GOD.... Are you for real? Hitler was pretty articulate and passionate as well chom. I did listen to a little of Ahmadenijhad's speech at Columbia or one of those east coast ivy league university's and I agree, his orator skills are impressive...especially when he took the time to so articulately describe how there are no gays in his country.... Good Lord, when are people like you ever going to wake up?

P.S. I'm impressed though, you made it a whole few posts without throwing out some vehement rant against our current president. And even this insult you kept to a minimal level. You deserve an award.

Why are you guys spending so much time talking about Ahmadenijhad?

He's essentially irrelevant. He doesn't control the military.

"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_politics

The only thing that listening to Ahmadenijhad is useful is trying to figure out what the Ayattollah wants us to think about what Iran is going to do/is doing.

Listening to Ahmadenijhad to try and figure out what Iran is planning would have been like listening to Goebbels' public statements to try and figure out what Germany was up to.

[DRSmith]

Seriously, like those Canadians

Terrifying.

Don't mock my army of kittens

[chomerics]

Um, yes. I wouldn't launch it myself though. If I were Iran, I'd funnel it off to a terrorist group and claim no responsibility...kinda like the exact thing we are worried about the Iranian government doing at the moment.

Why in the world would they give a nuclear weapon to someone else? Something that cost them a large % of their GDP, that can be traced back to them, and that will surely would mean the destruction of their country? Does that make sense to you at all?

OH. MY. GOD.... Are you for real? Hitler was pretty articulate and passionate as well chom.

Hitler was Hitler, there was and will only be only one. Your side compares everyone to Hitler to evoke the fear they want people to have. Saddam is Hitler, Ahmadenijhad is Hitler, Kim is Hitler, *insert enemy du jour* is Hitler. Everyone to the right is Hitler. Get over it, the trick doesn't work any more, your party has used up their entire bag of tricks, and comparing the enemy of the day to Hitler is tops on their list.

I did listen to a little of Ahmadenijhad's speech at Columbia or one of those east coast ivy league university's and I agree, his orator skills are impressive...especially when he took the time to so articulately describe how there are no gays in his country....

And nobody is defending what he said, but to call him an idiot, or crazy does a disservice to yourself and everyone else on this board. If you think he is crazy, then read his speeches, look at what he talks about, read what he writes.

Good Lord, when are people like you ever going to wake up?

I am awake, and unfortunately for your side, you have been figured out. I know what the threats are to our country, and they are not from Iran. We are our own worst enemy right now, and our actions are making it less safe to be an American. It is funny that you ask me "when am I going to wake up", because from my viewpoint, it is you who has on the blinders.

[chomerics]

What do you consider all the offers made thru the UN to reward them for stopping enrichment of uranium?

If they will not listen to the world,what new offer can Obama make to change the dynamic?

It comes down to if we will allow them to go nuclear.

I have no doubt they are going nuclear, but with what happened in Iraq, we have our hands tied behind our back right now. . .we have no options, you can thank the GOP for that one. We can't attack, if anything, we would allow Israel to attack. At least they would have a defense as to why they did it. If we attacked, we would be the aggressor again, and it would further erode our standing in the world.

I am hoping that one day, people will look to America again as the bright light, and not the image they have of us now. It will take decades to repair, but it can be fixed.

[Sarge]

I have no doubt they are going nuclear, but with what happened in Iraq, we have our hands tied behind our back right now. . .we have no options, you can thank the GOP for that one. We can't attack, if anything, we would allow Israel to attack. At least they would have a defense as to why they did it. If we attacked, we would be the aggressor again, and it would further erode our standing in the world.

I am hoping that one day, people will look to America again as the bright light, and not the image they have of us now. It will take decades to repair, but it can be fixed.

Again, your ignorance of all things military shows

(I think I'll write that out on a Word Doc so I don't have to keep typing it)

Aside from our "World Image" whch you libs are so fond of, we easily have the capacity to whack Iran. The number two in the theater warned Iran just last week not to under estimate our capacity to take them out

What do you think one of the reasons for going into Iraq was all about?

Iran. Surrounded to the north. Surronded to the east. Surrounded to the west. Surrounded to the south

The key word here being "Surrounded". How about that?

Maybe if you libs hadn't been so busy the past few years spewing and protesting and smearing the troops and the president, you might have been actually paying attention to what was going on:rolleyes:

[chomerics]

Again, your ignorance of all things military shows

(I think I'll write that out on a Word Doc so I don't have to keep typing it)

Aside from our "World Image" whch you libs are so fond of, we easily have the capacity to whack Iran. The number two in the theater warned Iran just last week not to under estimate our capacity to take them out

What do you think one of the reasons for going into Iraq was all about?

Iran. Surrounded to the north. Surronded to the east. Surrounded to the west. Surrounded to the south

The key word here being "Surrounded". How about that?

Maybe if you libs hadn't been so busy the past few years spewing and protesting and smearing the troops and the president, you might have been actually paying attention to what was going on:rolleyes:

Oh, so the reason we invaded Iraq was so we could invade Iran? Or umm. . .what, put the fear in them that they will be invaded? Oh wait, but why are we not is Iran? Why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran? using your ill guided logic, we could just as well have gone to Iran from Afghanistan. . .we debated this before Sarge, remember? And your "reasoning" was because it is easier to get to Tehran from Iraq than from Afghanistan. . .while ignoring we would need to do neither for our "shock and awe" bombings.

Come on now, your schtick is tired, old and done. Just because you spray paint a pile of crap gold doesn't make it gold Sarge.

BTW, how has that worked so far? What have we done other than make Iran more powerful, us weaker in the region and allow them to get nukes???

[twa]

BTW, how has that worked so far? What have we done other than make Iran more powerful, us weaker in the region and allow them to get nukes???

How is Iran more powerfull? ...The influence they have in Iraq?

We are in much better position militarily and diplomatically in the region.

They will not get nukes unless we allow it to happen.(which is to be determined before long)

[Smoot Point Really]

I think the thing that amuses me are the people who say Iran isn't a grave threat, but that it's all Bush's fault...

[Burgold]

I think the thing that amuses me are the people who say Iran isn't a grave threat, but that it's all Bush's fault...

Really, that's just people playing politics. Or they're just foolish.

However, there is an honest argument that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were all more dangerous and more real bases for terrorism and their supporters than Iraq in 2002-3.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Really, that's just people playing politics. Or they're just foolish.

However, there is an honest argument that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were all more dangerous and more real bases for terrorism and their supporters than Iraq in 2002-3.

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. I can't think of one Iranian who has committed suicide terrorism.

Hell, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were all from "friendly" countries. They were Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian, and maybe a Yemeni.

What they weren't were Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian or Afghan.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. I can't think of one Iranian who has committed suicide terrorism.

Hell, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were all from "friendly" countries. They were Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian, and maybe a Yemeni.

What they weren't were Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian or Afghan.

Hamas, Hezbollah :whoknows:1983 Lebanon bombing? Its not new that this regime in Tehran is in the terror business, they have been in it since 1979 (a good book on this is See No Evil by Bob Baer)

Saying Saudi Arabia produces terrorists is like saying the US does because of Tim McViegh

[Smoot Point Really]

Really, that's just people playing politics. Or they're just foolish.

However, there is an honest argument that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were all more dangerous and more real bases for terrorism and their supporters than Iraq in 2002-3.

I agree with this... I would also add Yemen to the list. However, we had avenues of diplomacy back in 2002-2003 with each of these states. Iraq's diplomacy had run its course and UN trade restrictions were being lifted. Reconstituting weapons programs without UN weapon inspectors wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility.

Anyway... If you attack Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran would the radicals be more tame than if you attack the one guy in the Middle East that is pretty made hated by all in the Middle East? They rally around Iraq just as they rally around Palestine... It's something to energize the fanatics, but it is also something that most of the Middle East wanted to see happen at the time.

[Burgold]

Saudi Arabia produces terrorists. I can't think of one Iranian who has committed suicide terrorism.

Hell, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were all from "friendly" countries. They were Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian, and maybe a Yemeni.

What they weren't were Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian or Afghan.

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been incredible backdoor (and sometimes frontdoor) financiers of terrorism. Both are somewhat subtle about it, but there is a ton of money and energy being devoted to terrorist efforts and activities. One of the areas that I agree with Bush is that if you are a funder of terrorism then you are a terrorist yourself.

Besides, there are a lot more ways to be a terrorist than "suicide" terrorism.

[Smoot Point Really]

Burgold... I posted this in another thread, but you probably haven't seen it yet. I wanted to get your take on it. If you've already seen it and don't have anything to add, I apologize. I am probably too passionate about this subject.

Burgold, they have been very explicit in setting the "preconditions" for Iran... Iran has already rejected having talks with "preconditions". What exactly can be accomplished by having talks where those very same "preconditions" are put on the table, unless you want to make those conditions negotiable... What would BHO do for a perceived political "victory?"

The preconditions they are rejecting are:

1) No ability to create nuclear weapons

2) Acknowledge the Holocaust and stop talking about the destruction of Israel

3) Stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations

Which of these do you consider "negotiable?"

Burgold, I'd still like you to answer the above question if you can (sorry, i mean "would like". Came off sounding rude)... Check out what Senator Obama said on Meet the Press last year:

Obama: “Obviously There’s a Difference Between Pre-Conditions and Preparation.” Asked if he were still willing to meet without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, “I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I’d be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won’t meet with people unless they’ve already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, ‘We won’t meet with you until you’ve agreed to all the terms that we’ve laid out,’” from their perspective that’s not a negotiation, that’s not a meeting.“ [Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

Which of the 3 preconditions laid out above are negotiable? Should we really have to give up anything in order for them to agree with us on those 3 points? Isn't it enough that we will 'talk' to them if they comply with the preconditions?