12-04-2007, 12:04 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...ear/index.html

I think we should kill off all of their scientists as well, because they can use them to create a nuclear weapon.

12-04-2007, 01:19 PM

The administration is grasping at straws trying to continue laying the groundwork for their next invasion...

12-04-2007, 01:41 PM

I agree that we should be happy to hear reports that Iran is not as close to obtaining Nuclear Weapons as was previously believed.. But I would disagree that because of this new information, Iran is no longer a dangerous nation... This is a leader that is extremely outspoken about his desire to wipe another country, and even a race "off the map".

With that being said.. I certainly hope that Bush is not planning to invade Iran.

12-04-2007, 01:57 PM

They misquoted Bush, It should be spelled nucular when it's a quote from him. Somehow, I just can't trust the words of a man who can't even pronounce correctly what he's talking about.

Originally Posted by cheesybanana

I think we should kill off all of their scientists as well, because they can use them to create a nuclear weapon.

Then bomb their schools so they can't learn to build them. "No child gets ahead".

Originally Posted by Brandon

The administration is grasping at straws trying to continue laying the groundwork for their next invasion...

True. I mean, whatever happened to that other "axis of evil", North Korea. Weren't they testing nuclear weapons they already built? Why are we not worried about them?

If we really want to stop Iran from building nukes, we don't need to fight them. We just need to create a cheap, renewable energy method and give it to them so they don't have any excuses to work on nuclear technology. But I guess that solves too many problems.

How about this, if Iran wants nuclear power plants for energy, we make ourselves the supplier and subsidize the cost so it's really cheap for them. That way they don't have to have anything to do with production of nuclear material. If my tax dollars have to go towards something that doesn't actually help me in any way, I'd rather it go to that then used to build weapons and kill people. I don't like being a financier of death.

12-04-2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by fleurya

True. I mean, whatever happened to that other "axis of evil", North Korea. Weren't they testing nuclear weapons they already built? Why are we not worried about them?

Are you kidding me? Do you not realize how much money the US spent on that "worry" over the last 10 years? As it is, the North Koreans renounced their programs, allowed the IAEA back in the country for open inspections and has stopped building Nukes all together. The supposed sale of their technology to Syria is what the Isralies bombed to oblivion a few months back.

Originally Posted by fleurya

How about this, if Iran wants nuclear power plants for energy, we make ourselves the supplier and subsidize the cost so it's really cheap for them. That way they don't have to have anything to do with production of nuclear material. If my tax dollars have to go towards something that doesn't actually help me in any way, I'd rather it go to that then used to build weapons and kill people. I don't like being a financier of death.

Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars going anywhere near that country unless it's from 50,000 feet or at Mach 1+. I might reconsider if they were to allow the IAEA back in for open inspections, but not until then. As it is, even with this new claim, I'm still not buying it.

I consider the announcement to be good news and I really don't think the US is going to take any military action against Iran. That being said, it doesn't mean they are not dangerous. They still sponsor international terrorism and still have a stated goal of wiping Israel "off the map" by force.

12-04-2007, 02:15 PM

Heh....I remember when the Irianian president came to the US. I think it was Brown University he visited and spoke at. He definitely hates us, there's no denying that while he's in power we're probably never going to find a peace with him and his people.

Just like a bunch of Islamic extremist were touting the English teacher in Sudan, who got arrested for naming a bear mohammed (because her kids voted on it), as a ploy from the Western nations and religions to destroy Islam from the inside out.

What tools extremist be. I wish some one would knock some sense into them. Practice what ever religion you feel like, just don't use it as an excuse for terrorism and for murdering innocent people. I wonder how they would feel if some 7th Day Adventist extremist sent some homocide bombers into the midst of their groups of women and children.

12-04-2007, 05:08 PM

Seriously? You guys think Ahmadinejad is an actual threat to this country? The man has no serious power, he's a ceremonial figurehead. The real man with the power in the country is the Ayatollah, and last I checked, he hasn't called for the destruction of anything.

Also, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" thing was actually a mistranslation. If you look at the actual Farsi, what he really said was:

The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.

He's simply quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the Supreme Leader back in 1979. He used it in reference to the various American-backed regimes that have collapsed without direct Iranian interference, such as the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. The "page of time" is a reference to history books, which clearly is the place where you'll find the remaining vestiges of those two regimes.

Sure, Iran backs terrorist cells in the Middle East, but it's not a threat to this country. The only reason we think it's a threat is because our government tells us it is, just like they told us Saddam Hussein was a threat. Hussein was a petty dictator who we had been bombing for the past decade and didn't care much for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.

And VI, Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia and it's not Iran's "leader" that is preventing peace, it's OUR leader.

12-04-2007, 05:24 PM

I never said he was a direct threat to the US, although Irans sponsorship of terrorism does make potentially make them so, but he is a threat to US interests around the world and thus still a threat to the US.

Heck, Columbia's president even said they would have let Hitler speak if they had the chance. Amazingly, even the many European countries who did not support Bush's stance on Iraq do support the stance on Iran. I can't see how any rational person can believe that Ahmadinejad is "for" peace.

I can see this thread going downhill fast if this keeps up....

12-04-2007, 05:43 PM

Like I said, I'm not saying Iran isn't a threat, it's just that the threat has been hyped up. Granted, Europe has a legitimate concern because Iranian missiles would easily be able to reach Europe, which is made worse by the fact that many European countries don't have much in the way of countermeasures for such an attack.

I believe the main Iranian sponsored terrorist group is Hezbollah, which has been more of a thorn in Israel's side than our own. Saudi Arabia isn't much of a fan of Iran, but that's because of religious differences. But at least Iran isn't a threat to Saudi Arabia, which obviously means we don't have to worry about our oil interests being tampered with.

The Iran issue has only been getting worse because we have been provoking them. If you poke an animal enough times, you shouldn't be surprised when it attacks you.

12-04-2007, 07:35 PM

Kash I agree with you with one exception. Iran isn't capable of attacking anyone, especially the U.S. At best, what they're able to do is finance terrorism.

The way I see it (regarding this issue), the U.S has two major problems right now, one will be gone in a year, and when that problem is gone, the successor will have to clean house in the department known as the CIA.

12-04-2007, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by baggss

Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars going anywhere near that country unless it's from 50,000 feet or at Mach 1+. I might reconsider if they were to allow the IAEA back in for open inspections, but not until then. As it is, even with this new claim, I'm still not buying it.

I was pretty much kidding with my comment anyway. Iran has more oil than they know what to do with, so why are they so interested in nuclear power? I doubt they are doing it to prevent global warming from burning fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Kash

The Iran issue has only been getting worse because we have been provoking them. If you poke an animal enough times, you shouldn't be surprised when it attacks you.

I think that's pretty much what's going on here and the agenda of this administration. I would even say that if there was a majority of support for the war in Iraq, we would probably be in Iran already.

I don't know a whole lot about foreign policy, but it doesn't seem like our past an present leaders do either. There was a time when we supported the Taliban in their fight against the Russians. And then there was that time we gave Saddam Hussein loads of weapons and support so he could fight Iran. I'm not saying these were really bad moves, but they always seem to come back and bite us.

In his farewell address, George Washington made 3 recommendations for the future US Government. I can't remember one, but the other two were avoid a partisan government and keep involvement in foreign countries to a minimum. I think we're suffering the negative affects of both of those issues. I'm not advocating isolationism, which is pretty much impossible today. But I think we are clearly overstepping the bounds of necessity, which is how much of world views are actions, and as a result, have a very negative opinion and hatred of us.

12-04-2007, 07:48 PM

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...aus&plindex=20

I think you all should watch this. It's all about money.

12-04-2007, 07:53 PM

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

-Jefferson

I agree, isolationism isn't going to work in a time of global commerce. It would actually be quite detrimental to not only us, but the entire world as the loss of their number one consumer would devastate their export economies. However, non-interventionism is the foreign policy we should pursue. If we stop messing around in other countries' internal affairs, they'll stop hating us. It doesn't matter if it's Latin America or the Middle East, we just need to stop messing around with them.

12-04-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kash

If we stop messing around in other countries' internal affairs, they'll stop hating us. It doesn't matter if it's Latin America or the Middle East, we just need to stop messing around with them.

Sort of like we didn't mess around with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Imperial Japan or Communist Russia (at least initially)? That hands off approach (espoused by the likes of Joe Kennedy Sr, JFKs dad) certainly worked out well for us and the rest of the world.

If we want to stop messing around lets just stop spending billions (if not trillions) of tax dollars on aid money around the world for people who don't seem to much like us anyhow. Lets cut off Africa and Central America from our tax dollars for starters. Lets see where that goes. I'm sure Chavez, Ortega and Castro (to name a few) would love to lose the greenbacks and it if we turned a blind eye to whatever they want to do, it's their countries, let them deal with it, right? We don't need to keep armed troops Korea, bring them home and save some money. The North won't harm them, it's not our business anyhow China? They're our friends, no worries. Heck they even built my Mac! How could a country that mass produces wonderful Apple computers (while brutally beating Tibetan Monks) be bad? Russia? They'd never try to unduly influence the fates of Eastern European countries who desperately want to be free. I'm not talking isolationism here, I'm simply talking pairing back Americas responsibilities around the world, getting out of other affairs and saving us some tax dollars. Heck, the Iranians would never try to cut off our oil supply from the Persian Gulf and lord knows the Saudis, Kuwaiti's, Omanies and others in the area are not at all nervous about them, so we should get out of there too. Pakistan and India want to duke it out with Nukes? Hey, it's none of OUR business, they can't hit us from there (yet). The Taliban and their form of government are just misunderstood by the west. We should get out of Afghanistan and let them sort it out for themselves. If they want to kill homosexuals, repress women and generally live in the 9th century because they think the Koran says so, what business is it of ours?

This is a "****ed if you do and ****ed if you don't" sort of deal. We meddle, they hate us, we don't meddle, they hate us. That's just how it is and has been for the past 60 or 70 years of US foreign policy.

12-04-2007, 09:18 PM

A bit extreme, but a good point nonetheless.

However, I'll disagree on the aid money part. We stop sending money and free stuff to Africa, they'll fix themselves in no time. When a farmer and tailor can't compete with free, when their corrupt governments are receiving billions in foreign aid, and crippling debt, it's a bit difficult to institute change. Stop support the regimes and stop stifling their economies and Africa will finally be able to pull itself up by its bootstraps, not to mention facilitate foreign investment. It's an entire continent full of consumers and workers that is waiting to be tapped.