Print 204 comment(s) - last by vortmax2.. on Sep 2 at 3:57 PM

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reveals the "Karrar" drone bomber, which he says will be a "messenger of death" against "enemies of mankind".  (Source: Reuters)

Russian officials earlier in the weekend announced that uranium rods had been loaded into the nation's first reactor and it was being powered up. Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi (L) and head of the Russian nuclear agency Sergei Kiriyenko are shown here speaking to reporters about the success.  (Source: AFP)

  (Source: AP)

The Iranian nuclear plant in the southern city of Bushehr began construction in 1979, but was not completed until this year (top view is from 2003, bottom view from 2005)  (Source: DigitalGlobe-ISIS)
Despite international sanctions Iran is advancing rapidly

Iran, much like North Korea, has defied U.S. attempts to limit its military expansion and nuclear development.  That, along with its ties to terrorist groups, caused former President George W. Bush to label Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea).

Despite the strict sanctions imposed by the U.S. and some of its allies against the Middle Eastern nation, Iran is rapidly advancing in terms of technology thanks, in part, to a close relationship with Russia and growing ties to China.

Over the weekend, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared at a Iranian Ministry of Defense ceremony to celebrate the completion of Iran's first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capable of bombing attacks.

It has been known by the U.S. Defense Department for some time that Iran had UAVs.  However, past models were small drones, only capable of monitoring.

The new drone, dubbed the "Karrar", looks to be almost 2 meters long and has a range of 1,000km (620 miles).  It can carry two 250-pound (115kg) bombs, or a precision bomb weighing 500 pounds.  

President Ahmandinejad said the drone was primarily a messenger of peace, but could become a "messenger of death" if circumstances mandate it.  He cheers, "This jet is a messenger of honor and human generosity and a savior of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind.  The key message is friendship.  We must make efforts to render all the enemy's weapons useless with our defense potential."

The bomber later was shown making a successful test flight.

Over the weekend Iran also made another key technological advance.  In the southern city of Bushehr, Russian and Iranian engineers on Saturday began loading radioactive uranium rods into the nation's first nuclear power plant.

The plant took 31 years to finish.  Construction began in 1979, but encountered multiple freezes and delays due to a mix of financial issues and rocky foreign relations.  The plant will initially produce 500 MW of power, and will later produce up to 1 GW of power.

There's much fear in the international community that the plant could produce enriched nuclear materials for use with nuclear weapons.  Iranian and Russian officials ardently deny that charge and say that as a sovereign nation Iran has the right to nuclear power.

The U.S. criticized Russia for participating in Iran's nuclear program, but stopped short of condemning the reactor.  U.S. officials shared that its intelligence showed no current "proliferation risk" stemming from the plant, despite initial fears.  

Israel, though, is still convinced that the plant is a prelude to a nuclear arsenal, and it condemned the move. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By IamJedi on 8/23/2010 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 4
I understand that there are political repercussions to attacking Iran; however, when the political leaders of this nation have publicly said that they want the death of all Jews, it makes you wonder if we're (U.S.) making the right decision by doing nothing right now. Yes, we're over-stretched, trillions of dollars in debt, and I would even go as far to say that attacking another nation right now, in full-force, is not a feasible idea. I just hope that we are making the right decision by standing by, and hoping that they don't develop these doomsday arms.

RE: FAad
By Spivonious on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By sojournsaint on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Malak on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 11:41:25 PM , Rating: 5
Who is the evil country again?


RE: FAad
By sojournsaint on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Malak on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By PaterPelligrino on 8/24/2010 2:52:52 AM , Rating: 3
That's got to be sarcasm right? You do realize that sarcasm is almost always misunderstood in open forums.

However, for the benefit of those who didn't get it, and on the off chance that you really do mean that poisonous drivel, anyone who goes to war, who takes lives - and wars always result in the loss of innocent lives - quoting some holy book, is no better than the f**king Taliban. (The Bible also tells us, btw, that if it turns out your wife wasn't a virgin on your wedding night, you must lead her into the town square and stone her to death - check it out Deuteronomy 22:13-21.)

This is the true face of the devout believer, suck up your own righteousness, and behead and bomb the s**t out of everyone else. People are too dumb, too savage, too selfish, and too delusional to ever be trusted anywhere near political power or weapons when they think they're doing god's work. No creature on earth is more evil than the cretin who thinks god wants him to kill. But we all agree that's true - of the other religions.

And I simply cannot believe that after Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq - with all these dumb and pointless wars bleeding us dry - you've got people calling for yet another war. Is there no end to American stupidity? You could not give a greater gift to the enemies of this country than an invasion of Iran. I'm sure the Chinese would love to sell us anything we need for our next war. Osama bin Laden would be so overjoyed he'd spend the next five years with his arse in the air praising Allah.

Though I do realize, of course, that making the world a safer place for Israel is and should always be America's prime concern. (Just so there's no misunderstanding, that's a little sarcasm of my own.)

RE: FAad
By Reclaimer77 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By B3an on 8/24/2010 11:32:18 PM , Rating: 1
But about America ... well. Is it just me or is it becoming painfully obvious that the civilized world simply can no longer tolerate most of what the U.S does? We can't simply "live and let live" when they invade other countries, threaten holy wars (Bush), and generally destabilize the entire world

Funny how well that small quote change works...

I think you're both as bad as each other. But most of the world would likely say america is the biggest threat.

RE: FAad
By AntDX316 on 8/28/2010 1:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
=================================================== =================================================== ================

"The U.S. criticized Russia for participating in Iran's nuclear program, but stopped short of condemning the reactor. U.S. officials shared that its intelligence showed no current "proliferation risk" stemming from the plant, despite initial fears."

If everyone analyzed their lives and think of things you want to do but don't do because you know it's bad but you say it to people or joke with them then you all would realize the Iranian President is doing the same thing. Even if he has thoughts of doing it but if he never does them nothing bad happen.

================================================= =======================================

RE: FAad
By bupkus on 8/24/2010 11:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
if it turns out your wife wasn't a virgin on your wedding night, you must lead her into the town square and stone her to death - check it out Deuteronomy 22:13-21.)
What about widows and divorces?

RE: FAad
By vortmax2 on 8/24/2010 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 1
Just for clarification...

Christianity = Follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Jesus did not teach Old Testament Law (which the Deuteronomy verse is from), but New Testament love: Love your neighbors as yourself (Matthew 22:39) and love your enemies (Matthew 5:44). There is no jusification what-so-ever in Christianity to inflict violence on another person.

RE: FAad
By B3an on 8/24/2010 11:56:34 PM , Rating: 1
No, he didn't teach either, as it's all fairy tales. Look how much all these religious books have changed over the years to try and keep up with the times... so how can any possibly be correct?

Unless Jesus appears to the guys writing them and says:
"Hey, hi there, erm, yep more mistakes... this verse is actually wrong, sorry. Also theres a small error on page 58, it's actually 'do NOT stone your wife to death'"

RE: FAad
By AntDX316 on 8/28/2010 1:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
lol, just pelt whip cream pies at her, film it, and put it on youtube

RE: FAad
By kyleb2112 on 8/26/2010 2:15:57 AM , Rating: 3
Unless they're money changers. Then you grab your whip and kick a little ass.

RE: FAad
By vortmax2 on 9/2/2010 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
He really only kick the a$$ of some tables...

RE: FAad
By itzmec on 8/24/2010 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 1
maybe in the movies

RE: FAad
By tomosius on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By IamJedi on 8/23/2010 10:26:12 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not suggesting that we blow up civilian targets, no. I shouldn't have used the word "full-force", as this brings to mind Iraq/Afghanistan. Perhaps just taking out their sites that help contribute to Iran's nuclear development is a better way to put it.

RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By MrTeal on 8/23/2010 12:22:52 PM , Rating: 5

In the first Gulf War, the US sent almost 700,000 personnel to Iraq. The total coalition forces totaled nearly a million.

Iran's equipment really isn't that much newer than Iraq's was. They have 500 T-72s, but the T-72s used by the Iraqis didn't far so well. They have a decent number of Cheiftans from before the Revolution, and a newer indigenous tank based off the M-60 and T-72. The rest of their tank forces are a mix of older M60/M48/M47/Type59/59 tanks that probably wouldn't be able to stand toe to toe with the modern forces they would face.
Their air force could field less than 100 modern fighters, a mix of Mirage F1s, Mi-29s and F-14s. The rest of their fighter/multi-role force is from the 60s. They would not be able to defend their airspace.

Iran wouldn't be able to fight a conventional war against a modern power. The best they could hope for is a long drawn out urban warfare campaign.

RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By 91TTZ on 8/23/2010 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
The US wouldn't bother occupying Iran. We'd conquer their current government and then leave.

RE: FAad
By derricker on 8/24/2010 3:32:05 AM , Rating: 3
now where have I heard that before...

RE: FAad
By HotFoot on 8/23/2010 3:43:51 PM , Rating: 3
Conventional warfare-wise, I would expect Iran's forces to last just slightly longer than Iraq's. And even if the Mig-29s are in tip-top shape, you still need well-trained pilots.

The problem isn't at all winning on the battlefield. The problem is - then what? Years of drawn-out occupation with high civilian casualties, because a nation MIGHT have attacked another nation? There must be better ways to support the moderates within Iran towards making the country a better place, and less of a hotbed of extremism.

RE: FAad
By afkrotch on 8/23/2010 6:31:32 PM , Rating: 5
A jet fighter is more than just the plane. Bet they couldn't even get within striking distance, when you look at the advancement of our avionics, missile/rockets, and god knows what else.

Urban warfare with tanks? That's just dumb. Might as well drive your tank into the woods. You limit tank movements and turret movement in urban combat. Makes it a nice sitting duck for a foot soldier with an rpg or one of our nice guided bombs.

If we went to war, I'd assume the US can close the deal in under 2 weeks. Then another 10 years cleaning the mess.

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 12:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq had about a million soldiers in its army. We were vastly outnumbered there and NO ONE thought it would go as quickly as it did. We were lucky that their army was demoralized. Regardless, we were prepared for a long, nasty fight. Despite unfounded popular opinion, the US military NEVER underestimates ANY of its enemies. Nor do we think any combat will be easy. We always plan for heavy losses and an enemy that's, at the very least, on our level. Iraq was expected to be real fight ala WWII. Iran would be no different.

LOL! I'm speaking like I'm still in the military. Anywho, we're not going into anywhere, anytime soon. Seriously, the US won't be the one's going into Iran. That will be led by some other country. I'll be surprised if we even participate.

RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/2010 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 5
I think we all know who that country will be.

Personally, I'm at the point where I think our best stratagy would be to just turn a blind eye when Isreal bombs the snot out of Iran. Don't follow them in with support, but don't publically condemn them either.

You know, just like most of the other established countries (France, Russia, China, Germany I'm looking at all of you) act whenever the smaller countries start fighting with each other.


RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/2010 1:09:37 PM , Rating: 3
Also, am I the only person that thinks the first picture there looks straight out of a high school musical production? Bad costums, bad sets, bad props, bad lighting...


RE: FAad
By edge929 on 8/28/2010 4:05:40 PM , Rating: 4
Are those supposed to be clouds or mountains below the UAV? And the flowers? WTF? Is this a funeral or a new weapon announcement? Is the man next to Ahmadinejad a General or a troop leader for the Iranian boy scouts?

One more, is that confetti on the UAV or did the painters spruce it up for the unveiling?

RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By sviola on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/2010 2:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree on this; Isriel has been going VERY far right in recent years; their rhetoric is almost as bad as Iran's these days. If they honestly feel Iran is close to a nuke, they probably will launch a strike.

If they do, the US response should be...interesting.

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 5:57:39 PM , Rating: 1
If they do, the US response should be...interesting.
Unless Iran attacks Israel, US response will be non-existent. More than likely any pre-emptive strike by Israel, which might be in their best interests, will alienate them. It sucks to be them right now. I think the only thing keeping Iran at home is China and Russia. If Iran attacks, they lose their support for sure and might even get a f%&k you missile or two from those countries.

RE: FAad
By Krotchrot on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 2:40:52 PM , Rating: 5
Not even remotely correct... Sit down and read "United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense" and the Pentagon will tell you exactly what the plan was and how they looked at Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers (complete and unabridged in HTML form):

Between 1945 and 1954, the Vietnamese waged an anti-colonial war against France and received $2.6 billion in financial support from the United States.

In 1956, South Vietnam, with American backing, refused to hold the unification elections. By 1958, Communist-led guerrillas known as the Viet Cong had begun to battle the South Vietnamese government.

The document proves that the US had intended to become involved in a ground war in Indochina as far back as 1960 and that original plans also included Cambodia and Laos.

It reveals how 4 different presidential administrations had deliberately mislead the public while the military planned an entry to the conflict.

It goes on to state that the point of the war was to bloody the noses of the communists while trying out new combat tactics(air cavalry being top priority). When the war had surpassed the level of sustained acceptable losses, they would leave the South Vietnamese dangling in the wind.

The paper even quotes Roosevelt as saying he was determined "to eliminate the French from Indochina at all costs." However, anti-communism then forced the US to do an about face on the matter and US policy was now to financially assist the French in their war against the communists.

This sort of shuffle is much easier to do with money and equipment than with US troops and is still going on today all around the world.

As for Korea, well that was a primitive war (more akin to WW1, with jet fighters thrown into the mix) against a larger force that outnumbered them to a ridiculous degree. The South remained independent and the cease fire has remained mostly intact to this very date.

RE: FAad
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 3:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
How is it incorrect? We thought we could win in Vietnam and we lost badly.

RE: FAad
By marvdmartian on 8/23/2010 3:34:05 PM , Rating: 5
Remember, though, that the military was crippled in Viet Nam by an administration back in Washington DC, who thought they could run the war by remote control, and kept very strict (and foolish) rules of engagement. It wasn't until Nixon got into office that a lot of that foolishness (finally) ended, and cities like Hanoi, which should have been bombed all along, were allowed to become targets.

Politicians need to remember that the military has people who have trained all their adult lives to win wars. Define the objectives you wish them to take, make certain they're following civilized rules (Geneva convention, etc), and then let them do their job. LBJ didn't do it, and look at what it got us. By the time Nixon got into office, the popular opinion had turned against the war (in fact, he was elected pretty much because he promised to get the country out of Viet Nam), and it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to win.

RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 3:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's incorrect because the innermost members of the pentagon and the administration at large had no intentions of staying to win the fight.

YOU the people of the United States may have thought you could win the war, but without intent from the leadership to do so, the war could not be won.

Nor did you lose badly.

North Vietnam Military Casualties:

Total dead: ~1,177,462
Total wounded: ~604,200+

Allied Military Casualties:
Total dead: 315,384
Total wounded: ~1,490,000+

United States Military Casualties:
58,159 dead
1,719 missing
303,635 wounded

The Vietnam War was a political loss only and had the US stayed the course, they likely would have won, but at a tremendous human cost. The threshold of acceptable losses were penned on paper LONG before the US was even in Vietnam.

Seeing that's all in the document, it just proves that you didn't bother to read it before commenting with an idiotic assertion.

The Vietnam War was more akin to the Pentagon playing with it's army men in a sandbox where they knew the Chinese and Soviets would not become directly involved. The LAST thing on the pentagons list of priorities was to help the people of south Vietnam and the top priority was a numerical victory, which they achieved.

RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 3:44:13 PM , Rating: 1
And the North Vietnamese numbers don't include the "unofficial dead" of the combats in Cambodia and Laos.

RE: FAad
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 6:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
There was no way to win, short of nuking the entire North.
So you don't believe that our governments tying the military's hands had anything to do with the loss? It was just simply a large ego?

RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 6:16:19 PM , Rating: 3
This is where you miss the point...


Winning was a in a column of "nice to have" items.

The most realistic goal in the entire report (as documented by the pentagon) was to reach a mutually independent states in the North and South.

The problem with this mentality, is that it had nothing to do with what the Vietnamese on all sides wanted. Even if you "nuke the north" they (the peasants of Vietnam) saw themselves as a single people, they didn't give a crap about who their government was so long as their lives would go on. All destroying one achieves is a guarantee that you will lose the other half. Many Viet Kong levies were from the South!

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 6:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
How is it incorrect? We thought we could win in Vietnam and we lost badly.
Thinking you can win is not underestimation! Are you supposed to enter a war thinking you will lose? Sun Tzu says you shouldn't even go to war unless you KNOW you will win. The US military is quite familiar with Sun Tzu and STILL doesn't go into a war KNOWING we will win. Loss is also not an indicator of underestimation. You can lose a war because you don't have replacement boots for your soldiers. Is that underestimation too?

RE: FAad
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 6:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
How is it incorrect? We thought we could win in Vietnam and we lost badly.

The U.S didn't lose a single major engagement in Vietnam. I'm not sure how you can say we "lost badly". Vietnam was lost at home, not on the battlefield. Even the VC's massive Tet Offensive was a disaster. An estimated 37,000 NLF soldiers were killed compared to 2,500 Americans.

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 7:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
An estimated 37,000 NLF soldiers were killed compared to 2,500 Americans.
And we were high as hell too. LOL!

RE: FAad
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 7:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
lol dude. Just think what the K/D ratio would have been if we weren't blazed right?

RE: FAad
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 2:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
We won every battle, but lost the war. Tet was a major victory for the Vietnamese.

RE: FAad
By Solandri on 8/24/2010 3:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Vietnam was what in military parlance is called a tactical victory but a strategic loss. The U.S. didn't lose a single major engagement in the war. But the ultimate goal of war is to destroy your enemy's will to fight. The VC hung on absorbing massive casualties without losing that will, while bloodying the noses of American and South Vietnamese. The footage of that being broadcast nightly on U.S. TV, and the seeming inability of U.S. forces to contain a seemingly endless insurgency, caused the U.S. to lose the political will to continue the war. And thus the NVA won.

If you're trying to prove GP's statement about the U.S. military not underestimating its enemies wrong by painting Vietnam as a military loss, you're barking up the wrong tree. The defeat was purely political.

The stalemate of Korea was also political. The Korean war began when North Korea invaded and the U.S. and U.K. got the UN security council to authorize police action to oppose it. Why didn't the Soviet Union and China veto it? The U.S.S.R. was boycotting the UN that week, and China's vote was held by Taiwan at the time.

Later when mainland Chinese forces entered the war on North Korea's side (something that MacArthur thought they wouldn't do), the Soviets were back in the UN and thus were able to block any UN action against China. There was also the specter of escalation leading to a third world war. MacArthur wanted to drop nukes on Chinese bases to force them to withdraw from the conflict. Truman was aghast at the idea, and the fallout from the disagreement eventually led to MacArthur's dismissal. And we ended up with a stalemate. Again, the reason it ended as it did was political decision.

RE: FAad
By aston12 on 8/23/2010 3:03:04 PM , Rating: 1
Despite unfounded popular opinion, the US military NEVER underestimates ANY of its enemies. Nor do we think any combat will be easy.

I do not think they thought vietnam and afghanistan would be so hard and in a way underestimated it. But who can really tell... . Although they did use a lot of resources.

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 6:21:53 PM , Rating: 3
I do not think they thought vietnam and afghanistan would be so hard and in a way underestimated it.
That's not underestimation and the only people that thought it would be easy are the talking puppets on TV and their ignorant followers. The military knows how hard it will be. We study these people before we even get there. You don't just up and go to war with someone without knowing them first, having a plan, estimating casualties (military AND civilian), etc. It's war dude. It's not flowers and puppies. It's ugly. It's depraved. It should never happen.

But if you feel you must, be prepared for the ugly.

RE: FAad
By afkrotch on 8/24/2010 12:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
Definitely all the talking heads. All you ever hear from tne military is the need for more troops. Course they never seem to get them.

RE: FAad
By Solandri on 8/24/2010 3:19:13 AM , Rating: 1
The other thing I remember hearing over and over from the military was that they were a conquering force, not a police force or a reconstruction force. They could take the country, but the politicians would have to come up with a plan for rebuilding Iraq. I think Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld thought after the war was over, the Iraqis would magically form a new government which would somehow take care of all that for them. If there ever was a coherent plant for occupation and reconstruction, I never saw it. They seemed to be making it up as they went.

And so here we are 7 years later with the military still doing stuff they said from the start they weren't designed to do - occupy, police, and rebuild. Most of the military assessment I saw from before and during the war was pretty accurate (as was mine - I forecasted a 5-20 year occupation after the war). Don't blame the military for things caused by politicians deciding to ignore what their military told them.

RE: FAad
By Chocobollz on 8/24/2010 12:10:46 PM , Rating: 1
And don't forget, they got the mummies. You know, Imhotep............

RE: FAad
By Aenslead on 8/23/2010 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
" kill millions of innocent people is neither smart nor a moral"

Mate - Iranis. Crazy fanatic SOBs who think everything is jihad and all that stuff. You know, "martirs", we are friendly, you are evil, we love peace but we blow up ourselves in markets and kill people who disagree with Theocracy, sort of stuff.

RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of people in Iran that are completely peaceful. They want nothing more than you or I do from life and don't want to kill anybody. The government/leader/ruling body of a nation generally if not always is not a good indicator of what the people who inhabit that nation are like. They have extremists who want to blow up every person who doesn't agree with them, but the US has hillbillies who still think the KKK had the right approach. Every country has groups of people fanatical about something.

RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 4:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
Senators and congressmen were in the kkk or kkk sympathizers at one point in US history. They weren't running every facet of the US government, but they did have a say. The US is lucky enough to have a government that can't be 100% controlled by any one group, the people of Iran aren't.

RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/2010 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 3
I love how America is always condemned for what it might be if you change this and this, or what it might have become if this or this happened. Yet other countries are constantly given a pass using the same faulty logic.

USA has a black president, yet a person here gets rated up to 5 for insinuating in a round about way America is a bad place because it has KKK members. There is a very big difference between having a very small group like the KKK live among a *very* large and diverse population like America, and having *the ruling party* of the country behaving counter to this group of “people that just want to live their lives.”

Why don’t we just let the Iranian government do whatever they want on the world stage (read: Kill all the Jews) because there are still people in Iran that “just want to live their life.”

No s4it there are people in Iran that can manage to get through the day without blaming Jews or Westerners for all their problems, still doesn’t change the fact that those people don’t run the country and as a result, aren’t the people that other countries need to deal with.


RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 9:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
How did i insinuate that America is a bad place? I never even vaguely mentioned my feelings towards the united states. There were dark times in the history of every government, but the point of what I'm saying is that no matter how crazy the extremists are it does not mean everyone from that place is the same way, which ironically enough is exactly what you just said. I was simply trying to tell the OP that saying the Iranians are "crazy SOBs" is bit out of line.

RE: FAad
By mrkun on 8/23/2010 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 1
Name one suicide bombing that was carried out by an Iranian.

RE: FAad
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 6:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
Name one suicide bombing that was carried out by an Iranian.
This is irrelevant. Who cares who does it. It's f$%ked up regardless of who does it. Look at the Oklahoma City bombings, you think US citizens give a sh!t whether or not those people were Americans? They're pieces of sh!t just like the middle eastern terrorists.

RE: FAad
By elgueroloco on 8/24/2010 8:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Name one suicide bombing that was carried out by an Iranian.

I can't name any suiced bombings, but when I was in Iraq my FOB was attacked numerous times with katusha rockets built in Iran.

All the EFP's being used there are also made in Iranian factories.

RE: FAad
By Gio6518 on 8/23/2010 12:45:28 PM , Rating: 5
You can't preemtively attacking another nation even when feasible! To do so, and to kill millions of innocent people is neither smart nor a moral thing to do.

you share the same mentality the US had during WW II, the US sat back, while the Nazi's attacked its neighboring countries, killing millions,and conquering most of europe and northern Africa, if the US would of preemptively struck how many countless lives could of been saved.

RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/2010 1:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
Touche. However, speaking of WWII, the Japanese felt the same way when they started flying towards Hawaii... Do you agree that the Japanese were morally right in premtively attacking then?


RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/2010 1:20:26 PM , Rating: 4
To be fair, they *thought* that the US embassy would be recieving the declaration of war a few hours before the attack. And according to most all accounts, the Japaneze pilots were NOT happy that a state of war was not in effect during the Pearl Harbor attacks.

So...bad analogy I think.

RE: FAad
By Gio6518 on 8/23/2010 1:31:37 PM , Rating: 1
Touche. However, speaking of WWII, the Japanese felt the same way when they started flying towards Hawaii... Do you agree that the Japanese were morally right in premtively attacking then?

Wasn't a preemptive strike, it was a first strike, it was all out cockyness, the war was going well for their side, and tried to push forward, even Hitler warned the Japanese not to attack the US, knowing it was guarantee our induction into the war.

RE: FAad
By seraphim1982 on 8/23/2010 3:35:35 PM , Rating: 5
It was a pre-emptive strike. The US posed as neutrals, but were aiding the Allies and cut off the oil supply from the Japanese. The Japanese thought that the Pearl Habour attack would cripple them long enough for them to secure their foothold in Asia (especially resource rich Manchuria), before getting attacked by the States. They underestimated the industrial power of the States, who bounced back from Pearl Habour, within a few months.

RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Bounced back within months? You may wanna check up on that one.

RE: FAad
By bodar on 8/23/2010 8:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not that far off, really.

After only one year, the "most extensive, difficult and complicated salvage and repair job ever undertaken" was nearly completed. The speed of recovery was psychologically important for U.S. morale as a symbol of the country's ability to bounce back within a year after the surprise attack. The full statement of naval losses--greater than previously disclosed--had been withheld for almost a year for reasons of security. A full disclosure would have given "a blueprint to the Japanese in a touch-and-go naval war."

RE: FAad
By Suntan on 8/23/2010 5:30:38 PM , Rating: 3
So America *did* wrong by not attacking sooner, and Japan *didn’t* do wrong by attacking American’s on American soil, without any forewarning...

So really what you are saying is that, in your mind, if America is involved, you think they are wrong and the other guy is right...


RE: FAad
By Gio6518 on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
At the time the US did not have the hardware or men that would of been needed to even make an attempt to stop the German forces.

RE: FAad
By Uncle on 8/23/2010 7:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
Iran is run by religious fanatics, their morality is not the same as the US of A morality. If we were to make comparisons using American standards then the Iranian Government is bankrupt of any morality.

RE: FAad
By TSS on 8/23/2010 10:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
Of course they'll develop them. They will never launch them though. They may be crazy, their not that crazy. You're not going to make president of any country by thinking like a suicide bomber, and as soon as they decide to launch a nuke, that's what their committing. Suicide.

And attacking iran is out of the question. This isn't iraq, there won't be a swift victory. It'll be a long and drawn out war (the current wars are long and drawn out occupations. The actual war was over in 2003-2004). Simply because the people there will not see the US as anything else but a agressor.

It's most likely that it'll just become another north-korea, simply an isolated nation. Which is their right if they want that.

I would be looking more to pakistan if i where you. Considering that's where al'qaida fled after beeing routed from afgahnistan. And they've been strenghtening to the point where they took over half the country and are able to hold their militairy off. Now with the floods and disasters groups like al'qaida grow in numbers, since the government can't do anyting and they take advantage of it.

It may very well be you'll have to invade pakistan because pakistan asks you to.

RE: FAad
By JonnyDough on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By MrTeal on 8/23/2010 11:03:38 AM , Rating: 5
And attacking iran is out of the question. This isn't iraq, there won't be a swift victory. It'll be a long and drawn out war (the current wars are long and drawn out occupations. The actual war was over in 2003-2004). Simply because the people there will not see the US as anything else but a agressor.

I think you'd be surprised; it'd probably be almost exactly like the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world, with 650 fighters and 4500 tanks. Iran currently ranks as eighth in the world in terms of active forces, with half the number of combat aircraft and tanks that the Iraqis had.

With the US bogged down in Afghanistan I don't think they would extend themselves by taking on Iran. But don't delude yourself that if NATO or the US decided to throw their full might onto Iran that it would be anything other than a decisive victory. Like you said, the occupation might be long and drawn out, but I would put money that major combat operations would be over within 3 months.

RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By iNGEN2 on 8/23/2010 12:04:30 PM , Rating: 1
The worst case is an Isrieli strike without US involvement, as the only possible Iranian response is an invasion of Isriel. As you can imagine, things in teh Middle East will deteriote very, very quickly.

Well said.

RE: FAad
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 3
An invasion of Israel? Seriously? How do you guys think they are getting there? Plowing through Iraq and having the US come down on them? Invading Turkey/Syria first? That's completely ridiculous.

Iran's more likely response would be to mess with Israel through more roundabout means, terrorist attacks, messing with shipping, funding insurgent groups, etc. Maybe they would retaliate with an air strike of their own, but an invasion is a pipe dream.

RE: FAad
By gamerk2 on 8/23/2010 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 1
Iran and Syria have been looking for a reason to be rid of Isriel for a long time, and Egypt may be forced to action, simply to keep the radical element from gaining power. [this also solves the route of how Iran would get to Isriel].

This is made worse, as Europe has all but declared they will not aid Isriel if they start the conflict, so you have a US/Isriel versus the Middle East, which would likely slap an oil embargo on the US forces.

Also, what does China do in such a situation? They have VERY close ties with Iran, including a few lucrative oil deals...

Will Turkey let us use thier airspace for a war Isriel starts? I doubt it. Same goes with teh Saudies. This would kill US operations, as the only airpower would be from aircraft carriers...

Nevermind the very real possibility Iraq may decide that joining its neighbors is in their best long-term interests...[wouldn't it SUCK if Iraq went to the UN and demanded the immediate withdrawel of US forces after all of the things we went through?]

The point being, there are a lot of ways for Iran to retaliate, and a lot more ways for the US to lose a lot of allies in a hurry. At some point, the US is going to be forced to either put a leash on Isriel, or to abondon them.

RE: FAad
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really solve that at all. How is Iran getting its troops and equipment to Egypt or Syria? Why would Egypt destroy its relationship with the United States in order to facilitate a war with Israel that would do nothing for it?

How would the Middle Eastern countries slap an oil embargo on the US? Oil is a global commodity, there is no way they can deny the US oil specifically as we could just buy it elsewhere. OPEC no longer has the power it once did.

Despite the fact that the US has withdrawn its combat troops from Iraq, there are still large concentrations of US troops there and they are vital for the stability of the government and society. Iraq asking them all to leave simply isn't going to happen.

I'm sorry, but all of these hypotheticals appear to be extremely far fetched and exceedingly unlikely. Iran will not be invading Israel, period.

RE: FAad
By MrTeal on 8/23/2010 1:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
His point still stands in terms of moving troops, even with Syrian cooperation. Turkey has strained relations with Israel right now, but it seems a little far-fetched to think that they would allow a hundred thousand Iranian soldiers march through Turkey to reach Syria. The only overland route to get to Syria would be through Iraq, and given their history I don't think that the Iraqi population would be any happier about Iranian troops in Baghdad that they are about the Americans. I don't think that the Iranians have to shipping capacity to move that much manpower and material to Egypt, and I doubt the US would let them even if they did.

Any attempts to invade Israel would hing on Egypt, just like it has in the past. They did nothing when Israel bombed Osirak in '81, and really show no signs of wanting another conflict. I don't think that a limited bombing campaign against a specific nuclear target in Iran would prompt the whole Arab world to band against the Israelis. I would imagine that there would be reprisals from Iran and probably Syria, but not an all-out invasion.

RE: FAad
By sviola on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By Steve1981 on 8/23/2010 2:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you know geography, but Turkey does not have a frontier with Iran and Syria does.

I'd recommend consulting a map.

RE: FAad
By sviola on 8/23/2010 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2 mistake. Sorry.

RE: FAad
By Wiggy Mcshades on 8/23/2010 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 1
The middle east can't set an oil embargo, all their wells are either owned or leased by corporations.

RE: FAad
By roadhog1974 on 8/24/2010 12:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
The middle east can't set an oil embargo, all their wells are either owned or leased by corporations.

In kettle of fish number 1 we have owning or leaseing something.

In kettle of fish number 2 we have being able to use or operate said thing.

RE: FAad
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 1:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think you'd be surprised, Iran has almost three times the population of Iraq. We might win an initial military victory but ultimately Iran would throw us out, just as Afghanistan will eventually.

RE: FAad
By roadhog1974 on 8/24/2010 1:02:54 AM , Rating: 3
You know an invasion of iran could actually work.

A fair chunk of iranians don't really like the revolutionary
guard or the supreme council.

Go in decapitate, withdraw.

Throw a whole lot of money at the rural poor, to shut
off the conservative, reactionary popular support and
the urban secularist might be able to take over.

Long shot, they weren't able to take over in 79,
and intellectuals prefer to talks about the ills of
than acutally do anything about them other than
write love letters to each other.

And most other muslim areas will hate you, maybe just
for image but still.

RE: FAad
By DrKlahn on 8/23/2010 11:19:44 AM , Rating: 4
You're assigning western cultural beliefs here. Look at the terrorist organization Iran backs. Look at it's governmental structure, it's a religious state. I don't find it a stretch at all to think Iran would see a nuclear detonation any differently than any other suicide mission they back. Finding a zealot to walk a suitcase bomb into a major American city and detonate it would not be a hurdle for them practically or ethically.

RE: FAad
By Azsen on 8/23/2010 11:45:15 AM , Rating: 3
They don't even have Anti-ballistic-missile capability. Fire off a few Minuteman III MIRV ICBMs and they're a giant smoking crater.

Second option you could just bomb the hell out of them with B-2s, F-22s and F-35s to mop up. They won't even be able to detect them coming let alone have a chance at mounting a successful defense.

RE: FAad
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 12:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, a nuclear holocaust is not the answer.

Secondly, the strategic reason we shouldn't attack Iran is not that we wouldn't win, but is their ability to impede commerce in the Strait of Hormuz.

RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: FAad
By Quadrillity on 8/23/2010 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Go back to ramping open water in your 1969 Dodge Charger... YEEHAW!!!

How rude... Maybe you should put down your crumpets and tea for a minute and think about how to discuss like an adult. Have any more name callings or reasons to think that you are better than everyone else?

RE: FAad
By Iaiken on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By iNGEN2 on 8/23/2010 12:02:09 PM , Rating: 5
And attacking iran is out of the question. This isn't iraq, there won't be a swift victory. It'll be a long and drawn out war (the current wars are long and drawn out occupations. The actual war was over in 2003-2004). Simply because the people there will not see the US as anything else but a agressor.

I'm in the US Marine Corps, and I'd put my bet on the USMC, just the USMC alone, over the whole of Iran's military any day. As for as for occupation/restoration, well that's the Army's job. Go ask a soldier if that's feasible.

RE: FAad
By Master Kenobi on 8/23/2010 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 3
I'll chime in then since I'm US Army. Iran easily crushed militarily. As for occupation/restoration, not our problem. All we really need to do is eliminate the infrastructure, kill the majority of the republican guard and leave. There is plenty of civil unrest over there to cause Iran to change its ways once the current govt is toppled or its power base (Republican Guard) is eliminated and they can no longer dictate through fear and power.

RE: FAad
By HotFoot on 8/23/2010 4:03:53 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder why we didn't do something like that in Afghanistan or Iraq. Often I thought, though it might seem heartless, that an appropriate NATO response to the 9/11 attacks would be a campaign of air strikes/covert strikes on Taliban and Al-Qadia targets. The ground occupation, it seems, is in the name of avoiding a power vacuum and setting up some form of stable government. I'm not sure these ideas are worth the blood the West has on it's hands.

RE: FAad
By eskimospy on 8/24/2010 1:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Because we don't have the ability to simply wipe out the Taliban. If we had bombed the Taliban/Al Qaeda targets back in 2001-2002 and then just left, they would be running the country in the same way they were before in no time flat. It would have been a big waste of time and money.

I mean you can argue that our current strategy is a big waste of time and money also, but I would have to say that if you're going to go to the trouble of removing a regime from power you want to make sure they aren't back in power 6 months later.

RE: FAad
By nafhan on 8/23/2010 10:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
Well, attacking Iran would be a great way to turn it from a place where some Iranians hate the US to a place where most of them hate the US...
Seriously, though, I just don't think the US would be capable of "nation building" in three countries at the same time. Two countries for almost 10 years is really stretching it, already. Plus, with public opinion as low as it is about the current wars, starting that stuff in a third theater just wouldn't be politically feasible, at least not without some MAJOR provocation.

RE: FAad
By Zingam on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By Zingam on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: FAad
By AssBall on 8/23/2010 10:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
Iran's "doomsday" arms scare me about as much as the Russian's 1960 technology it is based off of. Underfunded, outmatched, prone to failure, and easily deterred.

RE: FAad
By themengsk176 on 8/23/2010 1:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
So one the one hand we're supposed to believe that Iran is an immediate threat that needs to be preemptively attacked for the good of world peace -

and yet their military is so obviously inferior to ours.

So why are they such a great threat again? Why is this jingoistic propaganda for war being shoved in our faces again?

Why is it necessary to attack another country that we hold an overwhelming technological and military advantage over?

RE: FAad
By AssBall on 8/23/2010 8:18:39 PM , Rating: 3
Iran is only a threat to themselves. If they don't smarten their governmental policies the BLEEP up they will be the next North Korea. Ineffective, useless, whining, dogmatic retards that continually just poke the global systemization in the ribs.

I don't care if they think making Israel 65 years ago was a stupid decision. It doesn't matter. It is there now and dealing with it is not something to argue against with violent, archaic religious mantra, but some common logic. Until they get that straight, no one is going to take them seriously.

RE: FAad
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 6:09:33 PM , Rating: 4
it makes you wonder if we're (U.S.) making the right decision by doing nothing right now.

We're doing lots. We have Obama to talk to them. What could go wrong?

RE: FAad
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 10:24:53 AM , Rating: 1
Let me preface this by saying that I am very pro-Israel, them being the only non-whackjob religious nut country in the middle east.

BUT... A lot of the problems that the US encounters comes from us sticking our noses where they don't belong. We don't need to attack everyone who threatens, and we don't need to be isolationist either.

What we need is to have a huge stick, and use it *heavily* in the event another entity attacks us or our allies. When we're done, we should NOT rebuild.

A nuclear world is inevitable, so let them have it and tell them that the instant one of their bombs goes off anywhere near us or our friends, we will bring holy-hell down on their useless, backward nation. As long as we mean it, we only have to follow through once and the rest of the whackjobs will heed the warning.

Politically, we should simply vote for sanctions and consequences for countries like North Korea. The rest of the world is gutless and lacks spine. There is no point going out of our way to clean up and control others if we don't have backing.

Deja vu anyone?
By Thelookingglass on 8/23/2010 12:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
World behavior right now is very reminiscent of the years leading up to world war two.

"Don't do that. We will be angry and write you letters saying how angry we are. Seriously, please don't do it."

Its human nature to be a predator. If you act like prey, there are millions of people who will take advantage of you.

Iran's nuke site should've been pummeled a long time ago. Of course they have the right to peacful nuclear energy. But with their leaders' warmongering and fanatically religious rants, they've yet to earn it or build the credibility to deserve it.

Ignorance is bliss. At least until reality appears and destroys the world you know.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 12:46:34 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the most accurate comparison to bast behavior is that of hawkish groups in the US before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including the obligatory Hitler references.

It never ceases to amaze me that in all of history up until 1889 humanity had only created one Hitler, but now there seems to be Hitlers galore in every corner of the Earth. Even more bizarre, for some reason all these new Hitlers seem to be located in countries that have conflicting strategic interests with the US. Must be a coincidence.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By Thelookingglass on 8/23/2010 12:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
You're right. Murdering every jew in the nation of Isreal has everything to do with "Strategic Interests of the US". Asipirations to spread Sharia Law and Islam throughout the world through forced conversion and the murdering of nonbelievers is completely a problem that only concerns the US.

You amaze me with your idiocy. You embody the word vacuous my friend.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 2:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Iranians never threatened to kill all the Jews, they have a Jewish population in Iran that is fairly treated. They only want the destruction of the Zionist government. Iran has never attacked anyone unlike the record of America and Israel

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By Moishe on 8/24/2010 10:28:19 AM , Rating: 1
If you can't be trusted to see and hear the words that have come from Iran's own mouth, then you lack any credibility.

As far as "attacking" outright, Iran would get absolutely destroyed if they did, and they know it. Israel and the US would only need a good excuse.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 3:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard those words and neither have you, post a link where they said they wanted to kill all jews or anything similar or YOU lack credibility.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 2:02:55 PM , Rating: 1
You know before you tell someone that you are amazed at their idiocy, you should probably make sure you know what you're talking about. Despite the over the top, ignorant, and insulting nature of your post, I will respond to it in a rational manner. I would hope you can muster up the ability to do the same in the future.

The strategic goals of Iran are not to 'murder every Jew in the nation of Israel'. You are confusing the inflammatory statements of an official with exactly zero real foreign policy power (Ahmadinejad) with the foreign policy of a nation.

In addition, the murder and forced conversion of nonbelievers is ridiculous fantasy. Iran has significant religious minorities in it as we speak, and it has not murdered nor forcibly converted them. (they are quite a bit nicer to those of the book than others, however) You would have us believe that Iran plans to undertake policies around the world that it chooses not to implement in land it currently controls? What are you basing this on? Please be specific.

If you read up on Iran from sources with strong foreign policy credentials that do not have an ideological goal in mind, you'll see that Iran's behavior has been perfectly rational from a strategic perspective. Our opposition to Iran getting nuclear weapons is also perfectly rational, but it has nothing to do with Iran being the next Nazi Germany. (which remains absurd hyperbole)

Iran becoming a nuclear state hurts our ability to project power in the Middle East, strengthens theirs, and gives it an effective 'get out of jail free' card against US invasion/military strikes. THAT is why we should oppose Iran's nuclear program, not due to some stupid belief that their powerless president is another Hitler.

This trend of demonizing our adversaries is an old one, but it does nothing to help people actually understand and judge the merits of military action because it buries it under poorly thought out emotional appeals to stop the Holocaust II.

RE: Deja vu anyone?
By werfu on 9/2/2010 10:13:55 AM , Rating: 1
I know there's both side abuse that describe each others as evil, but if you look frankly at the situation this is a strong parallel to be made with WW2. The region has been oppressed for a long while. Iran has a huge resentment over the Palestinian issue and the revolution scars are still there (either of those who liked the Sha and those who don't). They see the american handle on the middle east as the continuation of the British colonial area. The country is oppressed by economical embargo and bullied (which is normal as the country doesn't sucks american). I don't caution Iran current government philosophy and think that secularism is the only way we can live peacefully, but I do think that a country has the right to self determination.

If you look before WW2 , Germany was economically down because of the huge penalties it had to pay over WW1. They had a huge resentment over their defeat. But the Nazis stepped in and changed that. They had a popular leader having a strong and violent rhetoric. Finally the country got up again and full steam. Now look at Iran. You've got a country which is a political mixture ready to explode, a violent leader and a country that is steaming up technologically even under international pressure. The middle east region is so unstable that a simple skirmish could scale to full war. Isreal last intervention in Lebanon didn't triggered anything, but the Lebanese government said that it would intervene full scale with its army would Isreal come back.

Let's suppose Isreal do strike again against Lebanon. Lebanese army isn't strong enough to answer to the Israeli army, but Syria and Iran will step in quite quickly on Lebanese request. Now spread the shit a bit further. American allies in the Gulf have been under pressure from extremists for a while or could be. Just think about Egypt, Jordan, Koweit, Saudi Arabia. These are all totalitarian regime or monarchy. In the move of the war, it would be easy to topple these regime and put in place islamic government or pro-islamic government. Now, you're in face of a middle east - northern african front of Islamic country all looking to kick american ass. Sure this is hypothetic, but the threat looks real to me. Want to see even bigger? Venezuela vs Colombia and North vs South Korea. Too much heat in a part of the world and you can set off other conflict in other part. And you're on with a full scale world war.

By JonB on 8/23/2010 10:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
This plant uses slightly enriched Uranium fuel assemblies, just like virtually all the nuclear plants around the world. The amount of fissionable U235 is very low to start, several orders of magnitude below bomb grade. The bulk of the Uranium is the not-very-useful U238. But, after a full power run of 12 to 18 months, there will be a useable amount of the U238 that has been converted to P239 (weapons grade Plutonium). If you remove the fuel rods, mechanically and chemically remove the P239 from the mix, you can make a small, powerful fission bomb.

BUT - if the Russians are even mildly concerned about keeping the spent fuel assemblies from the Iranians, all they need to do is COUNT! There will only be around 100 fuel assemblies in the reactor. During a refueling, they will take out 30 to 50 and replace them with fresh fuel. Can the Russians count to 30 or 50? I believe they can.

When removed from a reactor, these things are HOT HOT HOT (temperature and radioactive) and will kill anyone who gets near them. They can't be processed for months or years. So, at the very worst right now, there is little to worry about until 2015 or 2020.

I can't stress enough that spent fuel assemblies, though temptingly rich in fissionable bomb material, are too dangerous for any country to deal with immediately. They must decay for years or any attempt at extraction would be suicidal.

By rcpratt on 8/23/2010 11:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your first two paragraphs are perfectly accurate, but as for the second half, come on. Do you really think humans will be handling spent nuclear fuel even several years after removal? I'm sure that any country that has figured out nuclear physics can create a fairly simple robotic/mechanical to handle and process the fuel. Yes, the fuel will remain in a spent fuel pool for awhile after removal, but that is because of temperature, not radioactivity.

By JonnyDough on 8/23/2010 11:47:50 AM , Rating: 3

The Iran they don't want you to see.
By Director on 8/23/2010 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
Burger-munching invasion monkeys FTW?

Haven't you guys woken up to yourselves yet? Iran is merely the next victim of TEAM America's rapacious need for control and resources, there are others on the list as well and the New Roman Empire wont rest unless it has destroyed everything. How long will you continue to sacrifice your sons and daughters on the alter of a 'New World Order' when it profits you, the people of America nothing and costs you everything?

In the meantime, here is the Iran they don't want you to see.

By Moishe on 8/24/2010 10:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
Oooh a propaganda youtube vid! I bet I can find a dozen of those for the worst murdering thug led countries on the planet.

By masamasa on 8/23/2010 7:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
President Ahmandinejad said the drone was primarily a messenger of peace, but could become a "messenger of death" if circumstances mandate it. He cheers, "This jet is a messenger of honor and human generosity and a savior of mankind, before being a messenger of death for enemies of mankind. The key message is friendship. We must make efforts to render all the enemy's weapons useless with our defense potential."

President Ahmandinejad is a nutjob. How can you expect the world to take you seriously when your country is an oppressive, terrorist-supporting regime and your statements to the world clearly indicate you're short a few marbles.

It's time to put this fellow in a capsule and jetison him into space so he can hang with Allah and his virgins.

RE: Nutjob!
By Kaleid on 8/23/2010 9:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ask yourself this. Why doesn't the media point out that the president doesn't even have a lot of power?

I'll give you the answer. They participate in selling another war. Fool me once..

By desertpenguin85 on 8/24/2010 12:52:06 AM , Rating: 3
Iran supports terrorists who kill innocent lives, and Israel kills innocents Palestinians..

Iran tortures its citizens, and Israel discriminate against non-jews..

Israel took the land of innocent people, with the help of the UK and UN, and still refuses to at least give them half their own land!!!

Both Iran and Israel should never have nukes,, but sadly Israel already has... oh but the UN and the world governments (especially US) can't acknowledge it... every entity is afraid of the Jewish lobby and the Jewish wealth... Israel is the world's little baby!! Thanks to Robert Murdoch propaganda machines... and the rest of the Jewish controlled media.

peace out!

By Kaleid on 8/23/2010 3:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Iran has about the same military budget as Sweden which Bush didn't even think had an army. This is what they wish to scare us with now? Not buying it, especially since Iran has been the target of many hawks for years long before we hear the all too similar WMD-claims. Fool me once...

Defence & Protection
By seraphim1982 on 8/23/2010 3:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
Most of Iran's armies are more suited for defence rather and an invasion. They don't have the logistical capabilities to maintain an attack on foreign soil.

Additionally, their > 1 Million troops, as stated, only half of that are active and rest are reserve troops. Most of their actually military vehicles are locally produced, so honestly, we don't know if their superior or inferior to us based military vehicles (more likey inferior). Even their UAV, have a small range, which is kinda of useless unless deployed closer to enemy lines. If anyone should be scared any Middle Eastern country it should be Israel.

What good are sanctions anyway...
By crleap on 8/23/2010 6:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
When we are handing them billions of dollars for their oil to drive our pickup trucks and make all our plastic products? They can afford to go off the grid and develop these technologies themselves even if there weren't a dozen other countries willing to sell them the tech for the right slice of that oil money.

Iran using nuclear power is good
By PrinceGaz on 8/23/2010 9:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
The less countries rely on fossil fuels the better to reduce global-warming, so the more countries switch to nuclear power the better. In addition nuclear offers those countries a normally better stability of supply as it is easy to stockpile lengthy reserves of nuclear-fuel, whereas fossil-fuels tend to be bulky and subject to supply fluctuations.

I know Iran are considered slightly suspect by some countries, but doesn't Iran, like Israel, have the right to generate power from nuclear-fission rather than relying on potentially unstable oil/gas or other fossil fuel sources?

Congrats Iran!
By fAt baSSturd on 8/23/2010 9:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
It only took them 65 years to catch up to German WWII technology.

Pirated and ...
By RoberTx on 8/25/2010 9:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
The UAV is most likely a re-engineered South African design. Nothing new hear from the Iranian propaganda machine, a new miracle weapon each week.

War is as human as sex.
By diggernash on 8/23/2010 6:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
I would rather devote time and energy to ensuring victory of my group of humans rather than debating whether the fight is proper and civilized. It is going to happen in one place or another, over one issue or another. It does not matter whether the reason behind it is good or moral. We should always be prepared with a force that can crush any other force that can be mounted against us. Otherwise, a group of horse-riding nomads may finish us off.

War is both evil and inevitable. I would rather be less right and more alive.

On a side note, we would not moan about the cost of war if we would take spoils, as has been done for thousands of years. Iraqi oil at only a small discount would have paid off both wars relatively quickly. Thank the deep and insidiously interconnected global financial community for not allowing us to reap a return on our investment in military hardware.

Radioactive uranium rods, really?
By rcpratt on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
this is a good thing
By OBLAMA2009 on 8/24/10, Rating: 0
The US critizies Russia for dealing with Iran...
By BZDTemp on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
By smackababy on 8/23/2010 11:35:18 AM , Rating: 1
Last time I checked, Israel hasn't stated they want certain other countries wiped off the map and would do it if they had the means. Just saying...

By BZDTemp on 8/23/2010 7:11:57 PM , Rating: 1
No, they have not said so but it's not like Israel is acting like a peace loving nation. In fact taking the more than 100:1 kill ratio towards the people Israel keep in camps I'd say they are trying to get away with genocide.

By Thelookingglass on 8/23/2010 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
Last time I checked, Isreal's leaders haven't publicly announced they don't believe the american revolution happened. Or that man hasn't been to space. Both of which have similar amounts of information and evidence to their occurence as the holocaust.

Please find your intelligence. You seem to have misplaced it.

By MPE on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
By Zingam on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/23/2010 11:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
Iran hasn't made good on it's statement of wiping out Israel because it lacks the means to do so. I have no doubt that building this plant and these drones are steps to remedy this. It's hands are hardly clean with the backing of the various terrorist organizations currently attacking Israel and other countries throughout the world.

U.S. policy isn't perfect in Iraq or Afghanistan. But in the first Iraq war a nation was liberated. And the second the country was freed from a brutal dictator responsible for killing far more of his own citizens then coalition forces did in either war.

RE: Iran
By Spivonious on 8/23/2010 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
A brutal dictator that the U.S. helped get into power in the 1960s in order to get an anti-Communist presence near Soviet-controlled Iran.

The "world police" is not working for us. Time to re-read our history books and go back to the principles our country was founded upon.

RE: Iran
By gamerk2 on 8/23/2010 1:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
You kinda forget that we backed a dictator in Iran for decades. Kinda explains why they hate us so much...

Then, we put Saddam in power as a counter-balence to Iran, then had to go to war with him when we found out that *gasp*, he was a brutal dictator with dreams of glory.

Then, we went to war on false pretenses, put Iran in teh same group as Iraq [which to them, translated to "Your next, after we deal with Saddam], and removed Saddam, the only counter-balence to Irans rise to power.

So yeah, we backed a dicator in Iran, we backed a dictator against Iran, then we removed said dictator and strengthed Iran's postition, only now the REALLY hate us because we constantly backed dictators.

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/23/2010 2:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Then, we went to war on false pretenses,

This sentence was the biggest clue that you are just a complete biased media tool. You are a moron.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you the guy who in this same comments section was telling someone to stop with the name calling and to discuss things like an adult?

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 2:42:42 PM , Rating: 1
Lots of people say that we went to war under false pretenses, including a number of people who know quite a bit more about the Middle East than you or I. It certainly doesn't mean that they are morons.

I find that we can basically look at it two ways, the US public supported the war either under false pretenses, or incompetent pretenses. The primary justification for the war was Saddam's WMD programs, none of which actually existed. Either our government knew that the evidence was flimsy and presented it as solid (false pretenses) or they were so bad at their jobs that they led a nation to war on wildly incorrect intelligence, and it's their job to figure those sorts of things out. (incompetence)

I personally think that Bush and co. saw the intelligence and foolishly let themselves believe what they wanted to believe, and then went out to sell it. I don't actually think they intended to lie us into the war, but any reasonable person should be able to admit that it's a possibility. They definitely shouldn't be calling people morons for saying it.

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/23/2010 4:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
So ... by your undertone, I gather that you are one of those that run around proclaiming that we went to war for oil? Otherwise you really need to research on the MANY different REAL reasons of why we are at war in the middle east.

One big one hint: jihad

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 4:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Of course one of the primary reasons we went to war was because of the oil in the region, I'm not aware of a single credible source that thinks otherwise. It's an immensely important strategic resource and we'd be fools to ignore that.

If you're one of those people that thinks another benefit of the Iraq war was to start 'draining the swamp', I'd agree to a certain extent. (it's good to have a democratic nation there for our long term interests in changing the structure of the region) Iraq was not a major source or enabler of Islamic terrorism however, and so to think that we were invading that country as a blow against jihadists isn't very accurate. Yes, I know that Saddam gave some minor funding to suicide bombers and such, but in the big picture it wasn't a driving force.

So no, I don't go running around saying anything, because the answer can't be summed up in a small phrase like that, be it either oil or jihad.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 6:16:39 PM , Rating: 1
We have plenty of oil HERE. The idea that it makes perfect sense to go to a war over THERE for oil is an absurd leftist fantasy.

To this day we haven't taken a drop of oil from Iraq. And the Liberal theory that we went to war to secure an import source falls in the face of the fact that we import more from Canada and South America than from the Middle East. And the oil from the Middle East we do import is NOT from Iraq.

Are you people so consumed with partisanship and hate that you can't even consider the possibility that Bush honestly wanted to do everything he could to defend this country AND stabilize the Middle East to prevent further attacks? Not to mention the huge majority of Congress, on both parties, who voted for the same agenda.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 6:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
I always love how the hardest core partisan ideologues on here continually accuse everyone else of being blinded by partisanship. You might want to see a therapist, because you're doing some heavy duty projection.

You do not appear to know that oil is a global commodity, and so things that affect oil anywhere affect it everywhere. It doesn't mean the slightest thing that we 'have enough oil here', or if we don't get a single drop of oil from Iraq or we get all of our oil from there. The actual concern is what the PRICE of oil is, and that is absolutely affected by what happens in the Middle East, hence our continued heavy involvement for the last half century or so. The specific countries we get it from are entirely irrelevant. How do you not know this?

We want to get off foreign oil in order to put economic pressure on unfriendly regimes and make ourselves immune to things like the OPEC embargos. A country has to be a large enough producer in order to take the global supply below demand levels for their embargo to have a serious impact though, and it's really no longer clear that anyone can even do that, OPEC included.

Seriously, grab a book and educate yourself on US foreign policy. You appear to believe that one of the primary driving purposes for US policy in the Middle East is an 'absurd leftist fantasy'. What you've written here is blindingly ignorant and you are embarrassing yourself yet again.

Not that I'm super surprised or anything though, I mean you are Reclaimer77 after all.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 7:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
We want to get off foreign oil in order to put economic pressure on unfriendly regimes and make ourselves immune to things like the OPEC embargos.

Who's "we"? Because the energy policy of this nation for the past 20+ years has certainly NOT been to get off foreign oil. Congressional and Presidential bans of drilling and exploration are not ways of "getting off" foreign oil.

How do you not know this?

Of course I know this! But when people say we "went to war for oil" you know goddamn well they didn't have the global market and the price of oil in mind. They meant we went to war to either take oil or make Bush and his "Texas oil exec buddies" more rich. Don't patronize me, it's their lunatic opinions I'm debating.

I always love how the hardest core partisan ideologues on here continually accuse everyone else of being blinded by partisanship.

You ARE one of the most hard core idealists on here. Might want to look in the mirror. If you're a Centrist than I'm Hillary Clinton.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 7:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you knew that oil was a global commodity you would not have said that the US has plenty of oil here, thus rendering a war in Iraq for it unnecessary; you would have known how completely meaningless such a statement was. Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and got called on it.

As for your interpretation of my ideology I find it highly unlikely that you even know what it is. You already have shown a clearly erroneous idea of my foreign policy views.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 7:54:26 PM , Rating: 1
So your argument is that I, a 33 year old male with Internet access, doesn't know that oil is a global commodity?

Yeah, real believable. Once again, I was responding to the rhetoric of others, not injecting my own opinion. I don't know how much more simpler I can put this.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 8:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is my argument. It is based directly upon what you wrote, because your post would have been nonsensical if you had understood that it was a global commodity.

If you were responding to the 'rhetoric of others', in many ways that's even worse than simple ignorance. No one in the thread you were responding to (and I don't think anyone in the whole comments... although I'm not going to check) made the assertion you were arguing against. In that case you were deliberately trolling for a fight by attacking an argument that no one made in an inflammatory way. When I told you before that you behave poorly on here, that's the sort of thing I mean.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 8:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is my argument. It is based directly upon what you wrote, because your post would have been nonsensical if you had understood that it was a global commodity.

So choosing between a) a poorly phrased sentence perhaps or b) me being the dumbest person alive AND having lived in a cave, you went with B.

Hey, why bother arguing someone when you can just destroy him personally. And you have the audacity to say I'm trolling.

When I told you before that you behave poorly on here, that's the sort of thing I mean.

Right back at you, apparently. Sorry but your behavior is no better than mine based on that criteria.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/24/2010 12:52:57 AM , Rating: 2

It wasn't a 'poor phrase', it was the entire premise of your post. You said something foolish and unsupportable and then when called on it you attempt to lie your way out. When I didn't buy your lie, you claim victimhood. Pretty sad.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/24/2010 2:29:46 AM , Rating: 1
Look I'm tired of your bullshit. There was no "war for oil", ok? End of discussion.

RE: Iran
By Blue Rhetoric on 8/24/2010 8:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
You're right! The war was based on the insane ideologies, tons of mad jihadists, and the overwhelming evidence of a WMD program. Oil was truly not a factor. Oh and the Iraqis did 9-11 too right?

RE: Iran
By FITCamaro on 8/23/2010 7:47:06 PM , Rating: 1
We went to war with Iraq because every western intelligence service agreed with us that they had nuclear weapons and/or other WMDs.

RE: Iran
By Kaleid on 8/23/2010 9:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Bullocks. There was a lot of doubts like from mr Blix.
You were sold a war on bogus intelligence cooked and mixed to scare the ignorant public.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 11:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did you just...?

Did you just reference Hans Blix as a reputable source?? Hans Blix who failed his job repeatedly? Hans Blix who gave false testimony? Hans Blix who said "Iraq people were better off under Saddam"? Hans Blix who said "the war was illegal"? Tell me, what is a chief UN inspector doing giving testimony on war crimes and legality anyway?

Hans Blix is no more than a mouthpiece and an incompetent one at that. If he had done his job properly WMD's wouldn't have even been a debate, we would have KNOWN. His job wasn't to run his mouth and try to prevent a war, his job was determine if Iraq was cooperating with UN sanctions. He completely bungled that and has no credibility.

They call him the Puppet of Paris for a reason.

RE: Iran
By Kaleid on 8/24/2010 7:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
He did his job well, because nothing was found by him and nothing was found after the invasion. They had nothing.

The whole thing was hyped up to scare up the ignorant masses, in other words that is how the war was sold.

The war was illegal, that is not disputed really at all. There was no threat to USA and the Bush doctrorine is illegal according to international laws which prohibit pre-emptive warfare.

The intelligence was largely sexed up. This is supported by Cheney's early mapping of Iraqi oil fields, Rumsfelds order to tie 9/11 to Iraq ("go massive"), office of special plans (look for info from Karen Kwiatkowski), the downing street memos, Bush and Blairs idea of even painting an aircraft in UN colors and hope Saddam would shoot it down, O'Neil who said that Bush early on focused on Iraq, PNAC papers on US agenda in the middle-east (which for instance calls for a more permanent presence in the middle-east even should relations with Saddam improve), the fact that a lot of the plans for the Iraqi oil industry was already pretty much planned ahead (it needs to be private), Valerie Plame story, both Rice and Powell saying in 2001 that Iraq hasn't in anyway regained any capabilities to produce WMD:s and cannot do so all of the sudden, Bush's comment on "f-ck it, we're taking out Saddam", Blairs admission that the Iraq war would and should have happened no matter what...

And we can still see this today when it comes to Iran. Like Bolton who for instance wishes the Iranians would kick the inspection people out, because this would be more "beneficial" for us:

There's even wish for an attack on US soil:

And we know from earlier statements that the very same kind of people want into Iran as well: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” [Newsweek, 8/11/2002; Newsweek, 8/11/2002]

It's all a matter of selling it to the public. And if repeated enough people will buy into and the war will happen. Iran is however a different beast because they might receive support from China and Russia who have heavily invested inside the country. Russia has even said that an attack on Iran would be seen as an attack on Russia itself.

The world will face even more dire energy demands in the future. The interest in the middle-east is largely about the black gold. Like Cheney said, "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." Dick Cheney

Fool me once...

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 6:10:28 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't know Saddam was a jihadist!and neither did anyone else. Try another hint. We were taking out a threat to our butt buddy Israel.

RE: Iran
By gamerk2 on 8/23/2010 2:51:36 PM , Rating: 5
Read: The stated reason for going to war with Iraq was Saddams WMD program...which the UN said he didn't have, experts said he didn't have, and it turned out, he didn't have.

As such, whats a country like Iran to think? Bush (stupidly) grouped Iran, Iraq, and NK together, and then started a war under an assumption that was proven false. So from Iran/NK's point of view, the only way to gurantee NOT to be invaded, rather then not build nukes (as Bush already showed the US would invade anyways) was to proactivly build them. Is it any shock Imanutjob got elected AFTER the Iraqi invasion, or that NK's nuke test was in 2006-2007?

Again, we backed a brutal dictator in the 60's-70's. He was overthrown, and a new government put into place. We then armed Saddam, for the sole purpose of destabalizing Iran, and eventually had to remove him ourselves (Iran-Contra, first Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom). This was the same policy the US followed throughout the cold war in Vietnam and Cuba as well (and look at the long term results of backing said dictators; didn't end well did it?).

If the US continues to back dictators, we can expect more Vietnams, more Cuba's, and more Irans in the future. We are seeing the long-term effects of "fighting Communism" now, we need to start asking what the long term effets of "fighting Islamic Extremeism" will be in the future.

The great irony, of course, is the majority of the middle-east LIKES THE UNITED STATES! But our policy continues to lessen that statistic, helping teh radicals get a larger and louder voice...

RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/23/2010 5:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
The intelligence was enough to convince the U.S. Congress (who declares war, something people conveniently forget) and the Executive branch that Iraq had this material. Whether they did or not is debatable. The former Air Minister claims that it was shipped to Syria after the war started. 550 tons of Uranium was discovered and removed post Saddam:
But the media at large did not make a big issue of it. I'm sure it was there for a peaceful reason.

No forgets the Shah or the U.S. involvement with him. The radical Ayatollah that replaced him was no improvement. It's interesting you feel that the current Iranian president was actually elected. What data we have points to the Supreme Leader (the real power in Iran) putting in who he wants in.

Both superpowers backed questionable regimes in the cold war. The U.S. backing of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, along with other NATO nations, was a lesser of the two evils gambit. It doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean that the leaders of the nations involved at the time didn't feel it was necessary.

As far as invasion of Iran. A surefire way for Iran to not be invaded or attacked would be to cease its defiance of the U.N. and dismantle its nuclear program. While they are at it, Iran could also form a true democracy that treats women with equality and stops the murdering of homosexuals.

Israel and the U.S. would be happy to leave Iran alone. As it sits now, I'm not sure either can afford to.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/23/2010 6:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, the uranium was not discovered post Saddam. The reason the media didn't make a big deal about it was that there was zero reason to make a big deal out of it.

The yellowcake that was moved as per that story was uranium that was known to be there since the first Gulf War and was sealed in containers by the UN in 1991.

Also, if you believe that defiance of the UN is a good reason to be attacked or invaded, we have a long list of countries to attack and invade, Israel included.

RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/24/2010 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
There are still reports from top officials from Saddam's regime that claim the weapons they were working on were moved to Syria. Regardless of whether it's true or not, we can probably agree that the U.S. acted hastily and in anger in the days following 9/11. Which is never a good combination.

No, defiance of the U.N. isn't reason enough to be invaded. Defiance by a nation known to back terrorist organizations, with an extremist religious government that is striving for nuclear power (which in turn will allow for weapons production) is getting borderline.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/24/2010 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
No, defiance of the U.N. isn't reason enough to be invaded.

Isn't firing on allied aircraft an act of war as well? Which Saddam most certainly did, multiple times.

Let's face it, by any objective standards, there was no shortage of reasons to legitimately declare war on Saddam.

RE: Iran
By Kaleid on 8/24/2010 7:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest reason to declare war on Saddam was because he was so long assisted by USA itself. Be part of creating a monster and one should have responsibility to remove him as well.

Make no mistake though. The reason the west, or China or Russia and other nations for the matter has any interest in the middle-east is because of its vast energy-resources.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 3:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
we didn't declare war on Iraq

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 3:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
How about the Navy shooting down an Iranian airliner? Is that an act of war? Nah, we're the good guys.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 6:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't Israel cease its defiance of the U.N. and dismantle its Nuclear program? Oh, thats right, they won't let inspectors in to verify if they have any or not!

RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/24/2010 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
Probably because it has neighboring nations with governments run by religious extremists that have publicly stated they wish to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

When Israel decides to change it's government into a radical, religiously based one that backs terrorist activities and begins to openly state intentions of genocide of other nations I'll start to worry about them.

If the Iran's and Syria of the region decided to live in peace do you think Israel wouldn't do the same? Would a nuclear armed Iran use that capability either directly or indirectly against what it sees as its enemies? I would say there is a very good chance.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 2:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
The Israelis are religious extremists themselves, they don't have to change their government, it is radical and religiously based and it does support terrorist activities and it fully intends to take over the West Bank eventually. A nuclear Iran would never use its few warheads because it knows that would be suicide. give it a break

RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/25/2010 10:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Last I checked Israel was a functioning parliamentary democracy. No Supreme Leader or Council of Guardians.

A nuclear Iran has a good chance of considering a preemptive strike against Israel and an even better one of arming the terrorist organizations it backs with small devices to smuggle into cities. The latter even gives them some deniability. What we consider suicide some of the religious extremists in the Iranian government would see as a religious ascension.

Give it a break? How about looking at how each of these countries actually functions and treats it's citizens. You continue to try to paint them with the same brush. They aren't even remotely the same. When I see women being stoned to death and homosexuals outright killed in Israel I may start looking at them same way.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 11:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't care about the Palestinians that are killed by the zionists.

RE: Iran
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
The intelligence was enough to convince the U.S. Congress (who declares war, something people conveniently forget) and the Executive branch that Iraq had this material.

Isn't it amazing what marketing can accomplish?

Lord Hutton's report clearly stipulates that several key members of the British government (including the ambassador to the US) knew that the entire media frenzy that the executive branch and pentagon was drumming up was just a farce and that the US government would eventually get their war if they lied loud enough long enough without getting caught.

As for spreading Democracy, it's hard for an idea to take root in places where people simply don't understand it. Democracy is such a HUGE paradigm shift from what some of these nations are used to (Tribalism, Theocracy, Warlords and Dictatorships). There has not been a single successful installment of democracy by a foreign power in history. Real democracy stems from the desire of the people to have the power.

Look at post war Iraq, most people still don't vote because they either don't understand or don't care either way because it's just a meaningless gesture.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2010 6:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but for your conspiracy theory to be correct, 5 intelligence agencies, 4 Congressional committees (3 of them chaired by Democrats at the time) 2 international agencies, and everyone else on up to the President's office would have had to be in on this "lie" for it to succeed. The ENTIRE Government would have to be involved! We're talking THOUSANDS of people here. You aren't talking about marketing, you are talking about mind control!

Sorry there's just no way Bush or anyone else had that kind of leverage even if they wanted to pull this off. Things like that just don't happen in America. This isn't a Tom Clancy novel.

RE: Iran
By Blue Rhetoric on 8/24/2010 8:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
Politicians lying? Unheard of and I refuse to believe so!

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/24/2010 9:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's sad to say that the truth is so unpopular these days. If it doesn't fit their skewed vision of this world, then it is automatically tossed out.

RE: Iran
By Iaiken on 8/24/2010 12:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Then how is it that reports from JIC and the CIA on " possible possession weapons of mass destruction" became probable WMD's and finally by the time the US people were addressed they were being told "Sadam certainly has WMD's, is willing to use them and of both these things there can be no doubt."

The American/British people were either deliberately mislead or the American/British executives were completely incompetent. While I am not sure which I find more frightening, I know that I find the first of these two possibilities far more plausible.

Look, the documents exist to prove you were lied to:

You can either accept that you were lied to in order to get America into a war that the Administration wanted back before 9/11 or you can't. This is a conversation between the administrations of Britain and the US and the British leaders strongly felt they were being lied to.

“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The above quote is from the minutes of the meetings between US and British officials and is the comment is directed at the factual intelligence that was being presented by both US and British intelligence. They knew, FOR A FACT, that the WMD media frenzy being stirred up was complete and utter BS.

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/24/2010 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 1
So damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. My personal opinion: I'm glad Bush IMMEDIATELY took action to defend our freedom. He was in a no win situation, and I am damn proud that he took decisive action.

We are against a faceless enemy that knows no honor in combat. We are doing the best we can right now to eliminate all major/significant traces of terrorist cells. THAT is why we are at war in the middle east. End of story.

This last part is meant for everyone in general: Unless anyone is over there or has been over there recently on the front lines, you can go ahead and shut up if you have anything negative to say about it. Otherwise, next time you see a marine, confront him and spit in his face and curse him for putting his life on the life for YOU and YOUR FAMILY. I dare you.

RE: Iran
By eskimospy on 8/24/2010 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
I was over there personally for the 2003 invasion and I say that there is no prerequisite of combat action for saying something negative about it.

Anyone who actually knows what America (and by proxy her armed forces) stands for would never try and stifle dissent like you're doing. I want everyone I know to say anything and everything they think about the war, good or bad. That's what this country is all about.

Shame on you.

RE: Iran
By Iaiken on 8/25/2010 11:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow Quadrillity, you even managed to wrap yourself up in the flag under false pretenses... Are you sure you didn't work for the Bush administration?

Look, I cannot dispute the validity of the war in Afghanistan, so I don't, but the war in Iraq has been utter BS since long before they brought the idea before the American people. Iraq was a war in the works since before 9/11, back before Al Qaeda and the Taliban where public enemies #1 and #2.

The problem with Iraq is that Al Qaeda had been trying to overthrow Saddam and install a theocratic regime since 1992 and leaders of Al Qaeda routinely denounced him as an infidel. Saddam routinely put down secular uprisings that had been incited by Al Qaeda members and even went so far as to have senior members (and their families) in Iraq assassinated by the Baath secret police.

I cannot say for certain WHY the Bush Administration wanted the war in Iraq so badly and there are probably thousands of theories. However, the fact remains that it was not the imminent threat that the US government said it was and there was no necessity in that war.

Trying to play someones resentment of the war in Iraq off as a resentment of the troops fighting that war is downright shameful of you. It IS possible for people to honour soldiers for their struggle while decrying the government that thrust them into needless combat after a campaign of lies. Personally, I commend the troops for doing the job that was tossed in their laps as professionally and capably as they did.

Try this idea on for size, I DESPISE LIARS!

Ironically, by removing Saddam, the US removed the only major roadblock to Al Queda's dreams of an Islamic theocratic republic in Iraq. Iraqi democracy is a fantasy, that came about by US analysts seemingly ignoring the 40 year history of political conflict between Shiites, Sunni hardliners and the Baathist regime of Saddam. Iraq was a monumental detour during the war on terrorism and took away vital resources and focus that were needed in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

RE: Iran
By Reclaimer77 on 8/25/2010 5:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can't keep blaming the Bush administration for something almost every single member of elected government voted for and agreed with. And if a President, ANY PRESIDENT, could manufacture intelligence and lie it would be discovered and he would be impeached. Especially Bush, give me a break. They were on the warpath to get rid of him. If there was any smoking gun it would have been found.

If you want to say Iraq was wrong, that's fine. But it means we were ALL wrong. Our entire Government. Not one man.

As far as your glowing praise of Saddam.. this is a man who had men dragged from their homes and thrown into wood chippers while their families were made to watch. This is a man who filled mass graves full of the people he had gassed. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. And he did these things for NO reason, not that any reason could have justified it.

Peace isn't the absence of conflict on the daily news. It's the presence of justice. Where was their justice? What peace?

If your opinion is that the only just war is one where there is an eminent threat, well by that logic almost every war in history has been unjust. I'm pretty sure most Historians would beg to differ.

Iraqi democracy is a fantasy

So was a sovereign and stable Israel. But hey, why bother when the all-knowing Iaiken has spoken? Sorry all you Iraqi's that vote, but Democracy is a fantasy. Go back to being gassed and wood chipped by Dictators. We give up.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq was devastated by the invasion, with millions of citizens killed, wounded or displaced. Is that how we "helped" them?

RE: Iran
By Quadrillity on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 4
500,000 women and kids as a result of sanctions, to start. Ask Madeline Albright.

RE: Iran
By Kaleid on 8/23/2010 9:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. USA policy towards Iraq hasn't exactly been good.

RE: Iran
By DrKlahn on 8/24/2010 1:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
And Iraq's alternatives were to comply and lift the sanctions. To comply would have resulted in what exactly? Peace. Hussien wanted to continue his actions regardless of the toll on his people. Examine the reasons for the sanctions and speculate on the results had they complied before condemning the U.S. and it's allies.

Is it your view that when countries become a threat there should be no reaction because that reaction can have consequences? History teaches us otherwise.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/25/2010 3:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
Good one! Our sanctions kill half a million women and kids and its the Iraqi's fault!

RE: Iran
By gorehound on 8/23/2010 5:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a scumbag and so are most of their government.we should be so glad we do not live in that hellhole of a country.
yes there are many nice iranians but they need to overthrow their hateful governemt and replace it with something better.

RE: Iran
By Homerboy on 8/23/2010 11:08:33 AM , Rating: 4
I didn't realize that "Iran" was founded THOUSANDS of years ago.

I'm pretty sure the US landmass is just as old if that is what you mean.

RE: Iran
By Paj on 8/23/2010 11:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hes right - Iran is one of the worlds oldest civilizations. The name Iran has exsited for thousands of years.

RE: Iran
By foolsgambit11 on 8/23/2010 11:59:18 AM , Rating: 5
So what? First, there is the logical fallacy that longevity equals superiority in some way. And second is the logical fallacy that the essential character of the Iran of millenia ago is still upheld in the modern nation bearing the same name, despite changes in technology, governmental systems, and religion.

Iran is no older than the U.S. or any other civilization. The fact that some people have stayed in the same place for three thousand years doesn't make it an older civilization than one held by people who have resettled in another part of the world. While, of course, resettlement and merging with existing cultures changes the culture of the emigrant, Iran hasn't been immune to the changes in civilization that the rest of the world has wrought on it.

I'm not even sure why I'm wasting time refuting the "oldest civilization" claim, when the significance of the claim is non-existent in the first place.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Iran
By AssBall on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Iran
By bobsmith1492 on 8/23/2010 12:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
Are you implying the US killed 2 million people in Iraq? If so, you are lying through your teeth.

Per reports posted on Wikipedia, (here:

There are perhaps some 100,000 deaths in Iraq that can be tied directly to the war. The next question is how many of those are from the locals blowing each other up trying to hurt the occupying forces (which are more and more Iraq's own security force)?

There are lots of sources with varying numbers, but to say the US killed all of them is not true. And it's no where close to 2 million either. Then, subtract out how many more Saddam would have killed of his own people; the hope is that the number will become negative in time, with Iraq being a better place in the long run, not to mention them not invading other countries again (Kuwait, Israel, Iran).

RE: Iran
By nolisi on 8/23/2010 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 5
Given that the U.S. put Saddam in power, gave him weapons and helped him maintain power I'd suggest that just about every life lost in Iraq (and every conflict Iraq instigated) since the establishment of his regime that the U.S. is ultimately responsible for. From that perspective, the U.S. has killed far more than the 100,000 "directly tied to the war." This also includes lives claims by the insurgency. Without Saddam being supported by the U.S., none of this would have occurred.

But of course you probably would like to conveniently ignore the fact that we put him there to recuse us from any responsiblity.

RE: Iran
By Skywalker123 on 8/23/2010 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget about the half million Iraqi children we killed with the sanctions, Madeline Albright said it was worth it.

RE: Iran
By clovell on 8/31/2010 3:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and what do you fancy would have occurred had Saddam never been placed in power? You seem to be conveniently ignoring some facts of your own.

RE: Iran
By Zingam on 8/23/2010 2:01:49 PM , Rating: 1
That was in Vietnam :)

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki