Iran: How much longer do we have to put up with them?

**Red_Lizard2** · 07-09-08, 07:14 PM

cept rooster we've seen what the democrats do to make things better? During elections "We are going to change, stop the fisa spying, war in iraq etc. etc.) after the elections "oh no we must be careful not to be against any of these thing we got elected in for or else we won't be back"

Both party just care about getting elected and aren't going to do shit once they get in, so don't tell me the dems are doing any better then the neo-cons. Till a third or fourth party gets involved majorly in the political races, it going to be the same shit, different party. Unfortunately no third or fourth party will ever get in because the 2 major parties keep a lock down on them so they never lose the power and money they make.

btw, they want nuclear power because its a cheap and good source of power, and its something many 1st world nations have that they aren't allowed to have. that's why the Iranian people want nuclear power.

**DJ Ms. White** · 07-09-08, 07:17 PM

From what I hear, the current Iranian president isn't too popular even with his own conservatives. His stances internationally and his internal decisions have made things very hard for the people of Iran. We may not have to go to war with them at all. Amy is doing our job for us so to speak.

**DJ Ms. White** · 07-09-08, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Toker

I don't want to get too much into this topic, because I wont stop, but I do believe the current government in Iran is an oppressive regime. All I see is hatred oozing from the pores and it is quite disgusting. As far as nuclear power, their current nuclear program isn't anything to be scared of. Anything you read will generally just be scare tactics...

They have enriched uranium enough to use it as a fuel, but big whoop de doo. For a nuclear weapon you need atleast 96% enrichment. They are still under 10%.

@ Consultant's post - So funny and true...

They could still make dirty bombs, but then again, to do that you could just...probably shouldn't go into the details on second thought, but it is easy in terms of construction and materials gathering. Nuclear bombs are easy to make, but the problem is getting the nuclear payload. The things you learn in high school physics.

**Rustxko78** · 07-09-08, 08:39 PM

You are correct, but they have been increasing their enrichment capacity for years. Just a few years ago, they only were operating a few hundred centirfuges. Now they claim to be operating over 3000. Their aspirations are a bomb. Besides Pakistan has already stated that they have an "Islam" bomb, and that nuclear weapons used against any muslim country will result in them launching. If several of these theocratic type government take that stance, then we can't wait until one country has a large arsenal to deal with them.

The don't really want war. They want to become collectively a military equal with Isreal in my opinion which would allow them to further influence the smaller nations that are friendly to the west to lean to them for protection. Not to mention a large part of their rhetoric at this point is just to make their population believe the west is their enemy. A common enemy unites people and broadens accepted government power.

**asianator365** · 07-09-08, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Just like fucking Iraq, it went from stable, no weapon, no bin laden terrorist groups to Unstable, rebellions and many many terrorist groups.

And you are a moron. For those of you who haven't heard, the US military just finished removing all of the nuclear materials that Iraq had in its inventory when we invaded. Yes, that's right. Bush didn't lie; there were materials for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 550 metric tons of "yellow cake" or uranium were removed from Iraq. So they did have weapons. Stable? Maybe because he killed everyone who opposed him. Terrorist groups? Would you rather have them in New York? Los Angeles? How about Chicago?

**Red_Lizard2** · 07-09-08, 10:39 PM

yes because how he ran his country makes such a difference as if we should attack. Yes he killed people, but you know what? going to war over that is fucking retarded, not that you'd understand cuz you've been fed and dish out the same neo-con bullshit over and over.

Yes because when Saddam was in power they were in New York and L.A.

, but you know giving them a recruiting base is a great idea isn't it? oh and is terrorism is such a big deal, then answer this how are your feeling on Saudi Arabia?

**asianator365** · 07-10-08, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

yes because how he ran his country makes such a difference as if we should attack. Yes he killed people, but you know what? going to war over that is fucking retarded, not that you'd understand cuz you've been fed and dish out the same neo-con bullshit over and over.

Yes because when Saddam was in power they were in New York and L.A.

, but you know giving them a recruiting base is a great idea isn't it? oh and is terrorism is such a big deal, then answer this how are your feeling on Saudi Arabia?

Once again I'm not sure if I even understand what you just said, but I'm going to make an attempt at it. First, Saddamn Hussein ignored UN sanctions for more than a decade. That right there legitimizes any war. Any other reason is secondary. As far as your comment "going to war over [people being killed] is fucking retarded" goes, most wars are the direct result of people being killed. That is mainly why we entered World War I and World War II. It is also why we entered the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. You could also make the argument that it contributed to the Revolutionary War. In fact, I would say that the majority of wars in Earth's history have been partially precipitated by someone being killed. And many times it is for a good reason: You cannot let countries get away with killing people. So to say that it is "fucking retarded" to go to war over people being killed is just that: fucking retarded. Next, let's move on. Do you remember September the 11, in the year 2001? I do. And I'm pretty sure that some of what happened that day was in New York. Admittedly, Saddam was not a part of that. If you would learn to read and comprehend what you are reading, you would understand that my point in my previous post was that by being in Iraq, the chances are that we have probably prevented attacks on our soil by fighting them closer to their homelands. As far as giving them a recruiting base goes, look at the obvious: They had no problem getting people to come and fight Americans. Once again, we are stuck because of your ignorance. If you would take the time to study some history and read their point of view, you would understand that many (not all) in the Islamic world want to destroy the West and everyone in it. Yes, that's right. They want you dead. They don't care if you sympathize with them or support them; they want to destroy the West and establish a caliphate (which I am not going to bother explaining, go look it up). As far as Saudi Arabia goes, yes many in that country also support terrorism. The difference between them and Iraq: Iraq defied the UN and the world, and Saudi Arabia didn't. End of story.

**dex71** · 07-10-08, 12:49 AM

Lets also not forget that the Saudis dont want to mess with one of their best customers...

**Red_Lizard2** · 07-10-08, 12:53 AM

hmm you also should have realized that the 4 attackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia, and had been trained there. but attacking iraq makes sense? and yes wars are made over killing people, but when it comes to the fact that its their government not ours, did Iraq attack us? Nope so why should we be fighting there? Instead we should have taken out some of the training camps in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead of raging a war that didn't need to be fought. But of course we wouldn't do that, because we love the Saudis and the Pakistanis because they are our friend and didn't like Saddam. Great reason to go to war

Also look in your history book and realize that terrorist group that attacked us, their leader was trained by our own CIA and that where he has learned alot of his tactics. Yea foreign intervention works well. Lets not forget how we basically started the cold war, or created the current situation in Iran, the list goes on and on and on.