The Iranian-Syrian Allience.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



barbarossa
In response to U.S actions, Iran and Syria have renewed their alliance.

http://www.comcast.net/News/GENERAL//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/8c209261-976d-4503-a979-ce909ffdebf5.html

KharmaDog
Well, at least the Bush administration's policies are bringing some countries closer together. Unfortunately it's the wrong countries.

I also think that it's interesting that Russia is continueing to sell Syria weapons (in particular shoulder launching surface toair missils.

It seems that the world is becoming a little less safer every day. Now who would be to blame for all of this? I wonder....... blink

KidRock
the Russians

KharmaDog
That wouldn't be my guess.

barbarossa
Very nice, I asked Misha if I could go to Australia and live on her couch for a reason..... big grin

PVS
its them damn canadians too i reckon!!! roll eyes (sarcastic)

WindDancer
Sorry to disappoint you Kharma but the world was never safe after WWII. Even after the Cold war it hasn't been safe at all.

KidRock
eh I am not to afraid of hockey sticks

KharmaDog
Yes winddancer the world has never been a safe place, but not long ago it was safer than the current situation is now.

KharmaDog
No need to be afraid of hockeysticks, but beware of the goons who wield them.

hockey

manny321
THis an interesting development. If the USA attacks Iran, they would have to take over most of the middle east. That will really get the rest of the world pissed off.

WindDancer
Sorry to disappoint you again Kharma......but Hockey season has been cancel. wink

KharmaDog
No, the NHL season has been cancelled, there is still plenty of good hockey out there. AHL, LHSPQ, CHL, University, International and so many others.

Silver Stardust
Besides which, you can beat people with hockey sticks regardless of the time of year or whether or not the hockey season is on wink

barbarossa
Hockey sticks hurt.....

PVS
amazing how i derailed this thread with but one sentence
we went from the iranian/syrian alliance to....hockey sticks laughing out loud stick out tongue

barbarossa
That was quite impressive.

PVS
well, allow me to put it back on track:


February 17th, 2005 2:50 pm
Iran Warns of 'Swift Reaction' if Attacked



By Ali Akbar Dareini / Associated Press


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Thursday warned of a fast, crushing response to any attack on its nuclear facilities and said an explosion heard in the south a day earlier that sparked fears of foreign military activity was the result of construction work.

Wednesday's explosion near the Gulf port city of Deylam, initially reported by a wing of state-run television to be a missile strike or anti-aircraft fire, was said on Thursday to have been from construction work on a dam. Other previous explanations included friendly fire from military exercises and a fuel tank that was dropped from a plane.

Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted by state-run radio Thursday as saying that the explosion was not an attack, but that any hostile action would result in Iranian military action.

"Any time the Iranian nation watches our crushing response to the enemy, they should know that one of our nuclear or non-nuclear facilities has been attacked," he was quoted as saying.

Shamkhani added that "any aggression" against Iranian facilities would "meet a swift reaction."

Iran said the explosion, near the southwestern port city of Deylam, about 110 miles from the Bushehr nuclear facility, was the result of construction work.

"The sound of Wednesday's explosion was due to road building operations in the mountainous region of Deylam for the Kowsar Dam," Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs Ali Asghar Ahmadi said Thursday.

On Wednesday a a top security official of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Agha Mohammadi, gave a similar account.

The explosion prompted fears of a missile attack, and though U.S. and Israeli officials denied any involvement with the blast, it spiked oil prices and showed unease about the international confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.

The United States accuses Iran of having a secret program to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.

Israel has warned that it may consider a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said a military strike against Iran was "not on the agenda at this point," but President Bush has said his administration wouldn't take any option off the table.

On Wednesday, Iran's Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi publicly confirmed for the first time that the United States has been flying surveillance drones over Iran's airspace to spy on its nuclear and military facilities.

"Most of the shining objects that our people see in Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities," the minister told reporters.

His remarks confirmed a Sunday report in The Washington Post that quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying the drones have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs.

"These activities won't reveal anything to them," Yunesi said of the Americans. "Our nuclear activities are open and very transparent. Our military activities are all legal."

In December, the Iranian air force was ordered to shoot down any unknown flying objects. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that Iran had discovered spying devices in the pilotless planes that its air defense force had shot down. _

"If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire and will be shot down. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them," Yunesi said.

The Omega
Well... Of course Iran will react if it's attacked.
It's a sovereign nation!

Try doing this:
"USA Warns of 'Swift Reaction' if Attacked"
Hm?

PVS
well apparently its ok to build weapons of mass murder...
so long as you are not an islamist state. i guess their nuclear
weapons work differently then the ones we have. theirs causes the
death of millions...where ours causes the 'freedom' of millions.

Cosmic_Beings
I don't think it's anything big like they're putting it out to be.

Linkalicious
I missed the part where America actually ever used a nuke in the name of freedom.

America is capable of doing sufficient damage to just about any country in the world without ever having to resort to nuclear warfare. Iran, North Korea, or Syria for that matter would have to resort ot nuke warefare in order to do sufficient damage to the United States.

Bardock42
well those countries just want to have a fair chance against america, since the US isn't to predictable in there choice of enemy. I think germany should get some nukes just in case the US decides we are the next target.

A4E
never a nuke in name of freedom, though bombs in name of freedom..though it might've actually helped, the bombs in name of freedom... ah well... everyone here r like politicians messed

Bardock42
NO!!! We are better yes stick out tongue

Linkalicious
So let me follow your logic here.

The US claims to be attacking these countries because they are developing nuclear weapons. America says they are willing to handle things diplomatically as long as these countries give up their weapons programs.

So these countries go ahead and secretly work on a nuclear weapons program in order to "stand a fair chance" against the United States...which will ultimately result in an armed conflict because not only are they continuing to make weapons against the US's wishes....but they are making them for the purpose of defending themselves against the US.

How about they stop making them all together like the US wishes? Ideally wouldn't that prevent the armed conflict that you needed the nukes for in the first place.

North Korea would be the best example. The US said no weapons or there will be sanctions. The Koreans wanted the sanctions lifted, and American economic help. Korea continued to make nukes and now that they have them...they want to be right where they were before they had the nukes.

Were they hoping they could intimidate the US into giving aid?

Kinda like telling a kid to calm down or he goes to bed without dinner....then the kid doesn't calm down....but he still gets dinner.

Bardock42

A4E
So america is ok with nukes unless they're not islamics?
what if Peru, Chile or Argentina acquire nukes?

Linkalicious
You're right. The US has no right to tell another country what to do....Unless it becomes a matter of the safety of it's own people. Then it will do whatever it deems necessary in order to preserve the peace within the nation.

Korea coming out and declaring they have nuclear weapons IS a threat to the United States. North Korea said they were restoring the nuclear facility in order to provide power for it's people....which it desparately needs.

Instead they are making weapons of mass destruction and putting the power to use them in the hands of a dictator who doesn't like the United States. (particularly their foreign policy)

Linkalicious
It was a general observation regarding the countries the United States chooses to target.

I have no clue what happens if Chile, Peru, or Argentina acquires nukes. I'm pretty sure the type of government those three countries has would be important as well as the relationship the United States has with those countries.

The Inkeeper
If Korea found America's nukes a threat and asked them to disarm, would America?

Bardock42
First of all, I am not sure if any other country really likes the US foreign policy but anyway.

Yes thats exactly what we are saying, but Iraq was no thread to the US, ever.

But aboot North Corea, you really think that a preemptive (?) strike is justified or reasonable?

A4E
yeah.. plus i highly doubt any of those countries r gettin any nukes soon... and I doubt it inkeeper

WindDancer
Then they need to sign a no nukes treaty at the UN.

A4E
no nukes treaty, what does that mean?? like they have to deactivate their weapons or sign a statement wehre they say they wont attack any country thass part of the U.N?

WindDancer
Well I not sure if it is call "no nukes" but they do have to a duty to report it to the UN.

A4E
and if they don't?? they get kicked out of the UN?

WindDancer
Either that or they get sanctions.

Linkalicious
No.

Korea is not in a position of power. America provides Korea with food and power...not the other way around.

If America had their 10,000 nukes, no food or power, and was reliant on North Korea for adequate sources of food and power...then Yes, i would like to think America would disarm or begin dismantling their nukes.

But that's not the case...is it?

Bardock42
well look at US Debts, and then tell me the US lives on its own.

Linkalicious
I can't explain Iraq. I'm ashamed of my country for ever even embarking on the mission in the first place, but what's done is done....and it can't be undone. It's now America's responsibility to see things through to the end.

Saddam was a potential threat to the United States. After what the US did to Iraq in the early 90s, it's been widely believed by our administration that Saddam would have used nuclear weapons on the US if he had them. (or atleast that's what they lead everyone to believe)

I don't think a preemptive strike against North Korea or Iran are justifiable or reasonable. A lot of talks need to take place and progress needs to be made.

North Korea and America can't even agree to have discussions. They're like a bunch of 5 year olds.

Linkalicious
I didn't say it lives on it's own...I said it wasn't reliant on North Korea for their food or power.

Economically...even in debt....America has the largest economy in the world. They trade with more nations than any one nation and they trade a more diverse range of goods.

America is more than capable of providing it's own source of food. There is sufficient land and technology to produce food....it's just not economically efficient.

Why plant thousands of acres of rice when they can get it from another country for a fraction of the cost?

manny321
The US economy would be nothing if are isolated. They need oil from The middle east and Canada. They need in The future a lot of water from Canada. Middle east and Canada will ensure that The US enough of those supplies for centuries. The US is not self sufficient. WE would go back 100 years if we did.

ESP07
This is an arguement that no one here is qualified to have.

PVS
....meaning?

ESP07
There is way too much speculation. Most Americans cannot even tell you what our foriegn policy is and someone abroad can?

PVS
so you are iranian or syrian?

ESP07
Neither, but I am not one of the individuals condemning Bush or US policy either. I am just saying that there will never be enough known facts to form a proper opinion on the matter.

Bardock42
Well but we can speculate on the facts we know, well maybe there is more maybe not, doesn't matter though in this thread, since we are just discussing our opinions, which we arwe not only entitled too but also the only qualified ones to talk aboot.

ESP07
All too often people confuse facts with opinions.

Bardock42
well it doesn't matter though from what sources we got our "facts". We discuss aboot our opinions, and everyone can do that. We are not entitled to say that what we say is the absolute truth.

ESP07
Which could be why people end up at odds with one another.

ESP07
Besides, opinions are like assholes.....everyone has one and most of them stink.

A4E
well Iran certainly not... but well since Kim seems to b very interested in devopng more nuclear weapons... he might b a real threat... not only to the U.S, so I dunno... cuz if the U.S sits back and waits for things to happen, N. Korea might in that time develope more and more nukes, and well when the U.S becomes aware that there r many nukes in N. Korea it might b too late... but maybe Kim's intention really isn't to have millions of nukes and attack the U.S so i dunno... I'm not a politician erm

finti
you aint qualified to tell who is qualified or not so.............

PVS
and just who the hell are you?
really, a bit big for our britches aren't we?
if you dont like the discussion dont read it...simple as that.

ESP07
right back at ya

The Inkeeper
No they wouldnt messed
The US isnt invincible you know....

A4E
we are discussing read the topic smartass

and even retardos r allowed to discuss events that happen in their nation

A4E
but it's way stronger than N.K Syria and Iran... I agree with Link it would be rather hard for those countries to make any serious damage to the states with out nukes, probably taking hostages ppl and stuff... but that doesnt count as serious

The Inkeeper
Well even if they couldnt, they have nukes, so they could use them, America probably wants them to, just so good ol' sammy can launch one of his own.

ESP07
Yes, that is valid. Smartass? Did you come up with that on your own, or did you need assistance?

A4E
smartass is just a way of referring to a person who thinks he's smart but he's not

you have no right to tell us wether we qualified or not discuss this

ESP07
Actually by making the statement I pretty much included myself as unqualified. Look a couple of posts up. These are the feelings that are brought up during discussions like these. Does anyone really believe America wants a bomb to be dropped just so they have a reason to launch one? That is ignorant. Fell free to continue to piss and moan if it makes you feel better. It is of no consiquence to me.

Bardock42
Well grreat then. And how the hell do you know that one of us here is not George Bush, wouldn't that make us qualified? You might stop generalizing in the future, but feel free to do whatever you please, m'kay

And yes I belive Bush would like it when NC would bomb some country just so that he can make a war.

A4E
indeed so stop bitching around ppl here talk about what they feel not because u dont believe them means it's not true... now I won't argue any further in this thread cause truthfuly I don't wish to get banned, if u have something personal to say to me PM me.

ESP07
It's not about making a war. If one of you are W then alow me to say "you're an idiot, and thank you for the shitty reputation you have given America".

A4E
are W?? what the hell does that mean.. and Im sorry but what is another word for ppl attacking and bombig other ppl and ppl attack and bomb back... hmm...

barbarossa
What exactly is a "W"?

A4E
wondering the same thing

ESP07
George "W" Bush....sorry I thought that was common knowledge.

A4E
well u see ure soooo much smarter than all of us here

Bardock42
Well actually I found that kind of amusing, that was kind of obvious, wasn'T it, at least in context with my post.

ESP07
If you didnt know that then how can you argue US policy....which was what the qualification thing was about. You are taking way too much offense. The "sorry I thought that was common knowledge" was just being honest. Most people just call him W. I was not nor have I been trying to be sarcastic.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.