Iran

Started by Mindship6 pages

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
No, i was talking about the guy who ran. You know, It's the guy who the country was named after. He was runnin somewhere, where did he go? The country needs to finally have a last name. Where, iran where? At the very least, someone could track down the guy and tell him to stop running.
For what it's worth, I knew what you meant. Play on words: I like doing that too, posting something to see who's paying attention.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Iran:
GDP: 830 000 billions.
830 000 billion = 830 trillion > 3/4 quadrillion dollars.

Maybe the US should pull a ponzi...I would if iran into financial ruin.

😎

Originally posted by Robtard
You've switched stances, before it was "Iran is too rich and has too many people; the US is scared shit-less".

When I said that, I was thinking of the occupation after it.

But if the goal is to only messed up the country, well, no problem with that.

Originally posted by Moscow

BTW, WSWS is [B]real
press, whether you like to think it is or not.

[/B]

You tell him! There's no reason to believe that the World Socialist Web Site practices any sort of biased journalism, right?

Right?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
No, i was talking about the guy who ran. You know, It's the guy who the country was named after. He was runnin somewhere, where did he go? The country needs to finally have a last name. Where, iran where? At the very least, someone could track down the guy and tell him to stop running.

😂

Originally posted by Ultraviolence
You tell him! There's no reason to believe that the World [b]Socialist Web Site practices any sort of biased journalism, right?

Right? [/B]

Ah, the anti-socialist crap.

Every media has its bias. WSWS's is against the wealthy and the rulers who send their military boys and girls in to invade sovereign countries.

But I guess being a socialist means you're a Commie or a Nazi or something, eh?

Originally posted by Moscow
Ah, the anti-socialist crap.

Every media has its bias. WSWS's is against the wealthy and the rulers who send their military boys and girls in to invade sovereign countries.

But I guess being a [B]socialist means you're a Commie or a Nazi or something, eh? [/B]

Where did I say I was anti-socialist? Also, a website that caters to one specific political ideology cannot always have the most unbiased and reasonable articles propped up on their website. This happens to be one of them.

I know, I know Ultraviolence, but that concerns every news media out there. The New York Times, The American Spectator, the BBC, the Shanghai Times, Fox News, CNN... etc. etc. et al. I don't know if I'll be hanging my own self here, but I prefer the more liberal news sources than the conservative.... just my style.

BTW, you highlighted Socialist in your previous post. It just struck me as an overemphasis on the word and a possible jab at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Originally posted by Moscow
I know, I know Ultraviolence, but that concerns every news media out there. The New York Times, The American Spectator, the BBC, the Shanghai Times, Fox News, CNN... etc. etc. et al. I don't know if I'll be hanging my own self here, but I prefer the more liberal news sources than the conservative.... just my style.

BTW, you highlighted Socialist in your previous post. It just struck me as an overemphasis on the word and a possible jab at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong

I know it does. The majority of the news outlets are quite biased. You won't be hanging yourself. That's your preference and you're entitled to it.

I highlighted it to show that the article might be slightly biased simply because the news site is a socialist one.

Yeah, it's quite recognizable on a first-read. Funny though, most people that I know don't know what it is. They think the title of the site sounds too scary for them to contemplate. You have to go search out smarter people who are better able to understand what the message is these writers are talking about.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/congress-asks-for-sanctions-against-iran/

Congress Asks for Sanctions Against Iran
By JANIE LORBER
A bipartisan group of 363 House lawmakers sent a letter to President Obama on Wednesday urging him to impose “crippling” sanctions on Iran with or without United Nations action.

The letter guarantees that there is bipartisan support in Congress for “tough and decisive measures” against Iran and asks Mr. Obama to fulfill his July 2008 campaign pledge to do everything in his “power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

“Mr. President, you have stated this issue is a priority for your administration. You have attempted to engage the Iranian regime for over a year. You have gone to the United Nations Security Council in an effort to impose tough new sanctions on Iran. But time is not on our side,” the letter states. “We cannot allow those who would oppose or delay sanctions to govern either the timing or content of our efforts,” it says, referring to the hesitations of China and Russia, who can veto the effort.

“There is no greater or more immediate threat to President Obama’s vision and agenda of nonproliferation than Iran,” said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, who co-authored the letter with Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

As the lawmakers spoke Wednesday afternoon, two of the nation’s top military officials testified to members of the Senate Armed Service Committee that Iran could produce bomb-grade fuel for at least one nuclear weapon within a year.

The United Nations Security Council is considering a package of sanctions against Iran for what it has called repeated violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the conclusion of Mr. Obama’s 47-nation nuclear summit Tuesday, he said that after four years of failed sanctions, the measures the Security Council adopts must be tough enough to get the attention of Iranian leaders. Iran was not present at the two-day conference in Washington.

The letter also urged Mr. Obama to sign and act on a bill passed overwhelmingly by both chambers that would limit the federal government’s ability to do business with companies that contribute to Iran’s development of petroleum resources. The move would be a separate, unilateral action that would bolster the steps at the international level.

“I don’t think that there is any other bill that is more important so far as furthering U.S. national security than this bill,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip, said. “It is imperative that Congress step up and pass Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act, so that we can see the implementation of real sanctions with real teeth.”

In December, the House approved a measure 412-12 and the Senate passed its own version of sanctions by voice vote on Jan. 28.

Mr. Cantor said Wednesday that he and Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, will announce a time line for hashing out the differences between the two versions of the bill in the coming days.

On the Senate side, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York plan to send Mr. Obama a similar letter that is expected to have the signatures of close to three-quarters of the Senate

Yay America, GetSome!!! Take those mussies down, Iran will be step 2, they COULD invade, no other nation will say shit as per iraq. Next stop? Saudi Arabia GET that oil USA, GET. THAT. SHIT. OOHRAH!

I love America for this shit, balls ya hear, US got some MAD balls. Striking the Mussie populus on there home turf, now THAT, is the American way right there.

losing two wars to massively technologically inferior opponents?

paying the people who you are fighting to stop just long enough for you to pull out troops?

EDIT: woah, totally wrong thread...

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The question is/ can will Iran retalliate? I doubt it!.

Dude! Iran has long range missiles.

Here is confirmation.

It will launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and US military bases in the middle-east in retaliation.

Originally posted by Robtard There's not going to be an invasion. Missiles will be fired at key Iranian sights, the Iranians will complain, Ahmadinejad will rant and rattle like the Ayatollah puppet he is. Business back to normal, the US still buying their oil.

Expert a barrage of long range Missiles on Israel and US military bases in the middle-east.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just not sure if the US will do it or let Israel on their behalf. I'd imagine the US, so Iran can't use the Jew-angle as much.

At the most, missile strikes on Iranian Nuclear facilities are expected, which can be a joint IAF/USAF operation.

Originally posted by Moscow
The Iranians haven't yet made it to 20%.

Iran 'makes first batch of 20% enriched uranium'

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Dude! Iran has long range missiles.

Here is confirmation.

It will launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and US military bases in the middle-east in retaliation.

Expert a barrage of long range Missiles on Israel and US military bases in the middle-east.

I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

At the most, missile strikes on Iranian Nuclear facilities are expected, which can be a joint IAF/USAF operation.

Iran 'makes first batch of 20% enriched uranium'

Yes. I would expect a massive joint IAF/USAF operation.

FAS seems a tad eccentric in some of their articles:
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/twenty-percent-solution-say-yes-to-iran.php

Originally posted by Moscow
I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard....[/url]

And that, in my opinion, was the real reason for the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Moscow I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard.

Ahmedinejad has made it clear that if his nation is attacked, he will order retaliation against Israel and US military stationed in Iraq.

While Iraq was invaded in 1991 and suffered from heavy sanctions prior to 2003 invasion, Iran has remained untouched. It may have the military capability to launch an invasion of Iraq and also cause shia uprising (the shia population of Iraq is believed to be sympathetic to Iran). In short: The situation can get messy.

Attacking Iran means starting a new war. USA may not do it until it is free from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Israel is yet to show such balls.

Leader says Iran will retaliate if attacked

Iran warns US it will retaliate if attacked

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that, in my opinion, was the real reason for the Iraq war.

The situation of Iran is different.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
...
The situation of Iran is different.

What are you talking about? I was just saying, what I've always been saying; the Iraq war was not because of wmd's, but was meant for a staging ground agains Iran.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Ahmedinejad has made it clear that if his nation is attacked, he will order retaliation against Israel and US military stationed in Iraq.

While Iraq was invaded in 1991 and suffered from heavy sanctions prior to 2003 invasion, Iran has remained untouched. It may have the military capability to launch an invasion of Iraq and also cause shia uprising (the shia population of Iraq is believed to be sympathetic to Iran). In short: The situation can get messy.

Attacking Iran means starting a new war. USA may not do it until it is free from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Israel is yet to show such balls.

Leader says Iran will retaliate if attacked

Iran warns US it will retaliate if attacked

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?

The situation of Iran is different.

What you are saying about Ahmadinejad is something I already know about. I've been harping in previous threads about the US-led Green Revolution that was built up to try to create negative influence against him. It is of top priority in US military circles to fashion Iran into a US client state much like Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has its limits, and both Iraq and Afghanistan each have between 25 and 30 million people a piece. Iran has 75 million and a better-trained army. It's not beneficial (but has that ever stopped the USA before?) to launch a full-scale assault on Iran, and it isn't beneficial for Iran to retaliate against such a threat (that'll only make their pain more great). It is more "beneficial" to have the US foment anti-Ahmadinejad sentiments within the more educated Iranian citizens and the ayatollahs.

Iran actually hasn't remained untouched, because of the Green Revolution and because of three rounds of sanctions the US has put on it. If you're talking about dead bodies lining the streets like in Baghdad or Kandahar, then you're missing my point. Economic sanctions and revolts are just as costly.

Iran launching an invasion of Iraq? I have to doubt that, even in the face of supposed evidence you might give me, S_W_Legend. It wasn't a good thing for the Iranians back in the 1980s when Hussein did it, and I don't think an "eye for an eye" would help the situation.

USA will not be "free" of Iraq and Afghanistan. They have left a lasting impression on both of those countries. If all the troops left, the stench of American filth would still permeate that region for decades to come. Another militant American footprint is just more sado-mascism for the masses. Israel has shown plenty of verbal balls to attack Ahmadinejad, and Mahmoud has shown a little himself. It's only a matter of time before Zionist Jew and radical Islam meet up in fisticuffs. Fortunately, more level less-religious-minded heads will prevail in the end.

Finally, the situation in Iran is not so different than in Iraq. I've already stated that above.

LoL, dude. Your "I hate America and the Evil Jews" bit is funny.

Just curious, why pick [just] America, when even your own nation (Russia, right?) has done similar/worse? Why not make threads about the atrocities going on in S.E. Asia as well, for example.