Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 182
  1.    #61  

    Bush: U.N. must review Iran nuke record

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e_x.htm?csp=15

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration said the United Nations Security Council must review Iran's nuclear record after a harsh assessment from its nuclear watchdog agency Saturday, and U.S. officials warned that Iran is losing the support of influential friends.

    A majority vote against Iran at the U.N. atomic agency was an interim step toward what the Bush administration has long sought — review and punishment by the Security Council that would help derail an alleged secret program to build an Iranian bomb.

    --------------

    The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna approved a resolution Saturday that said Iran has a "long history of concealment and deception" in the nuclear program that Tehran insists is only for the peaceful production of nuclear power.

    -------------

    The IAEA resolution does not send Iran directly before the Security Council, which can impose economic sanctions. It finds Iran has not complied with an international arms control treaty and openly doubts Iran's claim about nuclear energy.

    The resolution called on the board to consider reporting Iran at a future meeting. Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session.

    -----------

    Iran rejected a package of economic and security guarantees and walked away from the talks over the summer. It then resumed some nuclear fuel production activity it has voluntarily suspended during negotiations.

    Burns said Iran is alienating a broad range of countries by refusing to back down. He said Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, provoked Saturday's vote with a defiant speech about Iranian nuclear rights at the United Nations.

    Burns noted India's vote against Iran, and the abstention of other allies or friends Russia, China and South Africa. India was previously seen as supporting Iran's nuclear position and Russia has repeatedly said it opposes Security Council referral. The United States had assumed Russia would vote no.
  2.    #62  
    Iran threatens to cut trade with nuclear critics

    TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to use trade to punish countries that have voted to report it to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, after Tehran failed to convince the world its nuclear program was peaceful.

    Iranian officials said they were shocked by India's backing on Saturday for a resolution passed by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    India's delegation was one of the 22 which voted against Iran at the IAEA, out of a total 35.

    ---------------

    Angered by the IAEA resolution, Tehran has already threatened to resume uranium enrichment -- a process that can be a step toward making bomb-grade material -- and curtail short-notice U.N. inspections.

    FULL STORY: http://reuters.myway.com//article/20...R-IRAN-DC.html

    Iran Demands IAEA 'Correct' Resolution

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iran (search) on Tuesday threatened to resume uranium enrichment and block U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities unless the U.N. atomic watchdog agency stepped back from its resolution to refer Tehran to the Security Council (search) for possible sanctions.

    FULL STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170509,00.html
  3. #63  
    Iran making IED's for Iraqi insurgents

    Like it or not, this is the beginning of the public campaigning to go after Iran. If this article is true, look for a strategic strike on that bomb making plant.
  4. #65  
    A matter of time.
  5. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Iran making IED's for Iraqi insurgents

    Like it or not, this is the beginning of the public campaigning to go after Iran. If this article is true, look for a strategic strike on that bomb making plant.

    Iran has a lot to lose if our efforts in Iraq succeed. So do the Democrats, which explains their stance on the subject.
  6. #67  
    Here's an extremely interesting link...it's a testimony by Michael Ledeen to the House Comittee on IR and he brings up some points upon which I wholeheartedly agree.

    http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...ore-house.html

    His main point on how the US has not accurately gauged and dealt with the Iranian theocracy's vitriolic anti-US stance is very well made.
    We need to tell them that we want, and show them that we will support, regime change in their country, peaceful, non-violent regime change, not revolution from the barrel of a gun.
  7. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Iran making IED's for Iraqi insurgents

    Like it or not, this is the beginning of the public campaigning to go after Iran. If this article is true, look for a strategic strike on that bomb making plant.
    nah... just trying to get more money to spend on Hallibuerton.

    Or I guess we could bomb and enter another cold war with the Russians.

    Public campaign it is... isn't that what politicians do?
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  8. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by advance the man
    Can you prove it?
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    nah... just trying to get more money to spend on Hallibuerton.

    Or I guess we could bomb and enter another cold war with the Russians.

    Public campaign it is... isn't that what politicians do?
    Nope... but here is a little something to get the imagination going....

    (JIK the wackos need it)

    Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  9. #70  
    Hypothetical:

    Let's just say for example, hypothetically, that the President had just called in the Joint Chiefs & the rest of the cabinet, and gave an order to drop the bomb on Iran, and to do it now before he leaves office.

    What indications would you or i get? Would some of the generals go to the media to outline his plan? I bet not, that would be treason.

    But maybe many of them would resign? Along with half of his cabinet?

    Perhaps there would be a call from some of the generals for Rumsfeld himself to resign.

    Perhaps even an article in the New Yorker describing some of the planning in detail.

    Perhaps the white house would call it "contingency planning", and claim that "all options are on the table".
  10. #71  
    I'm relieved that they are planning to use nukes on Iran. They've been at war with us since 1979, and pulled our punk card too many times to count.
  11. #72  
    What I find amazing is that there's a powerful man who's clearly bent on the destruction of the United States and Israel, who believes he can usher in the return of the final imam and the end of the age, and who is dangerously close to nuclear power--yet Bush is the bad guy.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What I find amazing is that there's a powerful man who's clearly bent on the destruction of the United States and Israel, who believes he can usher in the return of the final imam and the end of the age, and who is dangerously close to nuclear power--yet Bush is the bad guy.
    hoovs, when the post starts as a hypothetical question and then a few lines with a hint of truth (trying to be passed off as fact) and even links to articles that the hint of truth comes from is thrown in you might as well save your typing.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    hoovs, when the post starts as a hypothetical question and then a few lines with a hint of truth (trying to be passed off as fact) and even links to articles that the hint of truth comes from is thrown in you might as well save your typing.
    I know, I know. My post was really just a general rant meant for anyone who wanted to listen.
  14. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ... few lines with a hint of truth (trying to be passed off as fact) ...
    You mean like "half of his cabinet" resigning? Yeah, reminds me of the 3-1 thing. Talk about fuzzy math.
  15. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What I find amazing is that there's a powerful man who's clearly bent on the destruction of the United States and Israel, who believes he can usher in the return of the final imam and the end of the age, and who is dangerously close to nuclear power--yet Bush is the bad guy.
    As this is not governed by box office laws, I'd saw it is possible there are two bad guys.
    ...
    ...

    Now I want to watch a film like that (Not in real life though), whoever wins is the loser.
  16. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I'm relieved that they are planning to use nukes on Iran. They've been at war with us since 1979, and pulled our punk card too many times to count.
    Question is, who started? It seems fair to say the US did: in 1953, the CIA orchestrated the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, later the US supported the ruthless and greedy dictator Shah Pahlawi who got the power afterwards, supported the even more ruthless and cruel dictator Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked attack on Iran and the subsequent war (1980-88, about 1 million casualties), even when Saddam used nerve gas against the Iranian troops...

    A certain degree of Anti-Americanism in Iran is not surprising given the history of US-Iranian relations. It seems doubtful to me that Iran would have such an extremist clerical government without the US support of the Shah.

    However, don't get me wrong: I am not saying Iran should get the possibility of blackmailing the surrounding world with nuclear bombs, nor do I support actions like the kidnapping of US embassy personnel or the support of terrorism.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #78  
    The good news is that according to the latest reports (at least the latest I heard) the nuclear program in iran is years away from military strength uranium. At the moment they only have weak (3% if I remember correct) uranium for power generation, not the needed 80% strength..

    Bush is not the bad guy, at least not the only one, where both parties (threaten to) nukes, both parties are the bad guys..
    Haven't we learned at all from the cold war?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  18. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Question is, who started? It seems fair to say the US did: in 1953, the CIA orchestrated the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, later the US supported the ruthless and greedy dictator Shah Pahlawi who got the power afterwards, supported the even more ruthless and cruel dictator Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked attack on Iran and the subsequent war (1980-88, about 1 million casualties), even when Saddam used nerve gas against the Iranian troops...

    A certain degree of Anti-Americanism in Iran is not surprising given the history of US-Iranian relations. It seems doubtful to me that Iran would have such an extremist clerical government without the US support of the Shah.

    However, don't get me wrong: I am not saying Iran should get the possibility of blackmailing the surrounding world with nuclear bombs, nor do I support actions like the kidnapping of US embassy personnel or the support of terrorism.
    I largely agree with that historical background.

    Let's not ignore the more recent events which are even more important:

    the Poser in Chief's brilliant "Axis of Evil" speech -- where he warned N.Korea and Iran that they were next --- unless they could first get the "Bomb",

    his crushing Sadamm -- thereby destroying Iran's only credible counterweight, liberating the pent up strength and anger of millions of Shiites, empowering a democratically elected Persian regime that remembers every horror you described and is determined to avenge them.

    Junior's advocacy of islamic democracy has found particularly fertile fruit in Iran, where even otherwise restive students strongly accept the nuclear strategy.

    (Before 2001 Iran faced difficult enemies on both its frontiers -- Sadamm as well as the Taliban. We have to wonder why the Iranians have not errected a statue of Junior in their main square, praising their liberator.) All hail junior!!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    the Poser in Chief's brilliant "Axis of Evil" speech -- where he warned N.Korea and Iran that they were next --- unless they could first get the "Bomb",
    What is difficult to understand about that? Don't you see how a country with the bomb has to be dealt with differently than a country without?

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    his crushing Sadamm -- thereby destroying Iran's only credible counterweight, liberating the pent up strength and anger of millions of Shiites, empowering a democratically elected Persian regime that remembers every horror you described and is determined to avenge them.
    So, are you saying that it would be okay to give at least tacit approval to the Saddam regime because of the "counterweight" it provided for Iran? Would you say the same about certain US-backed governments in, say, Central America? Or do you think the Marxist rebels just want a peaceful coexistence?
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions