RunRyder RC
 9  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 3342 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
02-01-2012 09:10 PM  6 years agoPost 41
steve9534

rrKey Veteran

yakima, wa.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Rander
I'm reading your posts and have to interject. Iran attacked and took over the Babylonian empire around 600 BC. The Iran/Iraq war you can blame on the Iraqis if you like, but the fact is that Iran fought a 10 year long war and lost a million of their own with the intent of destroying Iraq before the US ever began "meddling", as you say, in their affairs.
I read a portion of the "Muslim vs Islamist" piece you referenced and noted that it's an opinion piece written in a newspaper, not a scholarly nor objective work. The author makes an attempt to distinguish between Islamists and Muslims, but it's a semantic argument that I doubt would fly in Muslim circles, much less in this forum. If the average Muslim has no animosity towards the US, then why were they celebrating in the streets throughout the Middle East when the US was attacked on 9-11? Why is there not an outcry from all the supposed majority of Muslims who do not agree with terrorism when terrorist attacks by Muslims occur on a nearly daily basis?
The fact is that Iran has sufficient oil reserves that it has no need to develop nuclear power even for supposedly "peaceful" purposes. When the political leader of the country publicly calls for the annihilation of Israel and the "spiritual" leader of the country was encouraging those who overran the US embassy and held our diplomates hostage for over a year, I have no doubt that they would attack us again were it in their power to do so. They are already threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, if they really desire peace, would it not make sense that they speak and act peacefully? steve

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 09:15 PM  6 years agoPost 42
Dragon2115

rrKey Veteran

New England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So it's going to devolve into one of "those" conversations is it. Ok, lets have at then.
If you werent talking about killing the dog that you stated, what were you saying just so we are clear? (You made the dog analogy not me)
This started in response to your claim that just because Iran hasn't already invaded another country that they're not a threat to be dealt with.

Me: "So what? A dog that hasn't attacked anybody has the same reputation, until the first time it bites someone."

You: "So by your logic you should kill the dog because you are afraid he might bite someone..."

Me: "Ok, by taking that analogy to a rediculous conclusion all you've done is make a completely assinine statement which makes you look foolish. Of course you don't kill the dog because you're afraid it might bite someone. But it is a dog and you have to recognize that it is capable of attacking someone and therefore take steps to minimize the chance of it happening. And if you already know it has a bad temperment then you certainly keep it in a fenced in yard and on a leash when out in public. Iow, you don't overreact but you do take steps to mitigate the risk before it happens."

That clear things up for you? And if you don't want to be called foolish then don't act like it.
You said they were meshing with their neighbors...
You do understand what a typo is right? Or are you just being juvenile because you don't have anything better to throw against the wall hoping it'll stick?

And yes, Iran has been messing with it's neighbors for a long time trying to become the dominant force in the region.
... Also in 1986 we were selling arms to Iran...
News flash for ya, it isn't 1986 an the Iran/Contra affair is long over making your point moot.

And just so you're aware, the Iran/Contra scandal began as selling arms to the Iranian regime in return for them attempting to free six U.S. hostages being held by a terrorist group with ties to the Iranian government. Iow, a clusterf*** right from the get go.
We are meddling over there and sticking our noses in, we are pissing people off by bombing their countries and killing innocent civilians and they resent us for it. You would too if they were killing your countrymen.
This sounds like it's straight out of the Occupy playbook. First off it sounds like you have no clue why the Iraq war started. Saddam Hussein ran a bluff that we, and other nations, didn't see through. He knew Iran was working on a nuclear weapon and wanted them to believe he was as well in order to force a stalemate. What he miscalculated, and he admitted to in his detention interviews, was that he underestimated the U.S. response post 9/11. He was gambling that we'd continue to do the same as we'd done for the previous 10 years, nothing. He was wrong.

As for Pakistan they have never actually been our friend. It has always been a "friends at a distance" relationship because for one the civilian government isn't 100% in control of the country and their military has plans of their own. And as for them and Bin Laden don't give me the crap that they didn't know he was there. He was right down the street from their military academy for five years. So either they're ignorant, flat out incompetent, or they knew he was there and wouldn't act because they were appeasing all the terrorist factions that operate within their borders that they either can't control or use as proxies to piss off India. Quite frankly they should count themselves lucky that we didn't Daisy Cutter the entire area rather than risk a SEAL team and its support.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 09:30 PM  6 years agoPost 43
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Point taken, I'm by no means an expert on Iranian affairs... but from the research that i have done, it seems to me that we need to pull out and use diplomacy to settle these issues.

This fight seems far too dangerous to me and could easily spark WW3, a nuclear war. We are constantly escalating it and taking the offensive position in an area where everyone hates us. But they dont scare me, Russia and China do and they seem to take Iran's side on the issues.

I read Russian news to try and balance American news... see www.rt.com

I'm by no means with the Occupy crowd, if you noticed in my earlier post that I'm at work.

My main point is we will always have people that want to attack us or people that dont like us. I dont want to be part of a global empire trying to control everyone. I agree with Ron Paul when he states that if we are going to war then we need to declare it. All of this mess that we are provoking is getting out of control. History of middle eastern conflicts aside.

Steve I agree that link was not scholarly(but my other link was), my point was that we shouldn't condemn an entire religion of people, that is not American. We are(used to be) a country of justice and morals.
The fact is that Iran has sufficient oil reserves that it has no need to develop nuclear power even for supposedly "peaceful" purposes.
Who are we to determine what they can do? They are their own country, if we want to take it over and control it then that can be done with an outward position. (Even though it will never work because the people will resent us, Iraqi's are still attacking the established govt)

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:18 PM  6 years agoPost 44
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Actually what they're after is to become the dominant force within the Persian Gulf. And that's why all the other Gulf nations are very nervous about them.
Actually, it's the Arab dictators which we prop up who are nervous about Iran. A survey taken in 6 Arab countries shows that 79% of respondents considers Israel to be the biggest threat, 74% consider the US to be a threat, while Iran was named by only 6% of respondents.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...3362950,00.html

More Europeans consider Israel to be a bigger threat to world peace, than Iran.

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=50080

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:24 PM  6 years agoPost 45
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm reading your posts and have to interject. Iran attacked and took over the Babylonian empire around 600 BC.
Iran didn't exist in 600BC. If you're going to demonise countries for attacking other countries, Iran should be pretty far down the list.
If the average Muslim has no animosity towards the US, then why were they celebrating in the streets throughout the Middle East when the US was attacked on 9-11? Why is there not an outcry from all the supposed majority of Muslims who do not agree with terrorism when terrorist attacks by Muslims occur on a nearly daily basis?
Muslims bear animosity towards the US because the US supports Israel. US support for Israel was cited as a reason for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI agents who reported to the 9/11 commission. Muslims don't like Israel because they see them as European settlers, who colonised the land and kicked most of the indigenous population out. I suppose that's because they are mostly European settlers, who colonised the land, and kicked most of the indigenous population out, and continue to do the same to this day in the West Bank.

How would you feel if foreign settlers did the same to you?

Do you approve of people who kick indigenous populations from their land? If not, why is there not an outcry from you when Israel does this on a nearly daily basis?
The fact is that Iran has sufficient oil reserves that it has no need to develop nuclear power even for supposedly "peaceful" purposes.
Then you might ask yourself why the Shah was developing nuclear power plants back in the '70s.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:32 PM  6 years agoPost 46
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Iran/Iraq war you can blame on the Iraqis if you like, but the fact is that Iran fought a 10 year long war and lost a million of their own with the intent of destroying Iraq before the US ever began "meddling", as you say, in their affairs.
No, the US and UK began meddling in Iran's affairs in '53 when we overthrew their democratically elected Prime Minister, and installed the hated Shah. That was well before the Iran/Iraq war. Do you think we intended to destroy Germany in WW2, or do you think we just wanted the Nazis to surrender? If the latter, what makes you think Iran wanted to destroy Iraq?

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:34 PM  6 years agoPost 47
Dragon2115

rrKey Veteran

New England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

...it seems to me that we need to pull out and use diplomacy to settle these issues.
Already did that. We've tried the diplomatic route ever since we found out about their secret nuclear weapons program back in 2003 when we seized intelligence files from Iraq. It hasn't worked. As of 12/31/11 we were no longer in Iraq so they can't use the excuse that we there any more but it won't make a difference because that was never the point with them.
This fight seems far too dangerous to me and could easily spark WW3, a nuclear war. We are constantly escalating it and taking the offensive position in an area where everyone hates us.
If everybody hates us why are they buying all the military hardware they can from us and allowing us to have military bases on their territory? They know who they're going to have to fight in the foreseeable future, and it isn't the west.
But they dont scare me, Russia and China do and they seem to take Iran's side on the issues.
They take Irans' side because Iran has what they want, oil. That and the fact that they're a thorn in our side. However, make secret deal with them that after we level the place they can have the Iranian oil fields and see how long that support lasts. China and Russia are just like us, they're in it for their own benefit and nothing else.
My main point is we will always have people that want to attack us or people that dont like us.
Absolutely true. And nothing we do is going to change that fact. As long as you're the big kid on the block someone will always want to take you down. But you don't run and hide from them which is basically what Ron Paul is advocating. And the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were both approved by Congress. Remember "live shot" John Kerry's famous "I was for it before I was against it." bs over the Iraq war? If not, that came from when he voted in favor of using military force in Iraq after seeing the then-current intelligence.

If you want undeclared that would be our involvement in Yemen.
Who are we to determine what they can do?
That would be because they are a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were, at one time, in possesion of nuclear materials (I forget if it was uranium or plutonium) that had been enriched way beyond that used for either power generation or medical research. Other evidence suggests that they have conducted experiments that are consistent with a weapons program rather than any type of civilian one. The regime currently in power is the same one that came to power through violent overthrow of the government. It has suppressed any internal challenges to their power through brutal violence. It has publically called for the violent elimination of a sovereign nation state. It has known ties to international terrorist groups. It's been tied to covert actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed our soldiers. It has threatened to disrupt the entire world economy by closing a vital international shipping lane. It has made threatening remarks toward our navy operating in international waters. They had the opportunity to diffuse this whole situation by accepting Russia's offer to build a uranium enrichment facility to supply all of Irans' power generating nuclear reactors but they refused. If they get ahold of a nuclear weapon they can either sneak one out to Hezbolla or Hamas which will end up in Tel Aviv. Or they can use it to hold the entire Persian Gulf hostage, which if they chose to go the martyr route could screw up the supply of oil out of the gulf for the next several generations. THAT is why what they do with their nuclear program is our business.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:44 PM  6 years agoPost 48
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They take Irans' side because Iran has what they want, oil.
But Russia doesn't buy Iranian oil. Russia is an oil exporter. They have plenty of their own.

Iran wants to sell their oil for currencies other than the US dollar from their Kish Island bourse which was set up to compete with the bourses in New York and London. The US and UK want the world's oil to be sold through the US owned bourses in New York and London for dollars. Most of the world's oil being sold in dollars is what helps keep the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

Saddam started demanding Euros for Iraqi oil in late 2000. No prizes for guessing that none of the countries which use the Euro currency took part in the invasion, or for guessing that Iraqi oil reverted to being sold in dollars after the invasion.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 10:52 PM  6 years agoPost 49
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

While on the topic, this is what Russia Today reported on the invasion of Libya.

Watch at YouTube

You might recall the ''rebels'' took time out of their ''rebellion'' to set up a new central bank, months before overthrowing Gaddafi.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:04 PM  6 years agoPost 50
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This fight seems far too dangerous to me and could easily spark WW3, a nuclear war. We are constantly escalating it and taking the offensive position in an area where everyone hates us.
Would they like us any better if we let them nuke Israel or even us?

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:13 PM  6 years agoPost 51
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

All muslim simpathtizer need to be nail to a stake' the most high
jah will deal with all his enemy very [rationality] these are people
that spring from the heart of there evil daddy 'satan" they want nothing but distruction to the life that heavenly king created.
We are in the revilation the armagedon will beging soon,
the one who's sitting on the pale white horse will avenge them for there persecution of christianity. They call them self muslim
the bible discribe them as beast; ' a beast is somthing that devour
flesh,
The one seated in mount zion is a man of war he him self will put an end to there reing. the great tsunami that wash up all these
muslim nation all at once after there burning of the christian church
and the beating and killing of christian
. we're going to see how much they are love by jah'

I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:27 PM  6 years agoPost 52
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Would they like us any better if we let them nuke Israel or even us?
I'd wait until they start testing weapons or even produce nuclear grade plutonium.

I dont think anyone should nuke anyone. Dont you think they know that they would certainly meet their demise if they unleashed a nuclear weapon on anyone?

BTW Dennis I'm with you on almost all of the issues. You're standpoint is always logical and deductive.

Tic Toc Tic Toc

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:28 PM  6 years agoPost 53
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Saddam started demanding Euros for Iraqi oil in late 2000. No prizes for guessing that none of the countries which use the Euro currency took part in the invasion, or for guessing that Iraqi oil reverted to being sold in dollars after the invasion.
There are at least four members of the EU that use the Euro and belong to the Coalition.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:38 PM  6 years agoPost 54
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There are at least four members of the EU that use the Euro and belong to the Coalition.
The countries which invaded Iraq were the US, UK, Poland, Turkey and Australia.

Which four do you think use the euro?

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:42 PM  6 years agoPost 55
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I dont think anyone should nuke anyone. Dont you think they know that they would certainly meet their demise if they unleashed a nuclear weapon on anyone?
Of course they do, which is why it's illogical to think that they would.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:52 PM  6 years agoPost 56
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There are at least four members of the EU that use the Euro and belong to the Coalition.
Ok I'll put you out of your misery.

You are probably thinking of Operation Desert Storm, which was not only before Saddam started demanding euros instead of dollars for oil, but was before the euro currency even existed.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-01-2012 11:59 PM  6 years agoPost 57
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This gives some insight to how 3rd world and Asian countries view the US.

Watch at YouTube

I've just started reading his book.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-E...s/dp/1576753018

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2012 12:25 AM  6 years agoPost 58
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I dont think anyone should nuke anyone. Dont you think they know that they would certainly meet their demise if they unleashed a nuclear weapon on anyone?
Any rational person would think so. But, the leadership of Iran is not rational. They are destructive, barbarous, murderous, intolerant of others, mentally deranged, and suicidal.

I doubt if we would nuke them as collateral damage would be unacceptable. But rather to target the leadership of Iran directly would not only be acceptable, it may well be necessary sometime in the future.

But, if they did nuke us or Israel first, there would be very, very severe consequences for all.

But then, maybe not.

BTW Dennis I'm with you on almost all of the issues. You're standpoint is always logical and deductive.
Ah shucks.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2012 01:13 AM  6 years agoPost 59
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ok I'll put you out of your misery.

You are probably thinking of Operation Desert Storm, which was not only before Saddam started demanding euros instead of dollars for oil, but was before the euro currency even existed.

Dusty
Actually I'm thinking of the current coalition that is and has been in Iraq since 2001 of which at least four countries are using the Euro.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
02-02-2012 02:08 AM  6 years agoPost 60
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

All muslim simpathtizer show me one book or a scripture in the bible where it mention muslim.

I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 3342 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 9  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, May 27 - 4:26 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online