France Preparing to Attack Iran

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question for Lixy:

In the “France preparing to attack Iran” thread, I wrote:

“They want nukes and wonder why we are afraid, and they are afraid of an aircraft carrier?”

You responded:
'Quit the disinformation. They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power"[/quote]

And that is a fact. It’s not a fair statement to say Iran wants nukes when they keep insisting that they are against nuclear weapons and have no use for them.

[quote]Yet in this thread, you wrote:

“A nuclear armed Iran is something that will shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME and that’s a power the US isn’t willing to give up. America wants total hegemony over the region - if not the world - and other countries will always challenge that any way they can.”[/quote]

And this is my analysis, with which a lot of people will agree. It’s a fact that your sphere of influence extends way beyond what it should be due to your military supremacy. A nuclear armed Iran would restore a bit of balance in the region. Heck, if Iran had nukes, you would have thought twice before going into Iraq. You know that occupying a neighboring country would increase chances of confrontation (look at the British captured soldiers situation). Afghanistan is different because you had every right to overthrow the Talibans.

Surely you must be able to see that there is nothing contradictory in the statements. And if you do, well…blame your education.

182

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Question for Lixy:

In the “France preparing to attack Iran” thread, I wrote:

“They want nukes and wonder why we are afraid, and they are afraid of an aircraft carrier?”

You responded:
'Quit the disinformation. They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power"

And that is a fact. It’s not a fair statement to say Iran wants nukes when they keep insisting that they are against nuclear weapons and have no use for them.

Yet in this thread, you wrote:

“A nuclear armed Iran is something that will shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME and that’s a power the US isn’t willing to give up. America wants total hegemony over the region - if not the world - and other countries will always challenge that any way they can.”

And this is my analysis, with which a lot of people will agree. It’s a fact that your sphere of influence extends way beyond what it should be due to your military supremacy. A nuclear armed Iran would restore a bit of balance in the region. Heck, if Iran had nukes, you would have thought twice before going into Iraq. You know that occupying a neighboring country would increase chances of confrontation (look at the British captured soldiers situation). Afghanistan is different because you had every right to overthrow the Talibans.

Surely you must be able to see that there is nothing contradictory in the statements. And if you do, well…blame your education.[/quote]

You did not say it was “analysis”, you said it as a statement of fact, that “A nuclear armed Iran is something that WILL shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME.” They can not restore the “balance”
with civil power.

There is something contradictory in the statements:

Civil power and military power are contradictory, enless the Iranians are enriching uranium for a dual purpose.

Hey, if they want the bomb, why not admit it. Why lie about it?

You know nothing about my education but it has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with logic.

183

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You did not say it was “analysis”, you said it as a statement of fact, that “A nuclear armed Iran is something that WILL shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME.” [/quote]

Are you for real? How is talking about a hypothetical scenario not an “analysis”? How on earth could you mistake speculation for “a statement of fact”?

Anyone mistaking a future event for fact is a fool.

If they wanted the bomb, the Ayatollah wouldn’t have issued a fatwa denouncing nukes.

I really can’t understand how you can speak of what someone “wants”. Are you a mind-reader of some sort?

184

[quote]lixy wrote:
Anyone mistaking a future event for fact is a fool.

[/quote]

I did not mistake a “future event as a fact.” I took your statement and read it totally in context and came up with the reasoning that I did. You can back pedal now and say my reasoning is flawed, and I would expect that from you no no crime there…

Anyway, you are probably correct. They may not even need a bomb. They probably have tons of stock piled chemical weapons.

185

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
All I’m saying is both countries have a lot to gain from keeping the anamosity going and will not give an inch. Both are equally to blame.

The way I see it, the revolution wouldn’t have happened had the US not heavily intervened in the affairs of the country. They didn’t pick the US embassy by chance. There was a very good rationale behind their choice. Equally to blame? Hardly.

Unlike the US, Iran is not going around invading countries. Iran cooperates with the international community. The US thinks that its above the law. Those are fundamental differences and they get the US a lot more points in the belligerence department than Iran.

Given that the US has its troops stationed across the border in Iraq, I don’t see how Iran could “give an inch”. As long as you’re in Baghdad, Tehran should in fact feel threatened. Many of your presidential hopefuls have been calling for bombarding the country.[/quote]

But Iran does not feel threatened so your point is spurious.

186

[quote]lixy wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

You are trying to invalidate my the-more-nukes-the-more-stability claim? You can’t do that. Look around. How many nuclear nations do you know off have been waging war consistently? Has anyone messed up with your territories after Hiroshima?

You are looking at the issue with America’s interests in mind. And yes, nuclearly armed countries are far less likely to take your shit any longer or let you dictate policy. That is a fact. But, it will make the region much more stable. The US and Israel will have to think twice before launching attacks and they’re not willing to give up these privileges.[/quote]

So let me get this clear. You think a nuclear armed Iran would be a force for stability in the world?

I watched an interview with Ahmadinejad on CBS this week. That man is a lunatic. Here is part 6 where he says that America and Iran are not on the path to war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3289583n

Say what you want to about Bush, he is someone Ahmadinejad should take very seriously and Ahmadinejad is just sitting there laughing when he gets confronted about killing Americans.

Ahmadinejad is about to get a lot of his people killed and he is just laughing it off. How can you suggest that a country run by this man, armed with nuclear weapons would have a stabilising effect on the middle east?

187

[quote]Sifu wrote:
So let me get this clear. You think a nuclear armed Iran would be a force for stability in the world? [/quote]

No. It won’t affect the world much. That is, not anymore than Pakistan is “a force for stability in the world”.

One thing is certain: It will stabilize the region.

What Americans are you talking about? If it’s Iraq you’re referring to, I’ll demand some evidence of that happening. And possibly not from the same folks who kept claiming Saddam had WMDs and that he was behind 9/11. Moreover, if there was a humvee patrolling the streets filled with armed foreign soldiers, I might shoot at them.

The argument that Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq is insane. Why would Tehran want a civil war across the border? A stable Iraq will naturally side with Iran. If anything, the only ones profiting from the chaos are petty thieves and some US corporations (think Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, etc…).

Where do you come up with such gems? “Ahmadinejad is about to get a lot of his people killed”? WTF? You’re deflecting the responsibility onto him?

US bombs kill people. Speeches don’t.

Also, what do you propose? Should the Iranians give up their right to enrich uranium? Should they kiss your ass while they’re at it?

188

It is rare when one witnesses a metamorphosis.

What lixy was versus what he is today.

Or is it more the case of his eventual exposure from behind a curtain, a la The Great Oz?

Why would there be any stability in the region by a nation owning a nuke that practices abduction and hostage taking as a political tool? Hm? Such a weapon may make them even more aggressive, expecting no retaliation due to their trump card.

189

I liked it when Ahmadinejad said his country’s nuclear program was “transparent”. Did anyone catch that? I would agree, his country’s peaceful civil nuclear energy program is one hundred percent transparent.

WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THE LIES.

190

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
So let me get this clear. You think a nuclear armed Iran would be a force for stability in the world?

No. It won’t affect the world much. That is, not anymore than Pakistan is “a force for stability in the world”.

One thing is certain: It will stabilize the region.

Say what you want to about Bush, he is someone Ahmadinejad should take very seriously and Ahmadinejad is just sitting there laughing when he gets confronted about killing Americans.

What Americans are you talking about? If it’s Iraq you’re referring to, I’ll demand some evidence of that happening. And possibly not from the same folks who kept claiming Saddam had WMDs and that he was behind 9/11. Moreover, if there was a humvee patrolling the streets filled with armed foreign soldiers, I might shoot at them.

The argument that Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq is insane. Why would Tehran want a civil war across the border? A stable Iraq will naturally side with Iran. If anything, the only ones profiting from the chaos are petty thieves and some US corporations (think Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, etc…).

Ahmadinejad is about to get a lot of his people killed and he is just laughing it off.

Where do you come up with such gems? “Ahmadinejad is about to get a lot of his people killed”? WTF? You’re deflecting the responsibility onto him?

US bombs kill people. Speeches don’t.

Also, what do you propose? Should the Iranians give up their right to enrich uranium? Should they kiss your ass while they’re at it?[/quote]

Iran producing atomic weapons would be a real problem for the entire world. If the Iranians produce nukes the Egytians and Saudis will be under a lot of pressure to produce nukes, so it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

I think what you really mean to say is you would like to see them nuclear armed so they can go after the great satan and the little satan.

I am not deflecting responsibility onto Ahmadinejad. The Iranians are looking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The Iranians played an active role in the North Korean nuclear test. So they aren’t that far away from having the bomb.

The reason why I say Ahmadinejad is going to get his people killed,is because he isn’t going to stop. MAD worked with the Russians because they were mostly atheist or at least not a bunch or religious nutjobs. Mad is not going to work with Ahmadinejad because he thinks a nuclear exchange will bring back the twelth Imam.

I don’t think the Iranians have to kiss anyones ass. What I do believe is that if they aren’t going to stop developing the ability to wipe out major cities like New York, London, Paris, then we should do something about it, before the get the ability, not after.

191

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I think what you really mean to say is you would like to see them nuclear armed so they can go after the great satan and the little satan. [/quote]

Iran couldn’t go after either one in a million years.

What exactly gave you that idea? I see US propaganda is doing an excellent job (yet again).

192

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I think what you really mean to say is you would like to see them nuclear armed so they can go after the great satan and the little satan.

Iran couldn’t go after either one in a million years.

…[/quote]

Put nuke on cargo ship.
Sail cargo ship into NY Harbor.
Detonate.

193

A few days ago when Ahmadinejad gave a speech at the UN, part of his speech covered the return of the twelth Imam. I read about that in the Telegraph.

These messianic prophecies can cause people to do some really stupid things. Two thousand years ago the Jews believed that the Messiah was going to come and lead them to victory if they fought the Romans. We all know where that got them.

I would also like to point out that it isn’t just the US or Israel who are worried about Iran. As the title of this thread points out even the French are very concerned about Irans nuclear program.

If a people who are as contrary as the French are ready to support military action that says a lot.

The French will never consider Tehran a fair trade for Paris. Paris is in range of Iranian missiles.

New York London and Paris for Tehran would be even less fair of a trade.

194

[quote]Sifu wrote:
A few days ago when Ahmadinejad gave a speech at the UN, part of his speech covered the return of the twelth Imam. I read about that in the Telegraph. [/quote]

So…? How does it allow you to conclude that “Mad is not going to work with Ahmadinejad because he thinks a nuclear exchange will bring back the twelth Imam”?

Try reading his speech yourself instead of relying on some rag to tell you what to think.

Ok.

Now, doesn’t most of your compatriots (including your president) believe in the return of Jesus?

I would also like to point out that it isn’t just the US or Israel who are worried about Iran. As the title of this thread points out even the French are very concerned about Irans nuclear program.

Contrary to what? Need I remind you that up until a few decades back, France was a raging imperialistic machine?

France doesn’t want newcomers in the nuclear club and I understand that. Military intervention is another story. French people will never tolerate that. Sarkozy attacking Iran will cause some kind of revolution. You watch…

My mother is French, and I spend a good time of the year in France. People aren’t dupe down there. This is not the kind of country where the president can get away with starting wars of aggression. Their system might not have formalized checks and balances, but “the people” are always there to counter an aggressive regime. Revolution is part of the culture.

Sarkozy ran on a platform advocating firm sanctions against Iran. But don’t forget that it was his rival who had the toughest position on the Iranian issue.

And Tehran isn’t in the range of French missiles? What kind of statement is that?

For the last time, Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. They want nuclear technology for civil purposes. If I were you, I’d be more worried about the nukes being flown over your head than the (weakly enriched) fuel on the other side of the globe.

195

[quote]lixy wrote:
…
For the last time, Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. They want nuclear technology for civil purposes. [/quote]

And there are no gays in Iran either.

196

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And there are no gays in Iran either.[/quote]

Not parading in the streets there aren’t.

197

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
And there are no gays in Iran either.

Not parading in the streets there aren’t.[/quote]

Just missiles with Death to America written on them.

The nuclear weapons will remain hidden, like the gays.

198

for someone who does not live in the US some of the arguments here are just bizzar. I like the headhunter`s honesty: it is all about us-domination in the region. you will attack iran and than syria exactly as your neocons planned it from day one - but you cannot say that so.

demonizing the future enemy is just the build up for the war. remember this hoax to get you into war-mode? On October 10, 1990, 15-year-old Nayira tearfully relaying to Congress how she had witnessed Saddam’s soldiers removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and leaving them to die on a hospital floor, she added a crucial emotional rationale to the economic argument for U.S. involvement in the Gulf.

please just be honest: it`s about dominating the region and world-domination. You are NOT the good guys here. isreal has 300 nukes - they could take care of iran.

199

Mad is only effective where the other guy cares about his people as much as you care about yours. Ahmadinejad sees martyrdom as an E ticket into heaven.

Ideologically Ahmadinejad isn’t that far from Bin Laden, they both want to turn Islam into a massive death cult.

Yes Lixy we do have some Christian nutjobs running around in the US. What they can do to a religion whose central figure was a nonviolent pacifist is scary. So imagine how we feel when we see nutjobs following a religion whose central figure was a militant who approved of killing, producing highly enriched uranium and Plutonium.

If Irans nuclear program is civil they could avoid the problems they are now having. Processing nuclear fuel is a messy business. The Russians are willing to do it for the Iranians and save them all the mess and bother. But they refuse to go along.

Sanctions are going to shatter their economy. The fact that the Iranians are willing to bring sanctions on themselves when they don’t need to, disproves your assertion that they are merely pursuing a civil program.

200

[quote]Mishima wrote:
for someone who does not live in the US some of the arguments here are just bizzar. I like the headhunter`s honesty: it is all about us-domination in the region. you will attack iran and than syria exactly as your neocons planned it from day one - but you cannot say that so.

demonizing the future enemy is just the build up for the war. remember this hoax to get you into war-mode? On October 10, 1990, 15-year-old Nayira tearfully relaying to Congress how she had witnessed Saddam’s soldiers removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators and leaving them to die on a hospital floor, she added a crucial emotional rationale to the economic argument for U.S. involvement in the Gulf.

please just be honest: it`s about dominating the region and world-domination. You are NOT the good guys here. isreal has 300 nukes - they could take care of iran.
[/quote]

If America doesn’t do something, the Israelis just might use a couple of their nukes to take care of this problem. If they nuke Natanz there could be radioactive fallout going everywhere. It is far better that America does the job, but it still could be messy.