|
Spanki
Stranger
Registered: 12/19/06
Posts: 55
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
So, whats the deal with Iran?
#7560476 - 10/25/07 07:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What's going on over there? Are they really making nukes? What reason do we have to believe so, and how do we know they want to use them on us? Do you think USA will wage war? Just wondering what you all think about the situation.
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7560921 - 10/25/07 09:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They really are making nukes. Iraq really had WMD's, and attacking Afghanistan was completely the right way to apprehend one man hiding in Pakistan.
What do you think?
--------------------
|
Spanki
Stranger
Registered: 12/19/06
Posts: 55
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
|
Haha. Good point. So what do you think the ulterior motive is this time?
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum



Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Visionary Tools said: They really are making nukes. Iraq really had WMD's, and attacking Afghanistan was completely the right way to apprehend one man hiding in Pakistan.
What do you think?
I think these are all really good reasons to invade right now. Hell, we already have our armies in Iraq, we might as well keep pushing, take them all on in one fell swoop, rid the entire Middle East of Islamic Fascism once and for all and create massive fortress running a ring around the fertile crescent, with guards atop the walls every 200 yards with a high power automatic weapon and gas mask.
The world isn't safe for idle talk. The time has come for action.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
starseed
professional lurker


Registered: 09/18/03
Posts: 671
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7561546 - 10/26/07 01:01 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
http://getintheirface.blogspot.com/2006/06/robert-newman-video-history-of-oil.html
seems to sum it up quite nicely, methinks.
edit: to skip to the good information, start the vid at the 11 minute mark
Edited by starseed (10/26/07 01:12 AM)
|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: starseed]
#7561550 - 10/26/07 01:02 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
fuck bush, hairy vag is what he is
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7561827 - 10/26/07 04:31 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Even the official Whitehouse word isn't that Iran has nukes, is making nukes, or is even about to make nukes... it's that their technology is heading in a direction that could potentially be used to make nukes in the future.
Ahmadinejad's view on nuclear bombs is that they're immoral, and he's said much in protest of them:
"I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically, they're backwards. Retarded." "You have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" "In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union."
He's said more, explicitly, but I'm not doing the digging for those comments right now.
So who do you believe, the people who incessantly prove themselves to be liers and war-mongerers, or the person who as of yet has no evidence stacked against his claim of a peacful nuclear program?
Russian President Putin, the outside-of-Iran person with the closest ties to Iran's nuclear program, and who has very good relations with Iran in general, is extremely against the idea of Iran possessing nukes, and is totally convinced that nukes are not a part of Iran's plan.
During his recent visit to Iran he said this: All of the Caspian littoral states belong to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons under the inviolable condition that all our states have the right to develop their peaceful nuclear programmes without any restrictions.
I think the motive might be more about regional control than it is about oil.
Edited by Disco Cat (10/26/07 04:41 AM)
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7561893 - 10/26/07 06:04 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It doesn't matter what Iran says or does, it's still the target of Bush and Cheney's psychopathic crusade. Although I doubt things will change when the leadership changes.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7561911 - 10/26/07 06:16 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> What's going on over there?
Same thing that has been going on for the last few thousand years.
> Are they really making nukes?
Yes, though that is a very minor concern.
> What reason do we have to believe so
I can't say without getting somebody in trouble. Call it insider trading.
> and how do we know they want to use them on us?
They don't, nor would they ever admit to having them. Again, Iran having nukes is a fairly minor concern.
> Do you think USA will wage war?
No, but I have been wrong about this in the past.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7563146 - 10/26/07 12:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Iran wants to be a superpower in the Middle East, but nobody else (maybe with the exception of Russia) wants them to be.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
I think we'll just be stuck in a bunch of proxy wars with Iran and Syria for a while
I doubt we'll ever really storm into either country. If you think the protests out here were crazy when we FIRST invaded Iraq... and seeing how WELL that war went.. i doubt the people would stand for a war with Iran.
Although I doubt they're trying to get a Nuke, if they ever DID develop nukes and we could PROVE they were selling them or if they used them.. THEN.. maybe we'll have a reason to start some shit. If we ever have solid proof of that happening though I'm sure we'd actually get the UN behind us at that point.
FAK YOU HANZ BRIX! YOU BREAKIN MY BAWS! YOU BREAKIN MY BAWZ!
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: Iran wants to be a superpower in the Middle East, but nobody else (maybe with the exception of Russia) wants them to be.
Maybe China too. Until the radical islamists try to take over Tibet :P
Then China be all LIke 'oh no u di'int gur-friend!" Then Islam be like "Oh uh HUH! I got a man! I do what i want! Imma BIG gurl!". Then China be like "Imma busa cap in yo ayass, NEE-GROW!". The Islam drop some benjamins in Pakistan be like "I gotcho back but u bess go watch yo front. Cuz its the niggas who front dat be pullin stunts!"
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy


Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7563922 - 10/26/07 04:49 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
the deal with iran is that the only way for king george to stop WW III is for him to start it himself ...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7563971 - 10/26/07 05:03 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7564615 - 10/26/07 08:24 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, why does that give America or the u.n. the right to invade their country? Doesn't America own nukes? Doesn't Israel own (7 or more) nukes? Doesn't pakistan, China, Russia etc. own nukes? These are all countries Us could deem "hostile" to America in one way or another. But does that give America the right to go police the world? Arn't Americans being big fat hypocrites? Especially when all this trouble was because of America in the first place??
|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
|
the answer to that is yes yes yes and yes we dont have the right.....we make the "rights" and then we take them away.....more and more to more and more people really i mean i dont really believe in the NWO or anything but this shit has got to stop!
--------------------
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: ZShroom]
#7565388 - 10/27/07 12:32 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
War in itself is motivation enough. War stimulates the economy. I think bush and his friends decided that they needed a war to make money, and picked an easy target. They will try and keep these wars going for as long as possible, to make money, and to make an excuse to build more weapons to start more wars, and thus make even more money. They see these middle eastern countries as good targets because they dont have the power to launch an effective attack on U.S soil, and they are also resource rich, so its win win.
|
Audi0
have ur cake andbeat it 2



Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 10,334
Loc: Dirty South !
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7565998 - 10/27/07 07:43 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
" What need do we have for a bomb?"
is that some kind of trick question?
--------------------
|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ



Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 15 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Audi0]
#7566454 - 10/27/07 11:20 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
America (I'm really starting to see why some Middle Eastern people are shouting 'Death to America. Death to Satan'), in 1951 or 1953 the CIA, in a secret operation, went into Iran to overthrow the President (of Iran) and replace him with someone that had the interests of America in mind. The reason the CIA did this is because Iran wanted to nationalize the oil of their country. In other words, they (Iran) wanted control of their own oil. Apparently the reason for the intervention was because the American government did not want the oil to fall into the hands of the Russians.
--------------------

|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: WScott]
#7566631 - 10/27/07 12:22 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I fail to understand why anybody thinks the CIA is this incredibly effective agent of change that can topple governments at will. They can't. Don't you think the KGB was there as well with just exactly the opposite goal in mind? Don't you think there were probably much, much greater domestic forces at work? Aren't the mullahs, who came to power through violent revolution, essentially equivalent to the worst of the shah? Are there free and fair elections in Iran now?
Iran, in spite of it's great good fortune, is teetering on economic collapse. The population is restive and the current regime is grasping at any nationalistic symbol it can find to maintain its suspect legitimacy and ever weakening grasp on power. That symbol is the nuclear bomb. And, of course, DEATH TO ISRAEL AND THE GREAT SATAN.
--------------------
|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ



Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 15 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7567178 - 10/27/07 04:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
" "Ahmadinejad's view on nuclear bombs is that they're immoral, and he's said much in protest of them:
"I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically, they're backwards. Retarded." "You have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" "In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union." "
Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence for KGB being in Iran at the time but I don't think it would be too much of a stretch in believing it. The point, though, is that the CIA overthrew/replaced a president that was popular with the people and democratically elected. How would you feel, as a citizen, if some foreign country came over and put one of their people in charge for the sole reason of power of your own resources? No doubt its better than the United States invading Iran and taking the oil by brute force, but its still fukced up.
--------------------

|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: WScott]
#7568112 - 10/27/07 09:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
--------------------
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7568240 - 10/27/07 10:41 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The CIA has the power to give groups advanced weapons and technology. The power to spread propaganda to incite rebellions and create factions. They have access to more money than most countries could dream of, they can use it to arm up groups and encourage them to overthrow governments. They can also give massive bribes to officials within those countries to further destabilize it. It always seems to backfire on them eventually, i guess it just shows that money cant cure stupidity.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: DimensionX]
#7568274 - 10/27/07 10:57 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Advanced weapons? In 1950? And the KGB couldn't? Money? The KGB couldn't? Face it, a significant portion of the Iranian people wanted the shah. That's why that happened. The CIA? Not anywhere near as effective as you think.
--------------------
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7568292 - 10/27/07 11:06 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just because the weapons don't seem advanced now doesn't mean they weren't for there time. Your right, there are potentially allot of other players on the board, each of them quite powerful. Why do you think governments put so much time, effort and money into developing effective intelligence agency's? Its because they work.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: WScott]
#7568464 - 10/28/07 12:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Somewhat relevant
Quote:
Seuss said: > Are they really making nukes?
Yes, though that is a very minor concern.
> What reason do we have to believe so
I can't say without getting somebody in trouble. Call it insider trading.
> and how do we know they want to use them on us?
They don't, nor would they ever admit to having them. Again, Iran having nukes is a fairly minor concern.
I think it should be noted that Washington claims that Iran does not currently have enough centrifuges to build one, and they accuse Iran of seeking to build one, but not actually being the proccess of building any.
Edited by Disco Cat (10/28/07 01:04 AM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7569137 - 10/28/07 08:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
I't pretty well documented that the CIA helped the Shaw overthrow the gov't of Iran. TO deny it just shows that you don't bother looking into your history books. The CIA did this all over the place... Iran, Chile... Just read up on OPERATION CONDOR. There are plenty of declassified documents showing the CIA had their hands in all of this.
The fact that the United States even APOLOGIZED for this makes you look even more blind:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/declassified.htm
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html
It's funny how tons of documents were declassified during the Clinton era which show the truth about our actions in the past... yet people still refuse to believe we stuck our noses in the business of all these countries.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 08:50 AM)
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7569319 - 10/28/07 10:10 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
So rediculous that the most powerful government in the world could perform a coup using secret intelligence?
No, not rediculous at all. If you think btw, that the only people looking out for American interests are Americans, think again.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile
Sure you can fault wiki all you want as a credible source.. but it's got PLENTY of sources
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" — Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970.
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.
The United States supports democracy.... as long as the result of that democracy benefits us.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 11:16 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570205 - 10/28/07 04:35 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The operative word is "helped". That does not constitute a unilateral takeover. Nor has anybody bothered to address the fact that the KGB had their own program going. Should we have just lain down and let the Soviets have their way in every conflict? Don't be absurd. That is the politics of children.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7570338 - 10/28/07 05:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Nice straw man argument. I'm not saying we should just laid down against the soviet. How nice of you to put words in my mouth.
I'm saying we helped overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments. Because that's exactly what happened. And we did more than just "help". You make it sound like we just sent them a few dollars. We supplied almost all the weapons in training to the troops who perfomed the coupes... as well as tried everything we could to destabalize the economy as much as possible. Just because our OWN troopers weren't there doesn't mean we weren't responsible in a major way. And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
These coups NEVER would have been possible if it weren't for the United States MAKING them possible. That's more than just "HELPING". That's ENABLING
Doing everything possible EXCEPT using our own troops to actually stage the coup is the beauty of the CIA. They can pretty much make the coupe entirely possible for a country,. which wouldn't have been able to pull off a coup on their own... that way we can deny any involvement in it and condemn it without anyone knowing we were involved.
Are you lauding or condoning the behavior of our CIA when doing everything possible to overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments? It's not just immoral, what was done, but completely hypocritical.
It's one thing to oust a dictator like Sadam and replace it with a gov't made up of ELECTED officials.
It's another thing to oust ELECTED officials and replace it with a dictator like we did during the cold war. I'm not a fan of Marxism, but if that's what the people of Chile voted for.. that's what they should get.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 05:18 PM)
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570384 - 10/28/07 05:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570419 - 10/28/07 05:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No straw man and this isn't a philosophy class, it is a recounting of history. Democratically elected? Then how come it was so easy to overcome the supposed will of the people? The CIA supplied almost all the weapons? Not possible. Did they "help"? Yes, again, yes.
I'm sorry but the CIA isn't anywhere near the all powerful agency you dream of. Too bad, too. I think. Then again, given their penchant for not exactly following orders, like the State Dept., it might be best that they aren't so competent.
Grenada? Please tell me what country the troops we fought against in Grenada were from and just what they thought they were doing there. The way that looks to me, we prevented an invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
Quote:
an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the United States of America and several other nations in response to Prime Minister Maurice Bishop being illegally deposed and executed. On October 25, 1983, the United States, Barbados, Jamaica and members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States landed ships on Grenada, defeated Grenadian and Cuban resistance and overthrew the military government of Hudson Austin.
I ask again, why are you insistent that we should not have opposed the meddling of the Soviets and their puppets in areas of interest?
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7570592 - 10/28/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Democratically elected? Then how come it was so easy to overcome the supposed will of the people?
Yes.. Allenda was democratically elected. PLAIN FACT.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
If you want to just pick and chose what parts of history you want to believe.,.. fine... have fun living in your dream world of fiction like most other republcans. I'm not denying the USSR was trying to influence the people of Chile. They were spending just as much effort into propoganda as we were. But in the end.... in a democracy, it's what the people want. That's the beauty of OUR democracy here in the states. It's a government for the people and by the people. If the people want a more Marxist/Nationalist style of operation and their vote is the majority.. that's the way it should be.
And it's kind of hard to rebel against a government that took over by force... when you've got the most powerful nation in the world dumping ungodly amounts of money into the military who staged the coup and when you torture, arrest, and exlie people who actually DO try to fight back. This is what happens to people who tried to rebel against a coup by the military in Chile and to people who tried to expose it to the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Letelier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6973614.stm
http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_focus-caravan.html
Don't get the impression that it was a simple task to overthrow the Chilean government. You ask why it was so easy. WHO SAID IT WAS EASY? I sure as hell never did. Tens of thousands of people were arrested. And how to you manage to do this? By having more money and more weapons? Hmmm? Isn't this what the United States provided to Pinochet's army? YES!
The CIA doesn't need to be "All Powerful". They don't create opposition groups out of thin air that take over governments. They just need to funel shitloads of money into the most poweful opponent of a government. In this case.. a government with a president that was elected by the people. It's pretty simple... you provide the opposition with MORE money and weapons and training than the current government and bam... you make it possible for that group to take over.
Like I said.. that's the beauty of the CIA.. They didn't have to be ALL POWERFUL. I don't even know what the hell you mean by that to be honest. What they did was pretty simple and the exact OPPOSITE of democracy. You just take a group that wants to overthrow a president that was ELECTED, that can't do it on it's own... and give it enough money, resources, weapons it needs and let them do it... and then you just sit back from afar and watch as a completely legit government gets taken over by a dictator.
How can you possibly get more NON-DEMOCRATIC and HYPOCRITICAL?
We can argue all day about where to draw the line about whether or not the coup would have been completely successful without the millions of dollars in U.S. aid and propoganda. You're missing the point. THe point is plain and simple:
WE BOAST TO THE WORLD HOW GREAT DEMOCRACY IS AND WHEN ANOTHER OUNTRY'S DEMOCRACY VOICES A WAY OF LIFE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM OURS WE SEEK TO DESTROY IT.
And don't get me confused with other leftists on the board here who think the Soviet Union had no desire and means to attack America. Anyone who thinks this apparently never has even heard of the Cuban Missle Crisis. It's one thing to assist an attempted invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro because they posed a DIRECT THREAT to America.... being 90 miles away and having nukes pointed right at us.. But CHILE is at the very BOTTOM of south Amerca.. far far away from us and they never even came close to being a threat. The CIA's assitance wasn't because they thought this would be a staging point for the USSR to invade us. The entire assistance from the CIA was to get rid of a leader that wanted to nationalize many industries which posed an economic threat t America.
I'm not completely against America getting involed in other's affairs. Like I said... we tried to take out Castro in the 60's and it was rightly so. THey had nukes pointing right at us. Even in Iraq in 2003... I think Bush is an idiot but I think he did have good intentions when we went in because we thought SADAM was a physical threat to our friends.
But in some occasions like IRAN in the 50's and Chile in the 70s.. with so much declassified information as of lately, it's hard to deny that sometimes we get involved for more selfish reasons which is WRONG.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:42 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570598 - 10/28/07 06:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
Don't there have to be TWO armies fighting in order to consider it a conflict?
--------------------
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Silversoul]
#7570616 - 10/28/07 06:36 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
Don't there have to be TWO armies fighting in order to consider it a conflict?
Around 2,000 well armed and entrenched grenadians/cubans don't count?
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570660 - 10/28/07 06:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Brain, why does it seem like you either ignore or seriously downplay the effects of the soviet's meddling in Chile.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570670 - 10/28/07 07:26 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
People like WScottsdale are trying to explain to you, zappa, that situations like the coup in Iran are similar. It doesn't matter if we directly used our military to invade or if we just used the same manipulative ways as we did in Chile to make the coup happen.
You're missing the big picture.
We're arguing over petty things like exactly HOW involved America was in trying to overthrow a democratically elected president in Iran and forgetting the fact that we *WERE* involved.
You ask me how did the people of Chile let this coup happen if the president was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. In Chile's case, the military coup managed to permanently ward off any opposition.
In the case of Iran which was similar, the people who democratically elected their overthrown leader *DIDN'T* let this happen. It took over 20 years, but they finally got pissed off enough
Were the KGB also trying to get involved? Yes! I'm not denying that, but again the people democratically ELECTED their Marxist leader. If the people of Iran didn't want this and the USSR financially and militarily backed a coup to install a Marxist leader, they USSR would have gotten the same treatment as we did in 1979. Those religious nuts over there don't stand for as much intervention as the South Americans do. Just look at what happened whe the USSR managed to actually install their own government in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The USSR acted just as immorally as we did all throughout the Cold War. I'm not giving them any golden tickets. But you can't deny that our involvement in these situations wasn't as bad.
Some of you people out there seem to think the 1979 hostage situation was just because Iran was full of terrorists. Killing innocent people like what's going on in Iraq right now to gain power makes is what you a terrorist... and maybe Iran really IS funding these terrorists. Who know's.. I don't believe OR deny it. But just step in an Iranian's shoes in 1979. Taking over the embassy of a country that poured millions of dollars into overthrowing leaders that your majority elected is just a relatiation... not terrorism.
This goes not just to you, zappaisgod, but any of you guys who think that the 1979 hostage crisis wasn't blowback from the coup in the 50's. If Fred Thompsons got elected in 2008 and russia gave 10 billion dollars of assistance to Hillary to stage a bloody coup and take over the American government by force... Would you be a terrorist if you rallied a bunch of citizens to take over the Russian embassy in Washington DC?
There are always going to be terrorists out there trying to blow up the big dogs to get a muslim state. They're never going to win. People ultimately want their freedom. They just gain more and more momentum because their cause seems more and more justified to uneducated people when we keep sticking our noses in people's businesses. Occasionally you DO have to send your troops in and kick some ass like in Afghanistan when they were harboring al Queda. But we never would have been a target for Al Queda if we just would have butted out. Iraq may have taken over Kuqait in 1991, but Saudia Arabia and other countries would have been able to whoop Sadam's ass eventually. Should we have just sat back and let it happen? I don't know. Maybe. We let it happen all the time. Why is it... the U.S. only seems to get involved in defending nations when those nations serve great economic interests to us?
And maybe Iran IS trying to become a superpower again. Maybe they are funding people to attack us. I'm not saying it's right but it IS a relaliation against our own meddling in their affairs. We wouldn't stand for anyone else trying to fuck with us so why should another country have to put up with it? If we just leave them alone I don't think they're going to try to launch an attack against America or ISREAL. I think they just want their DIGNITY and they'd be happy with this alone. That's all anyone wants... is to feel proud to be from their country and it's hard to do this when everyone keeps trying to stick their noses in your business. If we just treat other country's with respect and stop telling them how to live, maybe we will be able to live in peace and harmony. Maybe then it will be a lot easier to tell the difference between a ruler who's an asshole to his own people and the rulers who REALLY want to take over the world like Hitler. Bad things will always happen in this world. You'll always have Hitlers. If we all just mind our own business, then it will be easier to identify them and rally the world against them if you practice what you preach. If you want to fight an evil enemy, then you need not to fight them just to keep your own interests intact but you need to fight them with a clear conscience... and for the right reasons. If you do this, you'll find yourself with every other nation standing behind you, and without any doubt about your righteousness, not with only 51% of your OWN country behind you.
In theory, this all makes sense.... but the problem is this world isn't perfect. Every nation has blood on it's hands and a big stain on it's soul. We've gotten ourselves into the situation we're in and it's just going to get worse if we don't try to find a way to get along. That's the REAL challenge; not how long you can fight terrorists for, how many people you can get to believe your side of the story, but how to start off the new world with a CLEAN SLATE. Isn't this the ultimate goal for humanity?
We're not going to get there with force alone.
I don't have the answers, but I'm sure the only way to get to this goal is to find another way other than by just keeping on fighting.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:45 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570671 - 10/28/07 07:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said: Brain, why does it seem like you either ignore or seriously downplay the effects of the soviet's meddling in Chile.
I never denied this involvement. But the USSR didn't just INSTALL a Marxist leader. Their own citizens elected him. I'd be singing a different story if the USSR just overthrew the gov't with their OWN leader in their own coup like they did in Afghanistan in 1979.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:37 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570851 - 10/28/07 08:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm
It gets interesting around the middle of DOCUMENT #5. It's a history complied by the CIA itself about the situation in Iran in 1953. It DOES confirm the soviet's meddling in Iranian affairs as well as our own. It gets really interesting because it talks about some sort of operation but a lot of the details are blanked out pages at a time. After all the white space it goes on about how the "Operation Ajax" was approved by Eisenhower himself.
The true details I guess we'll never know until those censored parts are made available.
But I still give more credit to the CIA than zappa seems to. The CIA isn't an organization full of wizards, but they're full of some pretty fuckin smart people that know when and where to spend money.. smart enough to be able to give enough of a nudge at the right time to make the fate of a country go the right way. If you think they weren't majorly involved in these coups then what the hell do you think they WERE doing the entire cold war with all their resources? Just twiddling their thumbs?
If another country had been the USSR's main contender in the cold war and America was some Marginal country used as a pawn. Don't you think the resentment we'd have felt towards the USSR and this other arbitrary country (as well as a possible attack on their country's embassies) would have been justified just a LITTLE?
... It's not neccessarily that a big chunk of the world hates us just because we're America. It's not our freedom, our ideals or what we stand for that makes people get pissed at us. It's the fact that we're one of the big dogs in a world run by nonperfect beings. Whoever the Big dog is... whether it be US, Russia, Iran, Mexico, Tacoland, Lalaland, etc, that person who is the big dog is always going to get challenged and is going to have to comprimise their ethics to stay on top.
My whole argument here is that less powerful countries' resentment towards America IS warranted in many cases and anyone who thinks of himself as an intelligent person should at least admit that our country is responsibe for some injustices... whether or not you really case is a different story.
That's my problem with people who won't ADMIT that middle east resentment isn't caused a LITTLE bit by our own actions. These people get too wrapped up in trying to argue that we weren't involved and when we PROVE to them that we WERE, thet abandon their argument and switch saying "Oh yea? Well.. the USSR did it TOO!". If you're going to switch arguments like this at least CONCEDE that there are enough facts that our own CIA fucks with other people.
In contrast, my problem with Americans who see their own country as the great evil. We're not evil. We have good intentions and innocent people get killed which definately kills the notion of us ever being the "good guy", but the bees nest we've stirred up as proven that the people we've pissed off are really just as wrong. if not TRULY evil. These are people who will INTENTIONALLY kill women and children out of desperation proving that THEY'RE WORSE than the "Great Evil" they're fighting. That's why the situation in the Middle East is so much more explosive than any shit that went down in South America... we pissed off people who use RELIGION to justify ANYTHING.
Starting a war with Atheist Communists doesn't scare me. When you beat 'em.. they're beat. They fight for their countries and you can defeat a country. Once you piss off a religion... man... good luck fighting that until the end.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 08:34 PM)
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570922 - 10/28/07 08:33 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
d33p said: Brain, why does it seem like you either ignore or seriously downplay the effects of the soviet's meddling in Chile.
I never denied this involvement. But the USSR didn't just INSTALL a Marxist leader. Their own citizens elected him. I'd be singing a different story if the USSR just overthrew the gov't with their OWN leader in their own coup like they did in Afghanistan in 1979.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Why do you put so much faith into elections of 1970s Chilie? Is it because the US didn't get what it wanted? The close margins? Their own citizens may elected him but when it was by a margin of less than 2% in an election likely rife with voting fraud. The situation was a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. Is it allright for the soviets to manipulate a country against the US's interests as long as they don't do so blatently? Is discretion all that matters to you? Results are what counts imo.
Where did i put workds in your mouth.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570927 - 10/28/07 08:33 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
liquidating our population of native americans i think is one of them.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570942 - 10/28/07 08:39 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Where did i put workds in your mouth.
That I deny or downplay the USSR's involvement. I never said anything like that. You're just straight up saying LIES about me. I'm trying to focus on how thousands of people end up dying because of coups WE help instigate and everyone's throwing around the "WAaaa! Waaa! The USSR did it TOO so it was justifed bullshit."
I don't give a crap. The USSR was evil! There I said it! Can we move on now and just talk about what started this whole debate?
Whether or not the CIA was involved in the Iran/Chile coups? Everyone denies it and the second we bust out facts to prove it, everyone tries to divert attention away from the fact that they were wrong by suddenly talking about the USSR. At BEST we were both guilty of fucking up other countries.
I don't give a shit about the USSR and I'm not saying we or they were right. I'm trying to say that it's no wonder countries like Iran are pissed at us and we're trying to act like we never did anything wrong to them. They have every right to be pissed at us. Shit... at least can't our government just apologize to the Iranian people and say "Sorry for fucking you guys in the ass, but we were fighting communists?"
Oops! Wait. Madeline Albright alrighy did that!
You're right.. there WAS voter fraud. Everyone wanted the Shaw to be in power. They wanted it SO much they ousted him 20 years later in a massive revolution.
There MUST have been voter fraud in Chile. I mean... shit. Why would anyone want a president that decided to nationalize the oil industry for the benefit of his own people when they could have a dictator like Pinochet murdering thousands of his own people?
Gah! What was I thinking?
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 09:01 PM)
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7571018 - 10/28/07 09:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
Where did i put workds in your mouth.
That I deny or downplay the USSR's involvement. I never said anything like that. Nowhere in any declassified documents does it say the gov't and CIA were worried about VOTER FRAUD but just that we were worried about Communist influence. Like I said.. I admit that the soviets were meddling as well. You're just straight up saying LIES about me. I'm trying to focus on how thousands of people end up dying because of coups WE help instigate and everyone's throwing around the "WAaaa! Waaa! The USSR did it TOO so it was justifed bullshit." I don't give a crap. The USSR was evil! There I said it! Can we move on now and just talk about what started this whole debate? Whether or not the CIA was involved in the Iran/Chile coups? Everyone denies it and the second we bust out facts to prove it, everyone tries to divert attention away from the fact that they were wrong by suddenly talking about the USSR. At BEST we were both guilty of fucking up other countries.
If you guys think that the possibility of the USSR causing election fraud is enough to warrant a military coup.. well shit.. we've got plenty accusations of it here at home. Why aren't you guys all up in arms telling the Democratic party of the United States to fund the Al Gore military coup?
I said it "seems like." Is english not your first language?
I just disagree with you over fundamental things. I think it was necessary for the US to do "evil" things. There is no definitive right and wrong or black and white, just a blur of grey where a government must do what it can to secure their interests and the interests of their allies. The expansion of the soviet sphere of influence had to be stopped and "they were doing it too" was as good a justification as any. The CIA was involved as it should have been and pinochet left a lot to be desired but he was better than the alternative.
USSR involvement was enough to warrent a military coup.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7571125 - 10/28/07 09:33 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
Where did i put workds in your mouth.
That I deny or downplay the USSR's involvement. I never said anything like that. Nowhere in any declassified documents does it say the gov't and CIA were worried about VOTER FRAUD but just that we were worried about Communist influence. Like I said.. I admit that the soviets were meddling as well. You're just straight up saying LIES about me. I'm trying to focus on how thousands of people end up dying because of coups WE help instigate and everyone's throwing around the "WAaaa! Waaa! The USSR did it TOO so it was justifed bullshit." I don't give a crap. The USSR was evil! There I said it! Can we move on now and just talk about what started this whole debate? Whether or not the CIA was involved in the Iran/Chile coups? Everyone denies it and the second we bust out facts to prove it, everyone tries to divert attention away from the fact that they were wrong by suddenly talking about the USSR. At BEST we were both guilty of fucking up other countries.
If you guys think that the possibility of the USSR causing election fraud is enough to warrant a military coup.. well shit.. we've got plenty accusations of it here at home. Why aren't you guys all up in arms telling the Democratic party of the United States to fund the Al Gore military coup?
I said it "seems like." Is english not your first language?
I just disagree with you over fundamental things. I think it was necessary for the US to do "evil" things. There is no definitive right and wrong or black and white, just a blur of grey where a government must do what it can to secure their interests and the interests of their allies. The expansion of the soviet sphere of influence had to be stopped and "they were doing it too" was as good a justification as any. The CIA was involved as it should have been and pinochet left a lot to be desired but he was better than the alternative.
USSR involvement was enough to warrent a military coup.
Well... we agree to disagree then. But like I said.. whether or not it was "right" is sort of not really relevant to my argument. I'm really talking about whether or not Iran has a right to be pissed at us for our involvement. We can both argue until our faces our blue what the people of Chile and Iran really wanted. Hell.. back in the day I bet it was as divided and debated amongst their citizens as it was during the 2000 election here.
Like I said... my point: Take a look at the situation through an Iranian's shoes. You're in Iran... the USSR and Russia are both competing for power and BOTH fucking you in the ass. America finally wins and has major involvement in pushing the Shaw on your country whether you want it or not.
Now pretend the same thing is happening to YOU in America. If you were being played as a pawn by two other countries and the leader that finally got the nudge by another country ended up being an asshole and that asshole sits there and remains in power because another country keeps giving him support.
We Americans wouldn't stand for it? Would you? I don't know about you, but I'd be fed up with that country.. fed up enough to storm THEIR embassy and to demand to the world to be taken seriously.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7571159 - 10/28/07 09:43 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The CIA was involved as it should have been and pinochet left a lot to be desired but he was better than the alternative.
And since we've already gone off topic I might as well ask you this:
So a facist dictator that murders thousands of his own people that oppose him is better than a communist? Remember.. He was a Marxist... not a Stalinist. Allende refused to use force against any of his opponents despite the fact that the USSR encouraged him to. Besides.. he was elected as a president.. someone who would only have been in office for 6 years wheras a dictator.. you're stuck with.
In addition to murdering h3000 of his countrymen to stay in power, torturing 30,000, Pinochet was convicted of plenty of other crimes including tax evasion and imbezzlement embezzlement. In fact, he was eventually convicted of 300 different crimes while in office.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7571760 - 10/29/07 03:04 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said: There is no definitive right and wrong or black and white, just a blur of grey where a government must do what it can to secure their interests and the interests of their allies.
No, there isn't a "blur of grey". This thinking is false. One government cannot hold itself to be sovereign if it disregards the sovereignity of another. Clearly the line of thinking you have outlined is one that our government assumes to be evident, but it has no basis.
Quote:
The Declaration of Independence said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.... hhhm.... I have to admit, I don't see anything about foreign countries violating the sovereignity of another country through covert means...
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7573208 - 10/29/07 02:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Democratically elected? Then how come it was so easy to overcome the supposed will of the people?
Yes.. Allenda was democratically elected. PLAIN FACT.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
I was not aware that Allenda was elected president of Iran. If you want to make a thread about Chile, go for it. I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge the Soviet threat. This is what dominated foreign policy for 50 years. Rightly so. It was not always well prosecuted and hind sight is perfect but in the end, we won. They lost. Contemplate, if you will, the ramifications of their victory. Not pretty.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7573223 - 10/29/07 02:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
fair enough... At least the Shaw wasn't as bad as who we helped install in Chile.
You can't deny, though, the right Iranians had to be really pissed at us or be really suprised at what happened in 1979. Being someone else's pawn in a chess game really takes away your country's dignity. They probably would have been just as pissed at the soviets eventually and rightly so. Just look at what happened in the Ganny-stan.
> I was not aware that Allenda was elected president of Iran
You just love twisting around people's posts, don't you?
Edited by BrAiN (10/29/07 02:50 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7573233 - 10/29/07 02:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well no, I don't. You just went completely off on a tangent with Chile. I had no idea we were talking about Chile in the 70s. I daresay that I would expect the CIA to be a good bit more effective there than in Iran. Not omnipotent, but better.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7573243 - 10/29/07 02:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was just using it as another example of the effectiveness of the CIA at helping topple gov'ts during the cold war. I thought there were quite a few things in common with the situation in Iran.
And I wouldn't call it a tangent. I wasn't respnding to the Iran-part of the threat so much as I was about the power of the CIA during the cold war. Ain't nothing wrong with bustin' out a few examples that are related to the issue at hand.
Tagents are what that FecalBongwhatshisname guy goes on here in the forums :P
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7573298 - 10/29/07 03:09 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ya know, I'm not gonna go all nuts about this, but they don't really compare that well either, when discussing CIA effectiveness. Iran is right in Russia's backyard and Chile is a good bit distant. I just get tired of hearing people blather endlessly about how the CIA "installed" the Shah and and and, well, blowback (that is just a stupid word. Try "consequences". It's been around for centuries.). I'd call it a nudge.
--------------------
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7573530 - 10/29/07 04:19 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: And since we've already gone off topic I might as well ask you this:
So a facist dictator that murders thousands of his own people that oppose him is better than a communist? Remember.. He was a Marxist... not a Stalinist. Allende refused to use force against any of his opponents despite the fact that the USSR encouraged him to. Besides.. he was elected as a president.. someone who would only have been in office for 6 years wheras a dictator.. you're stuck with.
In addition to murdering h3000 of his countrymen to stay in power, torturing 30,000, Pinochet was convicted of plenty of other crimes including tax evasion and imbezzlement embezzlement. In fact, he was eventually convicted of 300 different crimes while in office.
I feel that had Allende continued holding power the country would have continued descending into hell(debatable how much the CIA was responsible for). As, it did measures would of have been taken to hold onto power quickly turning it into a more stalinist-like regime with closer ties to the Soviets and increasingly hostile to the US. Ultimately, pinochet was a good thing for Chile and the support for him him even into the '90s is evidence of that. It's shitty to think of trading human life for ideology that I perceive to be more right, but... fuck, i don't even know what to say to make that sound less horrible.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
Edited by d33p (10/29/07 04:29 PM)
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7573535 - 10/29/07 04:21 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
d33p said: There is no definitive right and wrong or black and white, just a blur of grey where a government must do what it can to secure their interests and the interests of their allies.
No, there isn't a "blur of grey". This thinking is false. One government cannot hold itself to be sovereign if it disregards the sovereignity of another. Clearly the line of thinking you have outlined is one that our government assumes to be evident, but it has no basis.
Quote:
The Declaration of Independence said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.... hhhm.... I have to admit, I don't see anything about foreign countries violating the sovereignity of another country through covert means...
I didn't say that it doesn't suck.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7573706 - 10/29/07 05:18 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: And since we've already gone off topic I might as well ask you this:
So a facist dictator that murders thousands of his own people that oppose him is better than a communist? Remember.. He was a Marxist... not a Stalinist. Allende refused to use force against any of his opponents despite the fact that the USSR encouraged him to. Besides.. he was elected as a president.. someone who would only have been in office for 6 years wheras a dictator.. you're stuck with.
In addition to murdering h3000 of his countrymen to stay in power, torturing 30,000, Pinochet was convicted of plenty of other crimes including tax evasion and imbezzlement embezzlement. In fact, he was eventually convicted of 300 different crimes while in office.
I feel that had Allende continued holding power the country would have continued descending into hell(debatable how much the CIA was responsible for). As, it did measures would of have been taken to hold onto power quickly turning it into a more stalinist-like regime with closer ties to the Soviets and increasingly hostile to the US. Ultimately, pinochet was a good thing for Chile and the support for him him even into the '90s is evidence of that. It's shitty to think of trading human life for ideology that I perceive to be more right, but... fuck, i don't even know what to say to make that sound less horrible.
Eh well.. touce'.. touche.. (sp?). whatever
This really just comes down to guessing and opinion here. No one really would have known what Allende's government really would have been like.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Spanki]
#7577688 - 10/30/07 05:24 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So... there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuke, only suspicions based on thin reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Monday brushed aside the UN nuclear watchdog agency chief's warning that there was no proof Iran seeks atomic weapons, and invited him to stay out of diplomacy with Tehran.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN Sunday that he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their warlike rhetoric.
"He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."
"We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program," said McCormack.
At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no doubt about Iran's plans because "this is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
Uranium enrichment and reprocessing produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but can also be a key step to creating the core of an atomic bomb. Iran says it wants a civilian energy program, not an atomic arsenal.
Asked whether any country enriching uranium seeks nuclear weapons, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe clarified Perino's remarks.
"I would say that we're concerned about Iran doing this because they could have the capability to have a nuclear weapon. Each country is different, but obviously Dana was asked and was talking about Iran," he said.
Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they will never suspend enrichment, in flagrant defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the process.
"We have put on the table for Iran a path for them to get a civil nuclear program. And all they have to do to get there is to suspend its enrichment of reprocessing of uranium and they can come to the table and we can have a further discussion," said Perino.
"It's the Iranians who have decided not to be at that table," she said.
The United States has sharply escalated its rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, while slapping a new set of sanctions on its Revolutionary Guards, accused of spreading weapons of mass destruction, and its elite Quds Force, which was designated as a supporter of terrorism.
"Iran is the largest national security challenge we have in regards to nuclear weapons today," said Perino, who contrasted Tehran's approach to North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
"We are in discussions with North Korea, through the six-party talks, and that is because North Korea agreed to give up its weapons and make a full declaration of activities that they've been pursuing," she said.
She was referring to negotiations grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea and the United States, and a deal offering Pyongyang economic and diplomatic rewards if it gives up it nuclear weapons program.
"Iran could have the same option, but they've chosen not to," the spokeswoman said.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7577745 - 10/30/07 05:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said: So... there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuke, only suspicions based on thin reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------
Thin? I don't think so since they often assert their right to have them, have zero need for nuclear power due to their oil wealth, and turned down an offer to supply them with processed fuel in return for their sending the waste back.
I suppose there is pretty "thin" evidence that 2 plus 2 equals 4 at your school. At my school they considered it pretty strong.
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7578194 - 10/30/07 07:46 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Actaully, their thin reasoning was exaplained by themselves and plainly highlighted above. You're analysis is lacking, but that's normal.
Their case is that normally these circumstances aren't a concern, but since it's Iran, and they don't trust Iran, they assume it's for nuclear weapons - without evidence. "Evidence." If you have troubles with understanding that work, seek a dictionary.
Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to. I say unequivocally that for no price will we be willing to relinquish our legal and international right. I also say unequivocally to those who make false claims: Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises. - Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president
The U.S. maintains that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves since nuclear power is more expensive for the Iranians to generate than oil-fired power. This argument has been contradicted by studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in the US, and by an investigation by the British Parliament. It is also contradicted by former policies of the United States government which encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program.
A potential reason behind US resistance to an Iranian nuclear program lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use; i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, and to develop nuclear weapons, a situation that resulted in India's nuclear weapons programme in the 1960s. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the middle east, weakening US influence. It could also encourage other middle eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own further reducing US influence in a critical region.
In November 2006, Seymour Hersh described a classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. He continued, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons programme running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency,"
Zap, isn't it about time you just lay down and die, or at least shut up and stop lowering the IQ level of this forum with your bullshit?
Edited by Disco Cat (10/30/07 08:13 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7578306 - 10/30/07 08:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Thin? I don't think so since they often assert their right to have them
They do have a right to have them.
Quote:
...have zero need for nuclear power due to their oil wealth
Perhaps they realize how relying on non-renewable resources as a source for energy is a dead-end.
Quote:
, and turned down an offer to supply them with processed fuel in return for their sending the waste back.
Does the United States of America get supplied with processed fuel in return for returning their waste? Why should Iran have to?
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7579458 - 10/31/07 05:30 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zap, isn't it about time you just lay down and die, or at least shut up and stop lowering the IQ level of this forum with your bullshit?
Wow, grow up. If you can't debate like a civilized human being, perhaps it is you who should be vacating the forum.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Redstorm]
#7579493 - 10/31/07 06:04 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Hmm, to suggest that limitlessly tolerating ill-informed bullshit and banter, which has the ultimate effect of spreading dis-information, equates maturity... I don't agree with you there.
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I suppose there is pretty "thin" evidence that 2 plus 2 equals 4 at your school. At my school they considered it pretty strong. & Can you put together a puzzle that has more than twelve big wooden pieces?
Wow, grow up. If you can't debate like a civilized human being, perhaps it is you who should be vacating the forum.
Fixed.
Next time, take off the beer goggles before you browse, lest you be thought of selective moderating.
Edited by Disco Cat (10/31/07 06:49 AM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7579612 - 10/31/07 07:14 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Redstorm isn't a moderator.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7579642 - 10/31/07 07:35 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My mistake. Selective admonishing is the crux.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7579650 - 10/31/07 07:42 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
To everybody: please stop with the personal attacks and debate the topic. I would rather not see this thread get locked over childish behavior. Redstorm may not be a mod, but he was correct in his critique.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7579833 - 10/31/07 08:51 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: To everybody: please stop with the personal attacks and debate the topic. I would rather not see this thread get locked over childish behavior. Redstorm may not be a mod, but he was correct in his critique.
yea well you're a doodie poopieface head! NYA NYA NYAA!!!!!
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7580048 - 10/31/07 10:17 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That is one ban. Anybody else?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7580237 - 10/31/07 11:13 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Dear god.. you can't take a simple joke? You think I was ACTUALLY trying to insult you? I like you. Why the hell would I try to mess with you?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7581442 - 10/31/07 04:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Thin? I don't think so since they often assert their right to have them
They do have a right to have them.
Sez who?Quote:
Quote:
...have zero need for nuclear power due to their oil wealth
Perhaps they realize how relying on non-renewable resources as a source for energy is a dead-end.
Nuclear power IS non-renewable. WTF.Quote:
Quote:
, and turned down an offer to supply them with processed fuel in return for their sending the waste back.
Does the United States of America get supplied with processed fuel in return for returning their waste? Why should Iran have to?
Because they are fucking lunatics. I notice that you, unlike the tacky feline, are not bothering to deny their intentions, which are plainly obvious to just about every rational person on the planet. They want the Jihadi bomb . I don't blame them for wanting it but I sure as shit think we should do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to prevent it.
--------------------
|
Visionary Tools



Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 7,953
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7581503 - 10/31/07 04:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: To everybody: please stop with the personal attacks and debate the topic. I would rather not see this thread get locked over childish behavior. Redstorm may not be a mod, but he was correct in his critique.
But then people would have to argue based on the topic, that's not as easy as calling someone a filthy hippie for having a problem about killing strangers halfway over the other side of the world.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Visionary Tools said:
Quote:
Seuss said: To everybody: please stop with the personal attacks and debate the topic. I would rather not see this thread get locked over childish behavior. Redstorm may not be a mod, but he was correct in his critique.
But then people would have to argue based on the topic, that's not as easy as calling someone a filthy hippie for having a problem about killing strangers halfway over the other side of the world.
When did you do that?
--------------------
|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Redstorm]
#7591706 - 11/03/07 04:22 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: ZShroom]
#7631843 - 11/13/07 05:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
More on Iran's peaceful nuke program http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Nuclear-Iran.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Quote:
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency, handing over long-sought blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday.
Iran's decision to release the documents, which were seen by U.N. inspectors two years ago, was seen as a concession designed to head off the threat of new U.N. sanctions.......
Iran maintains it was given the papers without asking for them during its black market purchases of nuclear equipment decades ago that now serve as the backbone of its program to enrich uranium -- a process that can generate both power or create the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment has been the main trigger for both existing U.N. sanctions and the threat of new ones.
I report, you decide.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7632022 - 11/13/07 06:18 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Good thing Iran doesn't have photocopy machines.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7632056 - 11/13/07 06:26 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, now they won't know how to make them. Do you suppose photocopy machines are on the sanctions list? Maybe just toner will do. Any morons want to weigh in on this? Hello. Are any of you idiots still out there? chirp chirp chirp?
Guess not.
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7635697 - 11/14/07 03:24 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Haha, they are playing the UN like idiots.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
LIKE idiots? Not for nothing but that's why they had no credibility on Iraq. A useless bunch of rape enabling parasites.
--------------------
|
Crasher
αἱρετίζω



Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 6,220
Loc: Tardy to the Party
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7636478 - 11/14/07 05:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm more concerned with the proxy war that Iran is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you've been to either country, your opinion in their co/overt operations is worthless.I say that because our media...well, need I say more? A wonderful piece of Iranian made EFP is currently residing in my shoulder. They'll implode culturally before we invade.
-------------------- Give me silence, water, hope; Give me struggle, iron, volcanoes...
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Crasher]
#7636657 - 11/14/07 06:23 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry about your injury. I am quite aware that they are doing that and find it grounds for serious response. I also thought the hostage thing in '79 merited serious response. None of that diminishes the serious nature of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Have you gotten the picture that I am serious about the Iran = scumbag thing yet.
--------------------
|
Crasher
αἱρετίζω



Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 6,220
Loc: Tardy to the Party
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7636926 - 11/14/07 07:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I get the picture, and whole-heartedly agree. It's unfortunate that we've become so polarized as a society that when Bush cries Wolf, no one pays attention.
The problem with this is that once the wolf is a nuclear entity, it's too late.
-------------------- Give me silence, water, hope; Give me struggle, iron, volcanoes...
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7645025 - 11/16/07 05:05 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Those blueprints were reported on 2 years ago, and using them to argue Iran is seeking a nuke is a non sequitur. As the article says, the documents are old, and so they don't help in assessing Iran's present intentions.
Quote:
Seuss said: Good thing Iran doesn't have photocopy machines.
Iran only gave the IAEA a copy for examination, they kept the originals.
Quote:
The_Red_Crayon said: Haha, they are playing the UN like idiots.
That's a wonderful restatement of the initial argument, but a case based on evidence has yet to be made. As I've pointed out several times, it has not been previously possible for Iran to be building a bomb, and just last week Jerusalem Post reported: Referring to Ahmadinejad's 3,000-centrifuges announcement, Lieberman (Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister) said that Israel was not surprised but that Iran still had a "way to go" before it would succeed in operating the centrifuges to the point that they could produce enriched uranium.
Since it's known fact that there are no nukes currently in production, the case lies entirely in whether Iran will be building a nuke in the coming future, however, the idea that Iran would be considering commencing nuke developpment under the current conditions is a fairy tale, and the claim is made of hype, not data.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7645119 - 11/16/07 05:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'll continue to assess their intentions by their statements wherein they continuously assert a right to nuclear weapons. I disbelieve their avowals that they need nuclear power for electricity, given that they are sitting on a huge pile of oil and it is cheaper. Thankfully, people like you are nowhere near positions of responsibility.
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7645256 - 11/16/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Humorously, some people like you do hold positions of authority, and logically, are fucking up royally, proving themselves to be a real bunch of morons... just like the type who would respond to their own call for morons and idiots with a chirping that sets themselves up for a lovely pun on the word "birdbrain." That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come.
The argument that oil production is cheaper is a proven fallacy, in this very thread even. If you were more competent I wouldn't have to point this out. Iran also imports gas for economic reasons.
Quote:
First, gas is vitally needed for reinjection into existing oil reservoirs [repressurizing]. This is indispensable for maintaining oil output levels, as well as for increasing overall, long-term recovery of oil. Second, natural gas is needed for growing domestic use, such as in cooking fuel and domestic heating (Iranians typically use kerosene for both), where it can free up oil for more profitable export. New uses such as powering bus and taxi fleets in Iran's smoggy urban areas are also essential for development. Third, natural gas exports - via pipelines to Turkey or in liquefied form to the sub-continent - set an attractive minimum value for any available natural gas. With adequate nuclear power generation, Iran can profit more from selling its gas than using it to generate power. Fourth, the economics of gas production in Iran are almost backwards, certainly counter-intuitive. Much of Iran's gas is "rich" - it contains byproducts, such as liquid-petroleum gas [LPG, better known as propane], which are more valuable than the natural gas from which they are derived. Iran can profit by selling these derivatives, but not if it burns the natural gas to generate power. Furthermore, Iran adheres to OPEC production quotas, which combine oil and natural gas production. Therefore Iran cannot simply increase natural gas for export to make up for what it burns at home.
Quote:
Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] and has the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. But its energy needs are rising faster than its ability to meet them. Driven by a young population and high oil revenues, Iran's power consumption is growing by around 7% annually, and its capacity must nearly triple over the next 15 years to meet projected demand. Where will the electricity come from? Not from the oil sector. It is retarded by US sanctions, as well as inefficiency, corruption and Iran's institutionalized distrust of Western investors. Since 1995, when the sector was opened to a handful of foreign companies, Iran has added 600,000 barrels per day to its crude production, enough to offset depletion in aging fields, but not enough to boost output, which has stagnated at around 3.7 million barrels per day since the late 1990s. Almost 40% of Iran's crude oil is consumed locally. If this figure were to rise, oil revenues would fall, spelling the end of the strong economic growth the country has enjoyed since 1999. Plugging the gap with natural gas is not possible - yet. Iran's gigantic gas reserves are only just being tapped, so Iran remains a net importer.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7645283 - 11/16/07 06:37 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Iran imports gas because they have built no refineries. Further, the cost of electric production for Iran is MUCH lower from oil than from nuclear. You are a willing dupe. I have asked this before and I will ask it again, "Why are you such an apologist for these totalitarian thugs?"
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7662900 - 11/21/07 12:59 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Iran had been importing gas because it was cheaper than investing in new refineries, altho no doubt that's all changed sine the Iraq war. Your notion that it would be cheaper for Iran to stick with oil rather than have oil & nuclear energy is so absurd that I don't know if you should be laughed at or pitied. That concept that gas is cheaper is even more of a fool's delusion because, obviously (or at least it should be), along with not burning that gas for electricity comes selling it for profit. Any stat that says it's cheaper for Iran to use gas is not taking into account the massive profit they receive from selling it. These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor, which has a capacity of 1000 megawatts, could be saved, while conveniently/grossly idiotically ignoring the detail that it is costing Iran $8-10 billion for a new refinery from India, and is investing $14 billion overall between 2005-2010 in their refinery capacity.
The cost of uranium has also increased by over 800% since 2001, and is expected to continue soaring. Iran has enough uranium reserves that it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Your model that an oil rich country doesn't need nuclear energy of course has no merit, and I'm sure you know this. Yet even so, I'll point out that Russia, who has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, 2nd largest coal reserves, and plenty of oil, is doubling it's national dependancy on nuclear energy for electricity by 2030, which should bring it to 32%, and is building an additional 30 reactors to the 30 it already has. Nuclear cost efficiency is growing, and the cleanliness it provides is something Iran's polluted environment can use drastically.
When I said earlier in this thread you should shut up and stop dragging down the IQ of this forum with your BS some people obviously thought I meant it as just a taunt and an attack, but I was 100% serious. Some of your concepts can be so unbelievably stupid that to listen to them is to poison one's own intellect, and I have no doubts that on this forum, where people chew down on baseline news to produce all-encompassing opinions, some have been foolish enough to take your words as having value.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7663390 - 11/21/07 02:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor
While you are being high and mighty, please answer, what is the lifetime of the $5 billion investment.
> it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Spoken by somebody that has never studied the environmental impact that uranium enrichment creates. Uranium enrichment is the true issue and you are missing a very important point. Iran has every reason in the world to want to export uranium and let somebody else deal with the mess while making tons of profit and getting enriched uranium in return. There is one reason and one reason only that any country would care to enrich their own uranium and that is so they can use their uranium for military purposes (which is more than bomb building). Iran's insistence upon having enrichment technology means they have military ambitions in mind. The same holds true for every country that enriches uranium, the US included. Once you can create your own nuclear fuel, the UN no longer has the ability to monitor what you do with it.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7663400 - 11/21/07 02:58 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Cost per kilowatt
Gas......3.9 to 4.4 cents Coal.....4.8 to 5.5 Nuclear.11.1 to 14.5
SOURCE:(something you are no doubt unfamiliar with) http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour#Traditional_Power_Generation
They also have shit for uranium reserves.
Quote:
The report notes that the basis for a self-sufficient nuclear program is indigenous uranium ore that can be mined and converted into fuel. It says, however, that Iran’s 1,427 metric tons of known uranium reserves would be enough to support the country’s proposed nuclear reactor development program only through 2010. Even taking into account estimated undiscovered reserves of 13,850 metric tons, the program would run out of fuel by 2023, shortly after the completion of the seventh proposed plant.
Source: (Yep, one of those again) http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Apr/24-797508.html
From the same source:
Quote:
Conversely, the report states, Iran could make profitable investments aimed at utilizing its abundant fossil fuel resources. Iran has some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. At current production rates, it has 90 years worth of oil and 220 years worth of natural gas.
The researchers observe that Iran flares off nearly 7 percent of its gross production of natural gas as an uncaptured byproduct of its oil drilling activities. This gives Iran the highest percentage of natural gas wasted among all major petroleum-producing countries. The report says that if Iran were to use available technology to reduce its level of waste to the world average, it could use the gas to generate nearly as much electricity as three nuclear power plants.
The report also notes that Iran is ignoring other pressing concerns in the energy sector. The country’s limited refinery capacity means that it has become an importer of gasoline. The report says that boosting the refinery capacity would be an effective way of improving the country’s energy independence.
The researchers maintain that Iran’s investment in its nuclear program starves more profitable projects in fossil fuel development of capital resources. They also suggest that Iran’s pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle likely will undermine foreign investment in its entire energy sector and dampen Iran’s international trade prospects.
“Despite obvious needs and simple solutions which would promote and probably achieve real energy independence, Iran's energy investments remain skewed in favor of a nuclear program which does not accord with its resource endowments or its near-term energy sector needs,” the report states. “In summary, the stated economic rationale for the nuclear program is inconsistent with both the facts of the program and the behavior of Iran in the broader energy investment sphere.”
And YOU accuse ME of being stupid? Go back to your cave and paint on the walls. Nobody buys your easily debunked bullshit.
--------------------
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7667022 - 11/22/07 01:21 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It seems I don't have to accuse you of much because you incriminate yourself in this regard. Now if these were easily debunked claims, then I imagine you'd have provided relevant data that debunked them. I also imagine you wouldn't have used a manipulative line that suggested you even knew what other people believe, because your data could have spoken for itself. Rather, the use of such a line reinforces the belief that you actually have nothing to fall back on and are trying to save face.
The nuclear energy costs you posted are idiosyncratically preposterous, and I imagine you ignored much real data in favor of what you posted. The costs you reported are from a company who is advertising its own patented theoretical energy supply method by contrasting all the above energy sources to its own theoretical cost - with no sources for their claims, and not even a region listed. I'm sure if there was an actual report that backed what you wanted to claim, and if you didn't rely on scamming/manipulating people to make your points, you wouldn't have resorted to this. Here are some real prices. As you can see, nuclear energy is cheaper almost completely across the board:
 The source is a 2007 report called The Economics of Nuclear Power, from the Uranium Information Center, which references many different energy reports.
Now have a look at this:

Again, look at this:

You said Iran's uranium would last until... 2023? I read that their uranium would last only 15 years, until 2022. So by arguing that Iran's uranium reserves are more than I already knew you thought you would be proving that it isn't worthwhile for Iran to have a domestic uranium program? Remeber I said this?: "That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come." Well you've proven me right quicker than I'd expected.
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups): If Iran harnessed any wasted gas, that gas would still be more profitable to Iran if sold, while using nuclear energy for domestic electricity. No matter how much more gas they could have, it will always be more profitable to sell any extra drops than to burn them for their own electricity. The conclusion of your US government link - that it suggests Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by their wasted gas resources - is, unsurprisingly, false. It is more than clear that Iran does not have sufficient domestic energy production, and to claim that wasted gas contradicts that is a non sequitur. Does the US government also think that Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by the fact that Iran imports large amounts of electricity?
On every subject I've debated you since I began posting in this forum you've been uneducated, and I've watched you commonly rely on trying to intimidate/manipulate others into not challenging your assertions, and you'll even use false data as we've just been shown. So if you actually have some integrity to defend, and aren't just a scammer, then step up to the plate and start proving some data wrong. Be sure to leave the bullshit links alone, as I will debunk them.
Edited by Disco Cat (11/22/07 01:44 PM)
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7667041 - 11/22/07 01:25 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > These stats are also based on the concept that the $5 billion Iran has spent for the Bushehr reactor
While you are being high and mighty, please answer, what is the lifetime of the $5 billion investment.
If you mean how long will the Bushehr reactor last, I can only guess that it would have a lifetime comparable to other reactors - maybe more due to it being a more modern construct - but say 40-60 years. Or do you mean something to do with Bushehr initially being supposed to be completed in 1981, in which case, you need to clarify your point.
Quote:
> it would be a waste to not have a domestic uranium facility.
Spoken by somebody that has never studied the environmental impact that uranium enrichment creates. Uranium enrichment is the true issue and you are missing a very important point. Iran has every reason in the world to want to export uranium and let somebody else deal with the mess while making tons of profit and getting enriched uranium in return. There is one reason and one reason only that any country would care to enrich their own uranium and that is so they can use their uranium for military purposes (which is more than bomb building). Iran's insistence upon having enrichment technology means they have military ambitions in mind. The same holds true for every country that enriches uranium, the US included. Once you can create your own nuclear fuel, the UN no longer has the ability to monitor what you do with it.
There is also the motive of desiring to no longer be on someone else's leash. Then there is the added incentive of being able to supply nuclear fuel to other Arab countries in the future.
Speech Delivered by Iran's Envoy to IAEA o US was obliged under the contract made prior to 1979 to supply new fuel for Tehran 5 MW Research Reactor, being under the Agency Comprehensive Safeguards, producing radioisotopes for application in medicine, agriculture and industry. After the Revolution, it prevented to deliver the fuel in contradiction to its obligations
o Iran has 60 tons of UF6 in Europe which has not yet been delivered to it. The initial fuel for Bushehr Power Plant which had been bought from Siemens, was blocked for 25 years and finally the export license to Iran was waived.
o It has to be recalled that in1975, Iran purchased a 10% share in Eurodif uranium enrichment plant, being built at Tricastin in France, but Iran has not received even a gram of uranium from the plant where it desperately needed for its reactor producing radioisotopes for mainly medical purposes.
o The IAEA, established a Committee on Assurances of Supply, expected to codify internationally recognized principles and legally binding instruments to assure sustainable nuclear supply. It failed in 1987, after 7 years of intensive deliberations.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7667083 - 11/22/07 01:45 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> There is also the motive of desiring to no longer be on someone else's leash.
No there isn't. One reason, and one reason only. To avoid anybody knowing what you are using the uranium for which means military applications. Period. No debate. This is what it is. There is plenty of competition from countries that do no like each other such that the "not on someone else's leash" is completely irrelevant. Not being on a leash when there is no leash is no reason to spend the massive amount of money needed to build the infrastructure not to mention the environmental damage.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Seuss]
#7667147 - 11/22/07 02:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Wrong. The fact that Brazil, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands all have uranium enrichment facilities used to fuel their nuclear plants, yet no nuclear weapons, makes it very clear that a nuclear weapons program is not the prerequisit to having an enrichment facility.
To depend on countries that have already proven unreliable with nuclear fuel is to be on a leash. It has nothing to do with simply disliking each other and everything to do with sources having already proven that their contracts and promises are not guarrantees.
Also, Argentina is resuming its nuclear program, enriching its own urnaium, and Australia and South Africa are also both looking into commencing uranium enrichment.
Edited by Disco Cat (11/22/07 04:08 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7667868 - 11/22/07 06:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Disco Cat said: It seems I don't have to accuse you of much because you incriminate yourself in this regard. Now if these were easily debunked claims, then I imagine you'd have provided relevant data that debunked them. I also imagine you wouldn't have used a manipulative line that suggested you even knew what other people believe, because your data could have spoken for itself. Rather, the use of such a line reinforces the belief that you actually have nothing to fall back on and are trying to save face.
The nuclear energy costs you posted are idiosyncratically preposterous, and I imagine you ignored much real data in favor of what you posted. The costs you reported are from a company who is advertising its own patented theoretical energy supply method by contrasting all the above energy sources to its own theoretical cost - with no sources for their claims, and not even a region listed. I'm sure if there was an actual report that backed what you wanted to claim, and if you didn't rely on scamming/manipulating people to make your points, you wouldn't have resorted to this.
I googled "cost per kilowatt hour for electricity" That was the first hit. It takes into account all of the costs. It doesn't come from THE URANIUM INFORMATION CENTER. My source is PESWIKI who describe themselves thusly:
Quote:
The community-built resource that focuses on alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions.
Your source? Not so clean. Who's scamming who?Quote:
You said Iran's uranium would last until... 2023? I read that their uranium would last only 15 years, until 2022. So by arguing that Iran's uranium reserves are more than I already knew you thought you would be proving that it isn't worthwhile for Iran to have a domestic uranium program? Remeber I said this?: "That gave me real reason for a laugh, so thanks, and I'm sure there's more to come." Well you've proven me right quicker than I'd expected.
My zappa, you are such a tool. They have oil and gas to last a hundred years and uranium good for 15 (or 16, there's a real difference ) at a tremendous infrastructure expense. While they can't afford, for "economic reasons" (heh heh) to build gasoline refineries.Quote:
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups)
As for your not so unbiased US gov link (which only cited 2 other US gov sanctioned research groups): If Iran harnessed any wasted gas, that gas would still be more profitable to Iran if sold, while using nuclear energy for domestic electricity. No matter how much more gas they could have, it will always be more profitable to sell any extra drops than to burn them for their own electricity. The conclusion of your US government link - that it suggests Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by their wasted gas resources - is, unsurprisingly, false. It is more than clear that Iran does not have sufficient domestic energy production, and to claim that wasted gas contradicts that is a non sequitur. Does the US government also think that Iran's claimed need for nuclear energy is undercut by the fact that Iran imports large amounts of electricity?
The issue is not that Iran needs electricity or gasoline for it's cars. The issue is what would best help them get it. In their situation, nuclear is obviously not the answer, since they DON'T HAVE ANY TO SPEAK OF, as you have pointed out. Thanks. The question is why are they pursuing nuclear? Only stone cold retards believe it is for anything other than weapons. A decades long research and development project costing billions of dollars for, by your own admission, 15 years worth of value. Makes perfect sense to...... a dupe.Quote:
On every subject I've debated you since I began posting in this forum you've been uneducated, and I've watched you commonly rely on trying to intimidate/manipulate others into not challenging your assertions, and you'll even use false data as we've just been shown. So if you actually have some integrity to defend, and aren't just a scammer, then step up to the plate and start proving some data wrong. Be sure to leave the bullshit links alone, as I will debunk them.
Blah blah blah. Your own info indicts you. I have asked this repeatedly and I will ask again. Why are you such an apologist for these totalitarian thugs?
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Disco Cat]
#7669108 - 11/23/07 02:50 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Using Brazil as an example:
Quote:
In April 2004 the Brazilian government denied access for the IAEA inspectors to the Resende facility and refused to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant. Citing a need to protect proprietary information the government had built walls around parts of the facility and draped covers over equipment.
As I said... the only reason a country wants to enrich their own uranium is so that they can run a weapons program without the UN being able to monitor them.
Japan is unique because of their constitution and the laws they must follow regarding their military; my blanket statement doesn't apply. They are also 100% transparent allowing UN inspectors complete access to their facilities. However, Japan's enrichment R&D started during WWII, well before any UN oversight.
Germany's enrichment R&D also started during WWII. However, Germany is different as they are part of Eurodif, a joint venture between Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, with one diffusion plant in France, which already has nuclear weapons. The Netherlands are also different, as they are part of Urenco, a joint venture between companies in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, with centrifuge plants in each of the three countries. Again, the UK already has nuclear weapons.
In every case you mentioned, at least one of the players has nuclear weapons or is refusing to cooperate with the UN regarding inspections to ensure that they do not have nuclear weapons. The importance here is countries with the technology save billions of dollars in R&D by being part of the group. Without the countries that already have the technology being involved, then the cost would be too great to justify for civilian use.
There simply is nothing to debate here. If a country spends the money to develop uranium enrichment technology and is willing to accept the environmental impact and risk associated with the technology, then they have military applications in mind. And again, there are military applications beyond building bombs.
|
|