Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said for a while ago that Iran has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.

So I wonder, what will Israel do? The antiwar opinion in EU and US is probably too high for an attack. I think that Israel must do it on it's own but I wonder.. how? The intelligense on Iran is very bad. I don't know if there is a possible way for israel to not be nuked and destroyed.

blahblahblah

:D

Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said for a while ago that Iran has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.

So I wonder, what will Israel do? The antiwar opinion in EU and US is probably too high for an attack. I think that Israel must do it on it's own but I wonder.. how? The intelligense on Iran is very bad. I don't know if there is a possible way for israel to not be nuked and destroyed.

Nothing is gonna happen as the element of surprise (that is integral to all past, present, and future military operations) has already been lost..

America can't attack iran because of Iraq while Europe can benefit from Iran (like Russia and China) and want diplomatic, NOT military, solutions..

Also how does IDF plan to bomb all of the spread out and underground complexes, even if using bunker busters, how far penetration?, if they can reach israel and take care of iranian air defences (likely?) and resultant missile strikes (unlikely..).

Also how does IDF plan to bomb all of the spread out and underground complexes, even if using bunker busters, how far penetration?, if they can reach israel and take care of iranian air defences (likely?) and resultant missile strikes (unlikely..).
I don't think that their air defence is so sophisticated or effective because their resources are limited and they probably spent all of them in the nuke project....

So if nobody attacks Iran and Iran fireof it's nuke, will Israel be able to defend it with THEL?

If someone attacks Iran they will probably know where to attack and where are the nukes so I dont think they will launch anything, but in case they do Im not so sure if Israel could defend itself, but then again the IDF certainly have these "Hets" missile that are very effective against other missile...

not with THEL but with ARROW, THEL is more likely to be used counter Kassams shells and khatusha.
but i dont think that Iran will initiate attack on Israel, because it will be suicide for Iran, they will become kamikaze :)

but i dont think that Iran will initiate attack on Israel, because it will be suicide for Iran, they will become kamikaze :)
Why? One big bomb can take out all Israel and Israel is very limited in its “second response” ability. Therefore Iranians mullahs shouldn’t be too frightened now. At best we strike Iran back with submarine based nukes, but Israel is gone away :(

We talked enough about it. These prospects are sad and I hope that those assholes dictating around there will not live (or be in power) long enough to see the completion of the bomb.

Lets close the thread.

Ok, listen everyone, dont be so paranoid. its suicide for the mullahs to attack israel. israel as nuke subs that it got from the US and if thats not a good enough second response that the US is. everyone knows that the US pays Israel $3billion a year for military purposes and that the US has protected Israel since it began. The mullahs are not dumb enough to attack Israel.

It is like a woman wearing a sexy suit and walk alone in an army barracks.

Iran is the woman, nukes are the suits. Israel and USA are our army boys. :D LOL :D

Israel wont save the world a second time like with Saddam in 1982. Just imagine Saddam had a nuke when he invaded Kuwait, he would probably invade other gulf states with no real problem..
If he had nukes I can imagine Chirac and Blair cowardly flying to Baghdad to start talks with Saddam on economic deals to "greater iraq", after "encorporating" kuwait
saying "more time is needed for talks bla bla bla"

this time we wont get involved, europe is licking iran's ass for oil and the USA cant touch Iran otherwise oil prices will reach 100$ a barrel, so we'll just sit and see how incapable the world is in dealing with this fanatic-nuclear threat..

Ok, listen everyone, dont be so paranoid. its suicide for the mullahs to attack israel. israel as nuke subs that it got from the US and if thats not a good enough second response that the US is. everyone knows that the US pays Israel $3billion a year for military purposes and that the US has protected Israel since it began. The mullahs are not dumb enough to attack Israel.
You are overestimating America. It will definitely not nuke Iran, at list not the population – they won’t have the justification and support (why killing innocents for other innocents?). It means they’ll have to invade, but invading Iran is hard – huge country, huge army and many fanatics with low prospects of post occupation control. Oil will be so expensive and the war will hit the American economy HARD. They may ask themselves “why do we need thousands of dead soldiers to revenge for the destruction of Israel?” and then make a limited offensive on Iran that may result in a later cease fire. Mullahs will survive. End of Israel.

But I actually just wanted to say that Israel doesn’t have nuclear submarines but diesel submarines possibly with nuclear weapons. We purchased them from Germany and not the US (Germany probably makes the best subs in the world). Also their military support is 2.1 billion $ and Egypt gets just over a billion and it got no enemies so we aren’t special.

we have weapons of mass seduction.

as we speak secret mosad agents are working on a plot for the next
austin powers sequel. dr. evil is based on mordechai vanunu.

israel invented the yellow submarine, but the MI5 stole it and so the "beatles"
and not the "bagels" achieved world music domination.

:lol::lol: sometimes you get crazy - only it was the MI6 not 5.

Will vanunu get to have a mini-Vini or something?

one of my jobs (copywriting) is sometimes to get crazy :)

In my spare time I write conspiracy stories to Al Jazeera :lol:

lol
לאן אתה כותב באמת? אני אחפש את השם שלך בשורות הרצות.

one of my jobs (copywriting) is sometimes to get crazy :)

In my spare time I write conspiracy stories to Al Jazeera :lol:

hahahahaha, aljazeera is stupid enough to believe them to...hahahaha

not with THEL but with ARROW
Arrows can't handle Shihab-3 :)
Why not make a big thel for combatting those kinds of missiles?

for those of you who think that israel should attack iran thats crazy talk. the iranian government will not sit back and let their biggest enemy just attack them. Israel was able to do it to iraq because iraq was fighting a war in 1982 and didnt have the means to fight another country at the same time. I am 100% sure that iran has missiles targeting every israeli city and that hizbullah is ready to attack israel the second it gets word from iran to do so. the only way this situation can be handled is like the Cold war situation between the US and USSR...

The Mullahs probably believe that Israels destruction is far more important than Irans or MEs survival. So that may not work. Iran and Israel may look like a parkinglot before 2006 :(

hmm.. the best way to solve this problem would probably be with another diaspora and then destruction of Syria&Iran.

are you serious, you wanna get this thread locked up? cuz if you wanna talk about destroying my country we can start gettin racist and mean in here buddy.

Where are you from? Israel? Syria?

Racist? no! I wasn't talking about skin or even identity.
I didn't mean an attack against the people, I meant against the millitary and the regime.

i am iranians but i have no problems with israelis at all. i live in the US. i dont have a problem with israel i just have a problem with some of the things the government does (foreign policy, the palestinian issue, things like that...). i hate the government in iran too but military action will make them stronger. tell me, will israel go and occupy iran to make sure the regime is gone after it starts a war. will israel pay for the reconstruction? will israel feel safer if there is an unstable iran in the middle east? i think the answer to all of those is no so the thought of military action should be rule out.

bye the way, i have a question. how many iranians are part of the government in israel? i know that the vice president is but how many more?

I can admit that my suggestion is very painful, but mayby necessary.. but we must prevent a new ww3! There can't be any winners in a ww3.

attacking iran will start world war 3 in my opinion. both iran and israel will be destroyed in a war like that (iran because israeli nukes will destroy everything and israel because its so small.)

In my opinion, these weapons are not something for use rathar than being a tool used by countries to influnce decisions, show strength supremacy etc scare ppl.. whatever..

I hope ppl can solve their problems through negotiation, and not use of power..lets think wise ladies and gents.

In my opinion "we" should nuke scotty instead of Israel :D

Scotty tell me exactly where you live and I'll email a request to ayatollah khamenei :P

look at the cold war. the nukes prevented war between the US and USSR and i think nukes will prevent war between israel and iran.

I am not an israeli, nor a jew either.. just interested in it's politics :)

In my opinion "we" should nuke scotty instead of Israel :D

Scotty tell me exactly where you live and I'll email a request to ayatollah khamenei :P

hahahaha good one.

well if you rnot israeli or a jew then that makes me think that you came to this forum just to start a fight between israelis and iranians for your own amusement. get outta here.

freedom, I live inside the deep forests of Sweden.. check my IP for more info :)

look at the cold war. the nukes prevented war between the US and USSR and i think nukes will prevent war between israel and iran.
Yeah they were lucky.. but if any of them fired off a nuke as a result of a misstake than we wouldnt have much left of the earth in the end.

thats exactly y no one has the right to have nuclear weapons but as long as some one does, then every country in the world has the right to nuclear weapons and there is no justification in saying that they dont have that right.

btw.. im against nuclear(or any other WMD) warfare so I also hope that also israel gets rid of it's parkinglot-creators in a near future.

thats exactly y no one has the right to have nuclear weapons but as long as some one does, then every country in the world has the right to nuclear weapons and there is no justification in saying that they dont have that right.
hmm.. I guess the world was much safer when only US and Soviet had nukes.. it's a real mess these days :(

as long as the US keeps its nukes than no other country will start abandoning its nukes, i think that the US should take the first step

as long as the US keeps its nukes than no other country will start abandoning its nukes, i think that the US should take the first step
The first step must be to build a fullworking missile defence system so they will be immune to nuke attacks at that time. They have been working on that for years now but that's not going to help when Russia&China spend billions on R&D to create faster missiles..

a missile system that will work everytime to is impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. the money will be better spent getting rid of poverty in the US.

It would be a big issue if Iran does get nuclear weapons, b/c they are very trigger happy when it comes to destroying Israel.

the mullahs are dumbasses. they say death to israel but they dont wanna rish dying themselves. you have to understand this. the mullahs main priority is the stay in power, be rich, and kill their own people, thats it. they would never sacrifice that. just like how they say death to america, they wont actually do anything. its part of their psychological warfare.

They're dumbasses indeed. They should mind their own business. They spend more money to support militant palestinians than helping their own people . Shame on them. They're embarassing us in the whole world .

Arrows can't handle Shihab-3 :)
Why not make a big thel for combatting those kinds of missiles?
Are a rocket engineer? You work in IAI or in the Shihab project?

Are you a rocket engineer? Do you work in IAI or in the Shihab project?
No, but US tested ARROW against Shihab-3 a year ago and it failed. Also.. Shihab can reach a maximum speed of mach 10 while ARROW only can reach 9.

i think that the UN is making a big mistake putting sanctions on iran. this will only force the mullahs to make nukes but now they are saying that they will allow inspecters everywhere and tell the world what they are doing step by step...thats better than have a nuclear iran that we dont know anything about.

speaking of US weapon technology, why did israel sell US weapons systems to China? it seems that the US is always trying to help Israel and Israel is always stabbing the US in the back (spying, selling military tech. etc)

speaking of US weapon technology, why did israel sell US weapons systems to China? it seems that the US is always trying to help Israel and Israel is always stabbing the US in the back (spying, selling military tech. etc)
You do not know what you are talking about. Is the US benevolent? Isreal is selling their own technology. Israel is not 'always' spying any more than the US is or other countries are.

thats what they said here in the US. they're always complaining about how israel spies on them and how israel is selling US technology. dont complain to me, complain to the US media

speaking of US weapon technology, why did israel sell US weapons systems to China? it seems that the US is always trying to help Israel and Israel is always stabbing the US in the back (spying, selling military tech. etc)
Isn't this your quote? Are you writing your opinion? Are you saying you only believe what the "US media" tells you?

hahaha, the US media is crap, i know that, i just wanted to see what you guys think of it. but i never expected them to say this about there own ally. so there is anti american setiments in Israel too?

hahaha, the US media is crap, i know that, i just wanted to see what you guys think of it. but i never expected them to say this about there own ally. so there is anti american setiments in Israel too?
Try to converse in complete thoughts and ideas. Someone might understand what you are trying to say.

speaking of US weapon technology, why did israel sell US weapons systems to China? it seems that the US is always trying to help Israel and Israel is always stabbing the US in the back (spying, selling military tech. etc)

1) If anything, the U.S army buys israeli military technology just as much as the opposite these days.

2) USA sells ams to egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, uae and kuwait .. and now training iraqi army. so isnt that stabbing us in the back as well?!
only we dont interfere with it as they allow themselves to do to us.

3) USA and Israel both view China, North Korea and Iran as potential problems or secondary problems. Russia and France as well, are aiding and arming Iran and seen as a big problem shared by other european countries and USA.

4) Israel doesnt spy in the USA any more than the USA's tens of spies in every embassy around the world, as do all other countries.
But - Israel supplies the USA with tons of intel material while the USA often hides its info to gain superiority on other countries including allies.

It seems like most israelis don't trust iran in a cold war.. so.. will israel attack Iran or will they rely on the ARROWs(that was designed for scuds)?

I think they have to evacuate israel before attacking Iran if they are planning to do so..

I can assure you Israel wont do the world's dirty business like we did in 1982 in Iraq. We saved this region once, second time is now up to world policy.

Since El Baradi and the nuclear agency won this year's peace nobel, lets see what they are worth when it comes to Iran - if the past is anything to go by - I say worthless.

I don't think that Iran will wipe Israel off the map when they have built nuclear weapons - simply because the US would do the same to Iran (or Israel, God knows how many WMD they have)..

I really don't think that even the Mullahs are that crazy..

So, let them build their nukes, it won't be of any use anyway - just a deterrence.

I think Iran's Mullahs are more afraid of..

weapons of mass-education

:lol:

Lol, yes :lol:

I think Israel wants to delay the mullah's program until someone kicks them out of there, maybe in 10 years or so. A solution could be sabotage, tricking Iran to attack first....

well, tell sharon to destroy all of israels wmd's and give the palestinians basic human rights and then try to disarm iran. and how is anyone going to trick another country to attack first? and if that did happen than war would start anyway and thats exactly what everyone is trying to avoid.

well, tell sharon to destroy all of israels wmd's and give the palestinians basic human rights and then try to disarm iran. and how is anyone going to trick another country to attack first? and if that did happen than war would start anyway and thats exactly what everyone is trying to avoid.

Are you talking about Iran or are you talking about the Palestinians? :sleepy:

they are accusing of iran of all this crap yet by what they say its obvious that they want to start a war. they're asking iran not to have nukes when they have them themselves and are violating international law. thats what is pissing me off here.

i have no love for the regime but i do for my country. some guy in here suggested that syria and iran should be destroyed, wtf is that. there arent any iranians in here saying israel should get destroyed so i dunno what their problem is.

meh...whatever...

The upcoming conversation is too much for me. :runaway:

yea screw this, let them plan there war...they dont see that there will be no winner in a war like that. go ahead, have your country attack iran, iran will survive but israel wont (just through size, its impossible).

:ohno:

Oh what will become of this thread.... :|

Well I have already said my opinions in previous threads. :wave:

some guy in here suggested that syria and iran should be destroyed, wtf is that.
I used wrong terms and I am very sorry. I wanted to keep this discussion alive.

this forum isnt for discussions like this.

this forum isnt for discussions like this.
Actually I never thought of destroying countries, I meant the governments. Iran is doesn't deserve to be destroyed(as a country), especially not because it's long and glory history and it's culture.

Hi guys,

Can I ask a mod to transfer this thread from the israeli to the iranian forum ?

After all, it's not directly related to Israel but only to Iran and nukes....

^^ No Thanx.

Better Delete it.

Hi guys,

Can I ask a mod to transfer this thread from the israeli to the iranian forum ?

After all, it's not directly related to Israel but only to Iran and nukes....

This is Ur first post in this forum?? WOW

i have no love for the regime but i do for my country. some guy in here suggested that syria and iran should be destroyed, wtf is that. there arent any iranians in here saying israel should get destroyed so i dunno what their problem is.
#1 He is not an Israeli. He Is Swedish.
#2 No one wants to destroy Iran.
#3 There are no Iranians here that suggest to destroy Israel, but It doesn’t mean that there Is no such thing. Mullahs made a fanatic mob out of a good piece of Iran and they threaten to destroy Israel. This is the truth, but it doesn’t change the fact that historically there Is no conflict between our people and that many Iranians feel positively about Israel.
they are accusing of iran of all this crap yet by what they say its obvious that they want to start a war. they're asking iran not to have nukes when they have them themselves and are violating international law. thats what is pissing me off here.
The one who said it wasn’t Israeli either. And there is a difference between creating nuclear weapons when all your neighboring countries declare they want to destroy you and making them to further strengthen terror organizations and countries like Syria and hizballah.

freedom, I live inside the deep forests of Sweden.. check my IP for more info :)

BUt the forests will be burned and radiated from the nuke fallout forever! :devil:

^^ np, I have patriots in my garden :)

well then how bout only the israeli's and iranians discuss this issue and not someone who is just trying to start a fight in here between us.

^^I would agree, but why do you represent the Mullahs regime all the sudden?

i hate those dumbass beyotches! im just representing my countries view. if india pakistan, russia, US, and Israel all have nukes (by the way, iran is surrounded by nuclear powers who tomorrow or in 5 years could possibly be irans enemy), then y shouldnt iran have the nuclear deterrent. anyway, i truly believe that the mullahs only want safe nuclear energy cuz its not in their benefit to have nukes.

^^ Sorry, but you can't say that you represent your countries views. You represent your views. Why would Iran have new enemies in 5 years? the world doesnt work that way. Why Kazakhstan has no nuclear program? It is too surrounded by nuclear powers (like all the world actually).
Many countries have no external disputes what so ever and Iran could be one of them. You claim to hate the mullahs, but fail to understand that they are the only one to benefit from the nuclear project. This is why they need deterrence - so they could keep running their criminal regime.

i think of it differently. the way i see it, if the mullahs get nukes then they will be more isolated in the world and iran will go back into an economic recession and the people will get tired of the regimes disfunctions. the improvement of the economy is what is keeping the people content (just like how the communist party in china is still in power, as long as peoples lives are improving they dont care about the regime). nukes will cause an economic down turn and the people will lose their lifestyle and they wont take that. thats why i believe that the mullahs arent really going after a nuke weapon program, it just doesnt make sense for them to go after nukes.

and by the way, kazakshtan had nukes but decided to give them up because it didnt have the money to keep them. but nevertheless, its kazakstans right to have nukes just as its singapores right or just as its irans right. no one should have a monopoly o anything, its like a world wide dictatorship.

No one should have nukes !!!

iran will go back into an economic recession and the people will get tired of the regimes disfunctions. the improvement of the economy is what is keeping the people content (just like how the communist party in china is still in power, as long as peoples lives are improving they dont care about the regime).

Iran:

GDP - real growth rate: 6.3% (2004 est.)

Inflation rate (consumer prices): 15.5% (2004 est.)

Improvement of economy? People's lives improving? :crazy:

i think of it differently. the way i see it, if the mullahs get nukes then they will be more isolated in the world and iran will go back into an economic recession and the people will get tired of the regimes disfunctions. the improvement of the economy is what is keeping the people content (just like how the communist party in china is still in power, as long as peoples lives are improving they dont care about the regime). nukes will cause an economic down turn and the people will lose their lifestyle and they wont take that. thats why i believe that the mullahs arent really going after a nuke weapon program, it just doesnt make sense for them to go after nukes.
Dream on. Iran is already isolated and those who do commerce with it today will keep that in the day Iran becomes nuclear. The people are not content, they are forced to comply and in the day they’ll have nukes it will be only easier to enforce their will on the people and the world. No one will dare to invade or even attack it. When the bomb is ready, Iran will also posses missiles to reach Europe.

and by the way, kazakshtan had nukes but decided to give them up because it didnt have the money to keep them. but nevertheless, its kazakstans right to have nukes just as its singapores right or just as its irans right. no one should have a monopoly o anything, its like a world wide dictatorship.
Why would peaceful countries develop or posses weapons of mass destruction? I think that all the thousands of super- nuclear weapons that America and Russia have should be dismantled. But the US’s tactical NW arsenal should be kept and further developed to be environment friendly to provide a second strike option on targets like: nuclear sites, missile sites and military installations. The world can also count on democratic European nations like France and the UK to not misuse their ability. Israel should have weapons as long as its surrounded by unstable hostile regimes, but Iran creates conflicts out of peace which is the opposite of what is right.

In the same coin, why does the peaceful democratic state of israel need nukes for? ;)

Israel should have weapons as long as its surrounded by unstable hostile regimes
Israel is actually in a state of war and there are many countries and organizations that want to destroy it.

In the same coin, why does the peaceful democratic state of israel need nukes for? ;)
The moron is back! There are single-cell organisms with more intelligence.

LOL :D

well, tell sharon to destroy all of israels wmd's and give the palestinians basic human rights and then try to disarm iran. and how is anyone going to trick another country to attack first? and if that did happen than war would start anyway and thats exactly what everyone is trying to avoid.
---------
What I meant was that the Mullahs will not give up their program, so if they are attacked they'll have something to remain in power (distraction for the people): that's why I think they will press to be attacked..., so if Israel could find a way to delay their program without attacking (with help from inside Iran), that'll be great, and there will be no war, because there's no solid proof.

that is hard to do. even the cia admits that after the revolution all of its operatives were killed. there is no one left inside of iran that the outside world can count on. the mullahs are really smart when it comes to power....i hate those bastards.

The moron is back! There are single-cell organisms with more intelligence.

Still want to dodge facts as usual? :D

OMG he knows about science.. :weird:

Israel is actually in a state of war and there are many countries and organizations that want to destroy it.

well than by what you say, iran is technically at war with israel and the US....so by your point of view your justifying the mullahs having nukes. think about what your saying.

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."


The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of the evidence on which it is based.

Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the intelligence.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.

One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.

The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions.

Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry. The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.

"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.


The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said.

The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the European talks fall short of expectations.

Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said.

Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials said.

"If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon."

The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea.

Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan -- all of which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear weapons program.

The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush administration as it sought to build support for invading Iraq five months later.

At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less definitive conclusions.

The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons.

Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed.

In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq.

In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."

But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and intelligence, appears to have shifted.

Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: "I don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical."

well than by what you say, iran is technically at war with israel and the US....so by your point of view your justifying the mullahs having nukes. think about what your saying.

Let's use logic here: Israel and Us accept's the fact that Iran exists and they don't have the goal to destroy it and replace it with another nation. What's the comparing? :sleepy:

And nice sub-forum btw ;)

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."


The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of the evidence on which it is based.

Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the intelligence.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.

One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.

The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions.

Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry. The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.

"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.


The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said.

The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the European talks fall short of expectations.

Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said.

Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials said.

"If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon."

The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea.

Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan -- all of which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear weapons program.

The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush administration as it sought to build support for invading Iraq five months later.

At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less definitive conclusions.

The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons.

Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed.

In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq.

In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."

But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and intelligence, appears to have shifted.

Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: "I don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical."

^^ US and its intelligence estimates! :rofl:


:runaway:

Let's use logic here: Israel and Us accept's the fact that Iran exists and they don't have the goal to destroy it and replace it with another nation. What's the comparing? :sleepy:

im not saying the country. that israeli guy said that israel feels threatened so thats why they have nukes, in the same logic, i saied that the mullahs also feel threatened by the Israel and the US, thats why they would want to have nukes. i never mentioned the country of iran (or did i, i dont remember)

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table."


The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the intelligence community views as credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the sources said there is no information linking those projects directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.

The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

At no time in the past three years has the White House attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would require a large-scale nuclear energy program.

The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited elements of the estimate and only on the condition of anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of the evidence on which it is based.

Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several administration officials said, as the White House formulates the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and competing strategies. For three years, the administration has tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the intelligence.

The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and some were rejected by advocates of policies that were inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.

One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current officials said was commissioned by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the possibility for "regime change" in Iran. Those findings described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.

The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material. The administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said an official familiar with policy discussions.

Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president of national security developments and help guide policy. The new Iran findings were described as well documented and well written, covering such topics as military capabilities, expected population growth and the oil industry. The assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.

"It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and what assumptions we have," a U.S. source said.

Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be "within five years" from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.


The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said.

The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the European talks fall short of expectations.

Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said.

Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings obtained last November. The documents include design modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials said.

"If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he has really good connections, he'll get that program through," said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. "But that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear weapon."

The commission found earlier this year that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea.

Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan -- all of which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear weapons program.

The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush administration as it sought to build support for invading Iraq five months later.

At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIEs and that there would be "a higher tolerance for ambiguity," even if it meant producing estimates with less definitive conclusions.

The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and alternative theories that could explain some of the suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for energy production, not weapons.

Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18 years, because it feared attack by the United States or Israel if the work was exposed.

In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23 years earlier in Iraq.

In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton -- then the administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador -- said: "If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."

But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and intelligence, appears to have shifted.

Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: "I don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian record, plus what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to conclude that we have to be highly skeptical."

does all this remind you of something? o yea, the info before the iraq war. hahahahaha, dont ever trust US intelligence again, especially the Bush administrations, they're just saying this stuff to keep pressure on iran.

Iran was rumoured to have purchased some warheads from Kazahkstan and Russia in the early 90's. Iran may have been trying to solidify its Nuclear Weaponization, however my educated guess is the nation already possess nuclear weapons.

that is actually what a lot of people in iran think, when i was there i asked about it an alot of my relatives said that it was possible that iran already had nukes...

im not saying the country. that israeli guy said that israel feels threatened so thats why they have nukes, in the same logic, i saied that the mullahs also feel threatened by the Israel and the US, thats why they would want to have nukes. i never mentioned the country of iran (or did i, i dont remember)
You have bad logic. Sure, the mullahs want to defend their regime against Israel, the US or the freedom seeking Iranians; they want their asses covered - let them build nuclear weapons

NO – There are things that are illegitimate by definition. I don’t have to understand the “needs” of the Iranian dictators.

so they have nukes but everyone in the world knows if they start to fire even one missile that would be the end of this regime in iran.. they will fall quicker than the soviets..

so they have nukes but everyone in the world knows if they start to fire even one missile that would be the end of this regime in iran.. they will fall quicker than the soviets..

they know that too, there not dumb or else they would have been gone a long time ago.

i think there is a misunderstanding here. im not sayin the mullahs should have nukes im just saying that they have the right to have them if they want. but still, no one is sure about irans true intentions, it could be that they actually want peaceful nuclear energy.

peaceful nuclear energy?

and they dont want salman rushdi's head, just his signature for their collection?

right.... ;)

peaceful nuclear energy?

and they dont want salman rushdi's head, just his signature for their collection?

right.... ;)

um, actually, if you know your politics, khomeni put out the fatwa and in 1996 the islamic regime said that they will not support it anymore. so salman rushdie is not on the regimes agenda anymore.

Oh, Im sure he feels a lot safer now ;)

Persian for life – you are a blind patriot of people who don’t deserve your patriotism. Time to end discussion.

im a patriot of the mullahs? are you kidding me. i pray for their death every day, when i was in iran i cussed them out when i saw their pictures everywhere, they kill my people everyday....im a patriot for them? hahahahahaha

Oh, Im sure he feels a lot safer now ;)

i know, i feel bad that islam has to be such an intolerable religion that it cannot take freedom of speech. there are still crazy radical muslims probably trying to kill him and i know his life is messed up because of what some senile old man said

nevermind, we are hoping islam cuts its fanatic-nationalistic branch and grows again to be a culture and religion of tolerance and education and art.. then Im sure the ties to jews will again go back to being very close.

yes, i agree. but thats not gonna hapen for awhile with the way things are goin now.

we have lots of time, we will wait :)

Iran has the right to nuclear technology. Nobody can deny this or try to stop Iran from getting it's right. USA is the only country that has ever used a nuke and how is it goin to say that Iran can't the technology. Iran has never been aggresive toward other countries. USA is the biggest agressor in the world. If something doesn't go there way, they wan't to take it out. Iran has a right to defend itself. And you Israelds shouldn't be so paranoid, Iran will never to a preimtive srtike against any country, but us someone attacks Iran, that is a declaration of war and Iran will defend itself and Iranians will fight.

I dont think the USA should have used nukes in Japan no matter what, and Im sure most Americans today share my view but we are speaking 50 years after the biggest war ever so what right we have to judge this when we are in relative times of peace?
I think so many millions lives could have been saved if America nuked Berlin in time on the start of the war..
Iran can have nuclear energy, its the mullahs and their backing of world terror that is the problem. Its not teh country but the bezerk dictators that are unpredictable and as long as this country threatens to wipe off others, it shouldnt be allowed to have that technology.

Ok, i understand what you are telling me. You say that Irans leaders are unpredictable, which can be true in some circumstances, but i assure you they will never nuke anyone.
If this is true then Israels rulers certainly don't deserve weapons of mass destruction. They are already doing attrocities and bombing targets in other countries such as Syria. So whats the difference? If they got them then how come Iran can have them they aren't bombing anyone, but everyone is threating to bomb them. I think it's about time one country stood up to the USA with a defiant voice.

israel has reportedly had some nuclear capability since 1963. since then we have had the 1967, 1973, 1982 wars and 2000 terror wave, and even being close to destruction israel has NEVER resorted to using nuclear, biological or other capabilities so it is safe to say israel is much more predictable and you forgot one tiny thing - a democratic country. thats a big difference. plus you forgot - iran is threatening to wipe us ou, not the other way around while israel has never threatened any other country, at any time.

as for arab leaders both assad and saddam have used nerve gas on populations and if israel hadnt stopped iraq's nuclear bomb in 1982, then I dont think a country called kuwait would be existing right now.
Israel bombed empty sirian outposts where hizballah were training, so lets not be hypocritical..

Israel is not on the NPT as you may know. Iran on the other hand is. USA though, says that Iran is not following the rules of NPT so they sent in inspectors in 2004 and up till now they havn't found anything that suggest a nuclear bomb project. Only a peacefull program for electricity which the NPT says that any country has the "inalienable right to a peacefull program".

Your saying that Israel has never threatened another country.
Wasn't sharon that said," ARABS MAY HAVE THE OIL, BUT WE HAVE THE MATCHES"
That is a threat. And i can give u a lot more

USA also threated Iran by sending aircraft over Iranian territory to spy on them.
In my opinion this is a declaration of war.

Can you tell me where you got that quote of Sharon?
Its new to me.
Anyway Sharon also said that the Gaza Strip is the same as Tel Aviv and he gave it away, so I really couldnt care what that fatso says!

The fact is that even when Israel was invaded in wars and even now when Hizballah and palestinians throw hundreds of rockets at Israel, and even when Saddam in 1991 threw tens of scuds at Israel, it never even threatened to use Nuclear capabilities so I would say thats a pretty good record, dont think other countries with so much threats and missiles thrown at them would have acted so restrained.

In any case Iran threats to Israel, Europe and the region are much more serious and seeing as it is in the hands of a fanatic dictatorship that backs terror groups and bombings around the world I would say Iran is a major problem

and israel was losing the 1973 war till the US came to help it. its proven! Israel has never had to use nukes because it has the US. tell me, if israel was about to be destroyed would they have used the nukes, hell yea they would have, the US kept them from using the nukes.

Not much of a philosopher, but indeed another expert in turning things around. Syria is our enemy, it conducts operations that undermine Israeli security and we are in a state of war with them. We are doing them a favor by not taking the capital and getting rid of the Hamas\hizballah leaders and Nazis they hide there.

Can you tell me where you got that quote of Sharon?
Its new to me.
Anyway Sharon also said that the Gaza Strip is the same as Tel Aviv and he gave it away, so I really couldnt care what that fatso says!

The fact is that even when Israel was invaded and even know when Hizballah and palestinians throw rockets at Israel, and even when Saddam in 1991 threw scuds at Israel, it never even threatened to use Nuclear capabilities so I would say thats a pretty good record, dont think other countries with so much threats and missiles thrown at them would have acted so restrained.

the US kept israel from interefering in 1991 (israel wanted to fight iraq) because it feared that the whole arab world would come to the aid of iraq. you think that israel is so noble yet you dont know the story behind it. dont think im making this up, i learned all of this in the US in books and on television programs.

well nobody is threatening Iran so why does it need nukes? thats exactly the point, they are not in our situation, so their nukes are not even as a defensive measure but for attack.

and in 1973 the U.S did almost nothing for Israel, the U.S only helps itself and its interests.

well nobody is threatening Iran so why does it need nukes? thats exactky the point, they are not in our situation, so their nukes are not even as a defensive measure but for attack.

wait, are you saying that israel and UK and the US are not threatening iran? think again. who has sanctions on iran? who has lobby groups in washington that day in and day out ask for action in iran (even before the whole nuke thing)? think again, i dont know what kind of propaganda youre getting in israel but in american they talk about this stuff openly.

and israel was losing the 1973 war till the US came to help it. its proven! Israel has never had to use nukes because it has the US. tell me, if israel was about to be destroyed would they have used the nukes, hell yea they would have, the US kept them from using the nukes.
That’s the point of having nukes in the first place. You are saying that it is Ok to try and destroy Israel? anyway, nothing is "proven".

Israel wanted to bomb Saddam after he struck us, kuwait and ksa with scuds. If he would have thrown scuds at Iran believe me Iran would have bombed him no matter what any country says, and we should have bombed him also (not nuked, theres a big difference between bombing his castles and bombing entire populations!)

Not much of a philosopher, but indeed another expert in turning things around. Syria is our enemy, it conducts operations that undermine Israeli security and we are in a state of war with them. We are doing them a favor by not taking the capital and getting rid of the Hamas\hizballah leaders and Nazis they hide there.

i'll tell you whats stopping you ugys from taking syria, the US, the UN, and the whole islamic world and you know that.

That’s the point of having nukes in the first place. You are saying that it is Ok to try and destroy Israel? anyway, nothing is "proven".

when did i say its ok to destroy israel? i never said that. i merely said that if israel was about to lose the war they would have used their nukes. and it is proven.

Okay, nobody would have used a nuclear missle in this case.
So you think you can go occupy somebody's land and make their lives miserable and when they throw stones and rockets at your tanks, people should apreaciate the fact that israel didn't use an atomic bomb to blow them all up?
Besides israel didn't use a nuke against hezbollah or lebonon in the 80's it just went in an killed tens of thousands of people, yeah that a lot better. A round of applause for israel not nuking them!

Tell me please how many people got killed in the Iran-Iraq war?
dont go into politics..

The U.K wasnt threatening iran until now it has proof iran is behind the attacks on soldiers in Iraq, supplying them with shells like they supply the hizballah.

Iran is a problem to this entire region.

well nobody is threatening Iran so why does it need nukes? thats exactly the point, they are not in our situation, so their nukes are not even as a defensive measure but for attack.

and in 1973 the U.S did almost nothing for Israel, the U.S only helps itself and its interests.

Um... really, the US didnt do anything. it was the US who gave israel thousands of tanks during that war because all of its own tanks got destroyed. it was the US navy that kept the egyptian navy in its bays, and it was US fighter planes that bombed the egyptian positions. and it was the US that financed a good sized portion of the war. dont take the US for granted.

i'll tell you whats stopping you ugys from taking syria, the US, the UN, and the whole islamic world and you know that.

What are you talking man..? taking the US, the whole Islamic world?!?!

You sound like an ignorant radical Muslim who believe in such tales!

Tell me please how many people got killed in the Iran-Iraq war?
dont go into politics..

The U.K wasnt threatening iran until now it has proof iran is behind the attacks on soldiers in Iraq, supplying them with shells like they supply the hizballah.

Iran is a problem to this entire region.

um no, the UK has no proof, it says so in the BBC. its just allegations. i dont know what you guys are hearing on Israeli TV but im begining to rethink my idea of israel as a democracy and think of it more as a propaganda state.

well nobody is threatening Iran so why does it need nukes? thats exactly the point, they are not in our situation, so their nukes are not even as a defensive measure but for attack.

and in 1973 the U.S did almost nothing for Israel, the U.S only helps itself and its interests.


WOW, you are so ignorant. Nobody has threated Iran! LOL

What are you talking man.. taking the US, the whole Islamic world?!?!

You sound like an ignorant radical Muslim or something!

first of all, im not a muslim, second of all, do you know how many arabs are willing to kill themselves right now just because they think israel has no right to exist. Islam is a dangerous religion sometimes and i think the israeli gov. knows that. and the US doesnt want an unstable ME because thats where all the oil comes from.

Im quoting Tony Blair.. not any tv station.

In any case, we may be a propoganda state, at least not radical fanatic pro-suicide bombers pro death to other countries propaganda.. :)

your quoting tony blair? WOW, then i guess George Bush was right to about iraq...i can tell you now that the world is flat, will you believe me? no, you'll ask for evidence right? well do that in this situation. dont you find it fishy that the UK and US are accusing iran yet they dont show any proof...that sounds kind of strange to me.

they dont show any proof? then where is hizballah getting the same shells and rockets used in iraq? did they buy those in beirut flea market?
and why did the weapons ship arafat ordered "karin a" that was sent from the hizballah have iranian weapons on it, or is that from the jounieh arts and crafts market as well?

your quoting tony blair? WOW, then i guess George Bush was right to about iraq...i can tell you now that the world is flat, will you believe me? no, you'll ask for evidence right? well do that in this situation. dont you find it fishy that the UK and US are accusing iran yet they dont show any proof...that sounds kind of strange to me.
Yes, I was hoping for them to say: ”our MI6 spy in Tehran Mr. john English reported earlier this morning that during a conversation…” no, not likely. But sure! Intelligence agencies always say how they get the info

how do you know they are the same, have you seen them up close, have you been to iraq? have they shown pictures of them side by side? and you know that there is such a think as a black market right?

first of all, im not a muslim, second of all, do you know how many arabs are willing to kill themselves right now just because they think israel has no right to exist. Islam is a dangerous religion sometimes and i think the israeli gov. knows that. and the US doesnt want an unstable ME because thats where all the oil comes from.
I think I'm missing something, I thought you accused Israel of having plans to overtake the whole world in your previous post.

This post:i'll tell you whats stopping you ugys from taking syria, the US, the UN, and the whole islamic world and you know that.

Yes, I was hoping for them to say: ”our MI6 spy in Tehran Mr. john English reported earlier this morning that during a conversation…” no, not likely. But sure! Intelligence agencies always say how they get the info

they dont have to same the name of the agent. they can say what evidence they have like, "we found enriched uranium in iran, or we found a trigger for a bomb in iran and they can show convincing pictures or data but they never do... i mean come on, these are the same people that said saddam had WMD's. i bet you believed them then too. let me give you a hint. here is what i do, when i read the news, i dont just read BBC or CNN, i read different view points, i read the articles without a biased view, i think what may be behind the article (i consider what may motivate someone to say something, forexample, if they are conserrvative and right about abortion, i know their opinion is biased, if they are liberal and writing about a shadow government, then i know it may not be true.) get what im saying, never believe anything at face value.

I think I'm missing something, I thought you accused Israel of having plans to overtake the whol world in your previous post.

what? hahaha, i never said anything like that. why would israel wanna take over the world?

^^See my editted post 143 above :)

Tell me please how many people got killed in the Iran-Iraq war?
dont go into politics..

The U.K wasnt threatening iran until now it has proof iran is behind the attacks on soldiers in Iraq, supplying them with shells like they supply the hizballah.

Iran is a problem to this entire region.

You are saying that Iran is a problem to this entire region!
Don't take this the wrong way but the reason of the instability of the present world is because of the existance of the state of israel.

It all started in 1948. Israel came into existance because they thought they had right to the land because thousands of years ago they used to live here supposedly. Thus the natives got angry, their friends got angry and war broke out, and it war Israels and her allies versus the arabs. THus the war on terror and the reason of instability in the middle east.

If it is justified for land to be given to a nation just because they used to have this land millenea ago then IRan would have the "right" to all of the middle east because they used to have this land thousands of years ago. You see the problem of this thinking the people did back in 1948?

^^See my editted post 143 above :)

where in that post did i say that israel wanted to take over the world? i think you skipped a few posts back, i was refering to israel invading syria because someone else said that israel should invade syria.

yea, i kinda messed up when i wrote that post, i meant to put syrai then a : but i put a coma instead and that made it look like i meant the whole world, sorry about that post you guys thats not what i meant.

Maybe I didn't read well, sorry.

yea, im sorry about that too, it was a typing mistake.

Israel was not the problem. Not accepting the u.n resolution and Israel by arab countries WAS the problem.

Also, the wars in algeria, terror in egypt and ksa and jordan, iran iraq war, syria vs. kurds, iraq-kuwait etc have nothing to do with israel..

You are saying that Iran is a problem to this entire region!
Don't take this the wrong way but the reason of the instability of the present world is because of the existance of the state of israel.

It all started in 1948. Israel came into existance because they thought they had right to the land because thousands of years ago they used to live here supposedly. Thus the natives got angry, their friends got angry and war broke out, and it war Israels and her allies versus the arabs. THus the war on terror and the reason of instability in the middle east.

If it is justified for land to be given to a nation just because they used to have this land millenea ago then IRan would have the "right" to all of the middle east because they used to have this land thousands of years ago. You see the problem of this thinking the people did back in 1948?
I can go on forever, but I had enough of this before so ill sum up.. in easy language:
* Jews, after murdered decide to take destiny to their hands and rebuild their historical homeland which is in the center of their faith. The fact it was there is historical.
* They don’t harm Arabs, they buy lands and higher arabs to work for them.
* Arabs see Jews get rich, call themselves Palestinians and claim the land..
* Endless wars start by Arabs.

* Jews were here before Persians, all others who were here before Jews extinct.
* Iranians have a country, Arabs have a country. Jews don’t have other country.

The fact is the three most bloody wars, Iran-Iraq, which lasted for 8 years and killed over 1 million people, and the conflict in Algeria (100,000-120,000 dead), and current Iraq war, which has now killed over 22,000 Iraqis by other arabs have nothing to do with us..

here is an interesting fact: did you guys know that after WWII, the UN wanted to give madagascar to the Jews

anyway, i think that jews do have a right to have their own country, but they need to share it. they need to stop destroying palestinian homes, make palestinians part of the process, make them feel that they are apart of one country rather than a country at civil war. peace coexistence. aw....if the everyone was like me the world would be a better place, hahahaha :jk:

The fact is the three most bloody wars, Iran-Iraq, which lasted for 8 years and killed over 1 million people, and the conflict in Algeria (100,000-120,000 dead), and current Iraq war, which has now killed over 22,000 Iraqis by other arabs have nothing to do with us..

correction, israel sold weapons to iran and iraq covertly during the war to keep it going longer just as the US and USSR did. and by an israeli point of view it made sense, have both or your enemies destroy eachother...

we dont have 3000 years of jewish archaelogy and holy sites in madagascar, and we didnt pray 2000 years to return to madagascar, and in prayer we dont face antananarivo but jerusalem, so thats the small difference..

I can go on forever, but I had enough of this before so ill sum up.. in easy language:
* Jews, after murdered decide to take destiny to their hands and rebuild their historical homeland which is in the center of their faith. The fact it was there is historical.
* They don’t harm Arabs, they buy lands and higher arabs to work for them.
* Arabs see Jews get rich, call themselves Palestinians and claim the land..
* Endless wars start by Arabs.

* Jews were here before Persians, all others who were here before Jews extinct.
* Iranians have a country, Arabs have a country. Jews don’t have other country.



Ok, my friend.
So jews were destined to go to this land that was "theirs" and claim it because it was their religous homeland.
Iran might be a theocracy, but when the creation of a state is because of a religon then their is a serious problem.

There is no actual evidence that jews were their at all much less before persians.

Arabs have a country.

haha, arabs have like 20 countries...sometimes, i think it'll be easier if the palestinians move to another arab nation...doesnt that make sense, they have more that enough room and if the other arabs really care about the palestinians they should do it willingly and be happy about it. and frankly, i dont know why the mullahs in my country care about the whole situation because it doesnt benefit them at all.. man they are so stupid.

avicenna every day evidence is dug that is all jewish, in fact, from 100 years of archaelogical digs in Israel 100 percent is judeo-christian, including synagogues in the golan and judea and samariya, where most arab cities "somehow" have retained jewish names.
sorry to disappoint your theory.

the only muslim buildings date back to ottoman and pre-ottoman rule from 600 ac onwards, including al aqsa.

haha, arabs have like 20 countries...sometimes, i think it'll be easier if the palestinians move to another arab nation...doesnt that make sense, they have more that enough room and if the other arabs really care about the palestinians they should do it willingly and be happy about it. and frankly, i dont know why the mullahs in my country care about the whole situation because it doesnt benefit them at all.. man they are so stupid.
I agree.

yes, it is proven that jews have lived in the area at one point or another.

I agree.

it makes sense though, really, it should really be considered.

avicenna every day evidence is dug that is all jewish, in fact, from 100 years of archaelogical digs in Israel 100 percent is judeo-christian, including synagogues in the golan and judea and samariya, where most arab cities "somehow" have retained jewish names.
sorry to disappoint your theory.

the only muslim buildings date back to ottoman and pre-ottoman rule from 600 ac onwards, including al aqsa.
Also avicenna, where do you think Jesus lived? Saudi Arabia?! No my philosopher friend – Judea. Do you notice the Ju sound in it?!

can this be a justification to create a country though.
Even if it is then islam has a right to it too because it is their holy city as well.
Also what does jesus have to do with this. I never said he lived in judea or ssaudi arabis beacause i never commented on the man.

avicenna. jordan's rulling hashemite tribe was brought there by the british.
The hashemites were a tribe in Saudi Arabia.
Jordan was part of Israel also in biblical times, and the British split it and
made it into an artificial kingdom. Jordan is 75 percent palestinian..
so why isnt it a palestinian state, huh?
And the Ibn Saud tribe that rules KSA isnt even a native of KSA..
go to them and ask them why and howcome this and that, Israel is for 3000 years our homeland and thats how it will stay, period.

can this be a justification to create a country though.
Even if it is then islam has a right to it too because it is their holy city as well.
Also what does jesus have to do with this. I never said he lived in judea or ssaudi arabis beacause i never commented on the man.
I just thought that you would know the man and therefore know he was a Jew from Judea. :dunno:
What is wrong in creating a country though? And if simply that it is the origin and historical homeland of ours isn’t enough then how about the fact that we were almost exterminated and the world didn’t give a damn?

so do you think that the native americans in the USA deserve to take over the country because the used to live on this land ever since the first humans came over 20000 years ago. PLUS various european powers and usa killed 50 million native american, took their homes and now they are put on reservations which now they aren't considered us citizen although they are more the citizens of that land than the people their now.
I think this is a good compariison. what do you think? should generous america hand over everything to them or are the american more important than the palestenians!

i think taht the natives americans have lost even more than the jews. they lost 50 million of their own people and the last all of their land. i think that jews aside, the native americas deserve a homland right now. no one ever thinks of them. native americans in the US live in extremem poverty and arent considered US citizens if they are born on a reservation!

so do you think that the native americans in the USA deserve to take over the country because the used to live on this land ever since the first humans came over 20000 years ago. PLUS various european powers and usa killed 50 million native american, took their homes and now they are put on reservations which now they aren't considered us citizen although they are more the citizens of that land than the people their now.
I think this is a good compariison. what do you think? should generous america hand over everything to them or are the american more important than the palestenians!
^^^^^

did 50 million native americans really get killed.

that is a good point IRNFUTBOL, why dont the native americans get their homeland back.

^^^^^

did 50 million native americans really get killed.

yes, 50 million got killed. its really really sad, i feel so bad for them. they lost their culture, and their tribes, there are only a few tribes left. its really sad. no one thinks of them.

so do you think that the native americans in the USA deserve to take over the country because the used to live on this land ever since the first humans came over 20000 years ago. PLUS various european powers and usa killed 50 million native american, took their homes and now they are put on reservations which now they aren't considered us citizen although they are more the citizens of that land than the people their now.
I think this is a good compariison. what do you think? should generous america hand over everything to them or are the american more important than the palestenians!

yes I certainly think native americans, native australians and native mauris in new zealnd deserve seperate countries if they want. but these people were never taken out of their county, kicked for 2000 years in 70 different countries and had the power after a genocide to come back with no language, no identity and fight 6 wars for their country..

so do you think that the native americans in the USA deserve to take over the country because the used to live on this land ever since the first humans came over 20000 years ago. PLUS various european powers and usa killed 50 million native american, took their homes and now they are put on reservations which now they aren't considered us citizen although they are more the citizens of that land than the people their now.
I think this is a good compariison. what do you think? should generous america hand over everything to them or are the american more important than the palestenians!
It will be stupid to do because the Natives don’t really own what was created there, but some actions should be taken. Maybe repayments to the Natives, and if they like to have an autonomy or various autonomies they should.

so does that mean the palestinians get their own country to or not?

It will be stupid to do because the Natives don’t really own what was created there, but some actions should be taken. Maybe repayments to the Natives, and if they like to have an autonomy or various autonomies they should.

tell that to the US government, they dont give a rats ass about the native americans.

i think this was over a 500 hundred year period. But this is still probably one of the biggest genocides in human history.

the palestinians already have their country in Jordan, its 75 percent palestinian, soon it will be 80. the hashemite kingdom made by the british is a joke.

do any of you know the answer to this question: has the US admitted that it committed genocide or not? i think they did but im not sure.

aren't we getting off topic. This is about iran and nukes.

i think its time for this thread to be closed because its getting off topic and there is nothing more that can be said, each side basically said their point of view, what else is there to say

never mind

i think its time for this thread to be closed because its getting off topic and there is nothing more that can be said, each side basically said their point of view, what else is there to say
Agree.

did iraq and iran admit genocide in a stupid 10 year war?
war is war, a genocide is when people who dont fight get mass killed for no reason.

why not, i think its definetly the right word and even today, there is some debate in the US concerning columbus day (its a day in the US that schools get canceled and stuff in honor of columbus) columbus wiped out an entire island of native americans because they didnt want to give up their land, he started the genocide and the americans in the 1860's finished it by defeating the last native american tribes.

did iraq and iran admit genocide in a stupid 10 year war?
war is war, a genocide is when people who dont fight get mass killed for no reason.

no, there is a difference between genocide and war. in the US, they deliberattly went after indians, it was like slavery, there was a saying then "the only good injun is a dead injun" (injun is the race word for native american). the tried to amercanize some of them but that didnt work so they slaughtered whole tribes, men, women, and children. its in all of our history books here in the US and everyone admits to it. in the iran iraq war, iraqi's werent trying to destroy the persians and the iranians werent trying to destroy arabs. the US and was trying to get rid of native americans completely. up till the 1960s, the US was a ver racist country.

I saw this discussion in the skybar. For the US can be said that most of the Native Americans lived in South America and that the north American were mostly killed earlier then the creation of the US by illnesses brought from Europe. Also, the "Indians" were not so friendly either. But it was cruel allright. Never mind this now!

Certainly when you wipe out people in such numbers its a genocide.
But many Indians fought americans in war, which isnt a genocide, but war.

Certainly when you wipe out people in such numbers its a genocide.
But many Indians fought americans in war, which isnt a genocide, but war.

they had to fight because they were being attacked. if you read some US history you'll know about all this. im not making it up, we learn about it here in the schools and its admitted mostly everywhere in the US.

if your race is being wiped out are you just gonna sit there or are you gonna try and fight back....it was definetly genocide and there is no point in covering it up.

ok, but armenians or jews in ww2 or chinese in ww2 didnt fight but were mass murdered, thats a genocide.

now i think its time to end this thread because its over and there isnt much to say about the topic anymore. GOOD DISCUSSION YOU GUYS. :)

ok, but armenians or jews in ww2 or chinese in ww2 didnt fight but were mass murdered, thats a genocide.

yes, you are right. racism is a very bad thing. its the worst thing in our world today and its racism thats tearing the middle east apart.

[QUOTE=source26]did iraq and iran admit genocide in a stupid 10 year war?
war is war, a genocide is when people who dont fight get mass killed for no reason.[/QUO

Well the new iraqi government has already apoligized to iran for using chemical weapons.
No genocide really happened though according to your definition. Saddam did bomb the kurds but that is a seperate issue.

yes, you are right. racism is a very bad thing. its the worst thing in our world today and its racism thats tearing the middle east apart.

^^ on this "optimistic" note we end? :(

ok, hows this: "all we can do is wait, watch, and hope for the best for all of mankind" hahahehe

lol :okay: :)

IRAN DOESNT NEED TO EDMIT GENOCIDE BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BY IRAQ!!!! the kurds where killed by the arabs

we even gave them selter we brouth them to the other side of the counry so they coundnt be under atack of the arabss

edit: nevermind, can't be bothered right now :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/24/iran.nuclear.game.reut/index.html
Iran nuclear game too close for comfort

Monday, October 24, 2005; Posted: 7:01 p.m. EDT (23:01 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- U.S. special forces dart through Iran's underground nuclear facilities, gunning down any hapless Iranians standing between them and centrifuges that must be blown to bits.

Much to Tehran's relief, this crack team exists only in a new U.S. computer game. But even these animated saboteurs are too close for comfort, downloadable into Iranian living rooms at the click of a mouse.

The cyberspace troopers have sparked bitter press comment in Iran and a petition asking that the game be shelved.

"Americans have a deep craving for an attack against Iran, but they are going to have to settle for this make-believe assault," wrote the Kayhan daily, whose editor is appointed directly by Iran's Supreme Leader.

"U.S. attacks Iran" is made by U.S. firm Kuma Reality Games whose war games often tie into top news stories.

Iran is at the center of a diplomatic maelstrom, flatly denying U.S. accusations it is seeking atomic warheads. It argues it needs underground nuclear facilities, such as one near the central town of Natanz, to make fuel for power stations.

The United States consistently declines to rule out a military strike against Iran, but has said such an option is "not on the agenda".

The game's trailer plays pounding music and starkly asks: "Diplomacy has failed ... Is nothing to be done?". U.S. troops then strafe a car, leap out of helicopters and prowl around menacingly before blowing things up.

Web site www.persianpetition.com, a forum for Persian speakers in Iran and abroad, posted a notice asking Kuma to withdraw the game on October 12. Since then it has got more than 5,000 signatures.

"We must make the Americans understand that Iran is different from Iraq and Afghanistan, where they just did what they wanted," the petition read.

Kuma boss Keith Halper said he had no plans to take the game offline and that he had not realized the games were played in the Middle East as well.

"The controversy does surprise me. I just didn't expect that there were people from Iran who were going to become aware of it," he told Reuters.

Other Kuma games have been criticized in the United States for their realistic portrayal of current events, including recent battles.

The Iran game has been downloaded in Iran thousands of times, Halper said, and the company has received roughly 300 e-mail messages from Iran. Some criticized the game but others had asked how to get a copy without a broadband connection.

Iran has been prickly about the idea of U.S. special forces lurking around inside the Islamic Republic since U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh said in the New Yorker this year that U.S. "Black Ops" had ventured across Iran's borders.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Good luck boys.

This topic is... :bash:

sad :(

doesnt n e 1 think that irans nuclear ambition is genuinly for energy, they do have an energy crisis (is n e one has sed this b4 i apologise, cant be assed to read thru 11 pages of arguing) oh and dont say that they are the 3rd largest supplyer of oil in the world, they cant refine it due to iraq taking out the refineries in the war

We will soon see the results.. Amerika&Irael will invade Iran january 2006
http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4951

^^ the US wont let Israel take any invasion action against iran (like invasion) because the US knows that the whole muslim world will come to kick some ass.....especially in iraq where it seems as if the US is already fighting a losing battle. maybe air strikes but definetly no invasion.

^^ the US wont let Israel take any invasion action against iran (like invasion) because the US knows that the whole muslim world will come to kick some ass.....especially in iraq where it seems as if the US is already fighting a losing battle. maybe air strikes but definetly no invasion.
Why would Israel invade Iran? It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with that the US permits or prohibits.

^^ i was referring to scotty's post #206

and the US wont let them.

We will soon see the results.. Amerika&Irael will invade Iran january 2006
http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4951
lmao invade??? for a start that site says target nuke sites, that usually means theyl use their "smart" bombs to destroy schools, thatl b good tv, fuckin bloodbath dont under estimate iran and their allies. oh and from some dumb conspiracy site... dont insult my intelligence.

We will soon see the results.. Amerika&Irael will invade Iran january 2006
http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4951

Invade...? Ya, whatever...!

^^ i was referring to scotty's post #206

and the US wont let them.
You presuppose intention.

and their allies.
I wonder what happened with Saddams allies when US invaded Iraq

^^ the US isnt israel. you should know better than anyone how much muslims in those countries hate israel. compared to israel, the US is like an angel to them.

especially in iraq where it seems as if the US is already fighting a losing battle. maybe air strikes but definetly no invasion.
US has lost 2.000 men in Iraq. Compare that with Vietnam in witch they lost 60.000.. and US would have win in Vietnam if it wasn't for the negative media.. They have lots of troops to replace the existing ones. But in iraq they lost 1/30 of wich they lost in Vietnam so don't say that they are loosing!

^^ the US isnt israel. you should know better than anyone how much muslims in those countries hate israel. compared to israel, the US is like an angel to them.
really?
http://www.hansrossel.com/fotos/fotografie/iran/ir_d1142_std.jpg

US has lost 2.000 men in Iraq. Compare that with Vietnam in witch they lost 60.000.. and US would have win in Vietnam if it wasn't for the negative media.. They have lots of troops to replace the existing ones. But in iraq they lost 1/30 of wich they lost in Vietnam so don't say that they are loosing!
well it depends how u look at it, they won the war, cos they r the occupyers, BUT they are fighting a losing battle in stablising iraq... which they HAVE to win

well it depends how u look at it, they won the war, cos they r the occupyers, BUT they are fighting a losing battle in stablising iraq... which they HAVE to win
LOL.. murders exists everywhere.. compare the 2000 americans that have died in Iraq in 2.5 years with the 30.000 people that gets murdered each year in russia(or the 10.000 in america).

US has lost 2.000 men in Iraq. Compare that with Vietnam in witch they lost 60.000.. and US would have win in Vietnam if it wasn't for the negative media.. They have lots of troops to replace the existing ones. But in iraq they lost 1/30 of wich they lost in Vietnam so don't say that they are loosing!
right now the nation is split in half, its 46% supporting and 54% against the war and the media is already against the war. almost everyone in the country is against another draft (the US is already using up all of its troops, if they want to win this war they have to have another draft), vietnam lasted for 10 years, and it seems as if iraq is headed for civil war, if you consider that victory than........ :weirdo:

right now the nation is split in half, its 46% supporting and 54% against the war and the media is already against the war. almost everyone in the country is against another draft (the US is already using up all of its troops, if they want to win this war they have to have another draft), vietnam lasted for 10 years, and it seems as if iraq is headed for civil war, if you consider that victory than........ :weirdo:
Yes.. people are brainwashed by the media.. Saddam found friend at CNN..

^^ huh????

LOL.. murders exists everywhere.. compare the 2000 americans that have died in Iraq in 2.5 years with the 30.000 people that gets murdered each year in russia(or the 10.000 in america).
oh there murders i see... right, im gonna go and blow up the first tank i find in the street :bash: (btw u dont find many tanks in the streets of the quiet seaside town of Torquay in England)

^^ huh????
Yes.. I can see the same picture on every channel.. everyone is against the war and pro-Saddam

^^ i dont get what your trying to say, can you be more clear please...

Yes.. I can see the same picture on every channel.. everyone is against the war and pro-Saddam
fuck sadam man, u need to send that mutha fucka to the hague, make the c*nt rot in a cell for the rest of his life.. put him in solitary

^^ no, they need to just throw him in the streets of a kurdish or shiite town and have the people tear him to pieces!

oh there murders i see... right, im gonna go and blow up the first tank i find in the street :bash: (btw u dont find many tanks in the streets of the quiet seaside town of Torquay in England)
Ok.. you have a point.. but all I wanted to say is that the iraqi guerilla sucks compared to the commies in vietnam.. the numbers of killed sodiers in iraq is so fucking low.. its not even 20.000 but 2.000??????

^^ no, they need to just throw him in the streets of a kurdish or shiite town and have the people tear him to pieces!
He will probably spend the rest of his life in swedish luxury prison, just like milosovic :)

Ok.. you have a point.. but all I wanted to say is that the iraqi guerilla sucks compared to the commies in vietnam.. the numbers of killed sodiers in iraq is so fucking low.. its not even 20.000 but 2.000??????
tell me about it they r shit at "urban warfare" but they dont need to kill mass numbers as every attack is well documented and blown out of proportion by the media. u have a point too 2000 is f*ck all but its enough to swing the vote ;)

^^ i dont get what your trying to say, can you be more clear please...
Well.. they are pro Saddam in the way that they are embracing his sunni guerilla and speak sometimes about how bad Saddam is treated.

btw.. I don't nw if the sunni guerilla is terorists or freedomfigters but I hope that they wont be badly trated under the new shia rule.

um......the media here never supports the insurgents or saddam.

tell me about it they r shit at "urban warfare" but they dont need to kill mass numbers as every attack is well documented and blown out of proportion by the media. u have a point too 2000 is f*ck all but its enough to swing the vote ;)
Who knows, they might even invite some reporters..;) many people have already downloaded many training clips and battle clips..

um......the media here never supports the insurgents or saddam.
Our statechannel here in sweden use to talk about how they are suffering.. but they never say anything good about the war.. always negative news..

ok im getting confused... what r we arguing about... what does iraq have to do with this... its been a looong day

I love threads like this :)

Who knows, they might even invite some reporters..;) many people have already downloaded many training clips and battle clips..
tell me about it, my university mates lap that crap up. they dont know whats really going on AND most of them r doing politics :bash: they say im bias but i dont listen to all the crap thats in the news papers

Where do you live? Iran or Britain? I guess Britain is very pro-war(compared with the rest of europe)

Where do you live? Iran or Britain? I guess Britain is very pro-war(compared with the rest of europe)
i live in britain, yeah the brits dont really understand middle eastern issues general opinion is bomb the fuck out the place, but to act like they care they pretend to be anti war, but they cant back up why they r anti war

Because it costs too much and encuorage terrorism :)

:(