Thread: Latest Iran News & Iranian Culture Journal

Originally Posted by MOK-

Letting Iran continue its potential for nuclear weapons development is already having a destabilizing affect in the region. It's a major concern. Just imagine the day that Iran does have nuclear weapons capability. Talk about destabilization! You think Iran's neighbors could care less if Iran becomes nuke capable? Of course they care. Every oil producing nation region would be threatened which most certainly would result in serious world wide implications. Russia and China may or may not side with Iran if some intervention takes place however, if they do side with Iran they would'nt dare enter in any direct military conflict. Besides, if any action were taken, it would be only to halt Iran's nuclear weapons development, not an all out war with them. That would be their choice and they would be foolish to do so.

Exactly,

No matter which side of the issue you are on, it will be more than destabilzing if Iran moves forward on nuclear front, this you can count on. U.S. needs to sit at table with Iran, period, not go to war, but negotiate an agreement before it gets worse. Bush and his axis of evil BS does no good at all at eliminating this problem, talks with all concerned will.

No one wins in the region if Iran has nuclear weapons, as mentioned above, it would destabilize the whole world as the region starts picking sides hoping for protection from the other side, just like the cold war all over again. The fear of nuclear attacks will destabilize the whole world, not just the middle east region.

Good luck to all, Mike

Originally Posted by Pippyman

Yeah and I guess the Israelis nuclear weapons that they ALREADY HAVE is not a major concern and has not had a destabilizing affect in the region already??? At any rate on to the dinar news....lol

Interesting,

The region has many problems, this we know, but think about it, would Israel even exist if not aligned with U.S. Heck, it is spot on the map surrounded by enemies, so in my opinion, Israel is the only reason we have seen even a touch of stability in region. If not for the fire power compliments of U.S., Israel would have been wiped out decades ago.

Always interesting debating the issues in middle east, and I am sure most of us hear have gotten a far better education on these issues here than anywhere else. Funny, my history teachers are probably rolling over in their graves. LOL

Good luck to all, Mike

Originally Posted by Offshore-Wealth.com

Exactly,

No matter which side of the issue you are on, it will be more than destabilzing if Iran moves forward on nuclear front, this you can count on. U.S. needs to sit at table with Iran, period, not go to war, but negotiate an agreement before it gets worse. Bush and his axis of evil BS does no good at all at eliminating this problem, talks with all concerned will.

No one wins in the region if Iran has nuclear weapons, as mentioned above, it would destabilize the whole world as the region starts picking sides hoping for protection from the other side, just like the cold war all over again. The fear of nuclear attacks will destabilize the whole world, not just the middle east region.

Good luck to all, Mike

You can't negotiate with rogue states because any agreement you come to is only as good as the paper it's written on (which maybe be a few pennies worth). Look at the Clinton administrations negotiations with North Korea and China. North Korea said it needed help with its nuclear power aspirations so that it could provide power for its country and in exchange they wouldn't pursue nuclear arms. Instead, their country is still predominately dark and they have recently tested their first nuke. China was promoting its space program to launch satellites into space for Europe and the US but after 3 consecutive failures resulting in some very expensive satellites being lost, Clinton shifted missle/rocket technology from under the supervision of the Defense department to the Commerce dept. Martin Marietta assisted China with solving their guidance/stability problems and now China has a handful of missles tipped with nuclear warheads pointed at Western countries; primarily the US.

As long as Iran is a "radical" Islamist republic, you can't take the word of its leaders. Signing an agreement with them simply takes the pressure off and they'll finish their nuclear ambitions sooner rather than later...

Peace is a noble endeavor but it typically only holds water as long as one of the parties involved holds all the cards and some very big "sticks"...

Originally Posted by Pippyman

Yeah and I guess the Israelis nuclear weapons that they ALREADY HAVE is not a major concern and has not had a destabilizing affect in the region already??? At any rate on to the dinar news....lol

First off, only one other country in the middle east is on good terms with Iran, thats Syria. Second, Iran has a huge reputation for being overt and covert aggressors. There is not one person in the world that does not believe or know the Iran sponsors terrorists. Finally, Israel has a very good reputation as being a not firing first nation. If they did not have this reputation every country in the middle east would be on the door step on the UN begging them to do something about it. But thats not the case, they all know Israel will only fire when fired upon. The one exception is when they took out Saddam's nuke plant, before it came on line. And they did that with conventional weapons. But everyone in the middle east wanted it done. Israel having the nuke actually does stabilize the region. Not one country has tried to go to war with Israel since it has been known they have the nuke. Not One.

THANK YOU ---Everwiser and retmil for the common sense of posts
# 322 and 324.

Originally Posted by everwiser

You can't negotiate with rogue states because any agreement you come to is only as good as the paper it's written on (which maybe be a few pennies worth). Look at the Clinton administrations negotiations with North Korea and China. North Korea said it needed help with its nuclear power aspirations so that it could provide power for its country and in exchange they wouldn't pursue nuclear arms. Instead, their country is still predominately dark and they have recently tested their first nuke. China was promoting its space program to launch satellites into space for Europe and the US but after 3 consecutive failures resulting in some very expensive satellites being lost, Clinton shifted missle/rocket technology from under the supervision of the Defense department to the Commerce dept. Martin Marietta assisted China with solving their guidance/stability problems and now China has a handful of missles tipped with nuclear warheads pointed at Western countries; primarily the US.

As long as Iran is a "radical" Islamist republic, you can't take the word of its leaders. Signing an agreement with them simply takes the pressure off and they'll finish their nuclear ambitions sooner rather than later...

Peace is a noble endeavor but it typically only holds water as long as one of the parties involved holds all the cards and some very big "sticks"...

Good point,

But you are missing mine. You have to appear to want to negotiate whether there is a positive outcome or not, that is the main reason to go to the table, to try and negotiate an agreeement. If the agreements are broken down the road, then so be it, we tried. This is world politics now, but it only hurts the U.S. not to demonstrate its willingness to talk. Just look at the credibility of U.S. now, imagine what it would be if we didn't try to resolve Iran issues first.

The point is, you cannot solve nuclear issues after the fact. You must demonstrate every alternative first if you ever hope to have the world stand behind the more difficult decisions later if agreements are later broken. If U.S. never had talks, and dropped a nuke on Iran, the world would never stand for it. If all else was exhausted first, then the world would have to accept it.

Peace, Mike

Originally Posted by RetMil

First off, only one other country in the middle east is on good terms with Iran, thats Syria. Second, Iran has a huge reputation for being overt and covert aggressors. There is not one person in the world that does not believe or know the Iran sponsors terrorists. Finally, Israel has a very good reputation as being a not firing first nation. If they did not have this reputation every country in the middle east would be on the door step on the UN begging them to do something about it. But thats not the case, they all know Israel will only fire when fired upon. The one exception is when they took out Saddam's nuke plant, before it came on line. And they did that with conventional weapons. But everyone in the middle east wanted it done. Israel having the nuke actually does stabilize the region. Not one country has tried to go to war with Israel since it has been known they have the nuke. Not One.

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying but however we are so quick to jump on iran and yet we forget where the terorist that perpetrated 911 came from and we forget convieniantly and turn a blind eye to who is supporting the sunni side in iraq in which i might add is where most of the violence in iraq is comming from as well as most of our troops are dying in iraq from the sunni millitias.there is an obvious power struggle going on in the middle east and at least from where i sit there is plenty of blame to go around.I just am not so quick to jump on this administrations latest attempt to create the boogie man of the month without looking at all the facts,we seem to have a habit of making friends one day and destroying them or attacking them the next depending on our latest motives instead of judging on truth and justice,right and wrong wherever it may be or whoever it may be against

Originally Posted by Offshore-Wealth.com

Good point,

But you are missing mine. You have to appear to want to negotiate whether there is a positive outcome or not, that is the main reason to go to the table, to try and negotiate an agreeement. If the agreements are broken down the road, then so be it, we tried. This is world politics now, but it only hurts the U.S. not to demonstrate its willingness to talk. Just look at the credibility of U.S. now, imagine what it would be if we didn't try to resolve Iran issues first.

The point is, you cannot solve nuclear issues after the fact. You must demonstrate every alternative first if you ever hope to have the world stand behind the more difficult decisions later if agreements are later broken. If U.S. never had talks, and dropped a nuke on Iran, the world would never stand for it. If all else was exhausted first, then the world would have to accept it.

Peace, Mike

And in the meantime, they develop the weapons they need to throw the entire world into chaos. It's like drawing a line in the sand...How many times do you redraw it after they step over it before you have to punch them in the face? If it weren't for those that are willing to stand firm and occasionally enforce law, there would be no venue for those who proclaim "Peace First" or "Negotiate" because they would already be enslaved. Negotiations for negotiations sake mean nothing because there is no resolve behind them or even implied.

Various US administrations and world governments have negotiated in the past and each previous agreement has been broken. When does one "draw the line" that they will not let be stepped over? People proclaim that the UN should be the lead in these types of negotiations. Who is the UN? A party of tin-pot dictators that when push comes to shove they issue another "piece of paper" that is meaningless. If it weren't for the US, the UN has no backbone and no enforcement.

The only reason the US will be there is that it was called by Iraq and a successful outcome in Iraq is what's needed. Anything "discussed" or "postured" for the world's cameras will be meaningless fluff on both sides. Iran wants what Iraq has and with a 60% shiite population, they think they can destabilize Iraq and then step in to help "their shiite brothers in arms" pick up the pieces just like Iran and Syria have been doing in Lebonan for the last 20 years...

Originally Posted by donald1439

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying but however we are so quick to jump on iran and yet we forget where the terorist that perpetrated 911 came from and we forget convieniantly and turn a blind eye to who is supporting the sunni side in iraq in which i might add is where most of the violence in iraq is comming from as well as most of our troops are dying in iraq from the sunni millitias.there is an obvious power struggle going on in the middle east and at least from where i sit there is plenty of blame to go around.I just am not so quick to jump on this administrations latest attempt to create the boogie man of the month without looking at all the facts,we seem to have a habit of making friends one day and destroying them or attacking them the next depending on our latest motives instead of judging on truth and justice,right and wrong wherever it may be or whoever it may be against

I would venture to say that there is just as much trouble from the Shiites in Iraq as the Sunnis thanks to Iran and Syria's meddling. You are correct about where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from and although there has been little about it in any news following 9/11, a lot has changed with the way the US deals with SA. We pulled our base(s) to Qatar and basically put them on notice to "play along". If you've not noticed, everytime OPEC anounces a cut in production to increase prices, SA announces they will increase production to compensate. This is only because of the relationship between the Saudi royal family and the government of the US. Without the money that the Western world and primarily the US spends on Saudi oil, the royal family would likely have been deposed by those same Sunni radicals that have been the backbone of Al Quaida's recruitment.

What is going on in the Middle East goes back in time a long way. Look at who was aligned with whom during WW2. You will find a lot of the same "divisions" even today. Iran simply changes the word "Jew" to "Zionist" and "Israel"...This is not to say that these animosities only go back to WW2; many go back to the beginnings of Christianity and Islam and will not ever be resolved because while spirituality can unite us, religion will always divide us...

terrorists and communists only understand one thing --
SUPERIOR FIREPOWER .