Iran claims nuclear program near complete - plutonium found

[a7x1337]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400230_pf.html

International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.

And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness.

"The agency will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," without additional cooperation by Tehran, said the report, by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such cooperation is a "prerequisite for the agency to be able to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," it added.

As expected, the four-page report made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

Both highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads, and Iran is under intense international pressure to freeze activities that can produce such substances.

But Tehran has shrugged off both Security Council demands that it stop developing its enrichment programs and urgings that it cease construction of a heavy water research reactor that produces plutonium waste. It insists it wants enrichment only to generate nuclear power and says it needs the Arak research reactor to produce isotopes for medical research and cancer treatment.

Earlier Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claimed the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.

Iran has been locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its European allies have been seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Tehran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

"Initially, they (the U.S. and its allies) were very angry. The reason was clear: They basically wanted to monopolize nuclear power in order to rule the world and impose their will on nations," Ahmadinejad told a news conference.

"Today, they have finally agreed to live with a nuclear Iran, with an Iran possessing the whole nuclear fuel cycle," he said. He did not elaborate.

President Bush said Monday there was no change in his position that Iran must first suspend uranium enrichment before there can be any dialogue with Tehran.

"Our focus of this administration is to convince the Iranians to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. That focus is based on our strong desire for there to be peace in the Middle East. And an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a destabilizing influence," Bush said Monday.

The Iranian leader said he hoped "to hold the big celebration of Iran's full nuclearization in the current year." Iran's current calendar year ends on March 20.

Though Ahmadinejad did not specify, he appeared to indicate that Iran was on the verge of proficiency in the whole cycle of nuclear fuel _ from extracting uranium ore to enriching it and producing nuclear fuel.

Russia, which is backed by China, opposes tough action advocated by the U.S., Britain and France, and its amendments to a Western draft resolution would reduce sanctions and delete language that would cut off Iran's access to foreign missile technology.

The U.S. and some of its allies allege that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and are suspicious of its intentions after Tehran concealed parts of its nuclear development from U.N. inspectors for many years.

Iran claims its program is peaceful and for generating electricity.

Uranium enrichment at low levels can be used to produce fuel to generate electricity but at higher levels can be use to make atomic bombs.

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. Officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades.

Since revelations more than three years ago of a covert uranium enrichment program, Iran has moved to develop its capabilities, activating two small experimental enrichment plants and enriching small amounts of uranium to nuclear fuel level. Although that is far short of the weapons grade uranium that could be used for nuclear warheads, international concerns about Tehran's ultimate intentions led the Security Council to set an Aug. 31 deadline for an enrichment moratorium _ which Tehran has ignored. Officials have said they plan to have 3,000 centrifuges operating by next year _ enough to make enough material for several nuclear weapons a year.

Suspicions also are focused on Tehran's construction of a heavy water reactor that _ when completed in the next decade _ will produce plutonium waste, another pathway to nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency declined comment on the Iranian president's remarks.

The Bush administration, frustrated by U.N. Security Council inaction on sanctions against Iran, is pressing a new agenda _ trying to deny Tehran U.N. aid for a plutonium-producing reactor that could be used to make nuclear warheads.

Diplomats from nations on the IAEA board say the U.S. is lobbying for denial of Iran's request for help on its Arak research reactor, where Iran says it wants to produce radio isotopes for diagnosing and treating cancer.

Seven diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information, told The Associated Press separately Tuesday that they believed that the 35 member nations of the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog would deny Iran's request when the IAEA meets next week.

But even a total denial of technical aid for Arak, while symbolically important, is expected to do little to slow the eventual completion of the reactor, let alone Iran's nuclear program. When finished _ probably early in the next decade _ Arak could produce enough plutonium for about two bombs a year.

[csite]

dude, if the iaea found any hard evidence against iran, iran would have been sanctioned not 1 min later by the un. The point is they can't find shit.

I remmeber last year they were counting the days before us attacks iran, a year is passed and the world still thinks usa may attack or sanction iran any day. Perhaps with the new us elections it can finally open its eyes to the real world rather than a dream world.

[American Infidel]

I think we all know just how inept the IAEA is.

Ignorance is Blix (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10825).

[bergshadow]

Story sounds familiar. Is this the same stuff they found a few months ago, that turned out to be contamination of imported regular power plant equipage?

In any event, the article says that according to the same people making noise about this stuff, Iran is ten years from producing its own. That seems a long time - is any country on earth really ten years from producing its own bomb stuff, if it wants to and puts a lot into it? - but everyone agrees Iran did not make this plutonium, and is nowhere near completing its bomb program if it's running one.

[csite]

I think we all know just how inept the IAEA is.

Ignorance is Blix (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10825).

A bush supporter has no credibility damning the un or the iaea.

[American Infidel]

A bush supporter has no credibility damning the un or the iaea.

And a supporter of a terrorist state has no credibility in criticizing opponents of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

What's the IAEA going to do? Send another "harshly-worded" message?

[csite]

And a supporter of a terrorist state has no credibility in criticizing opponents of Iran's nuclear weapons program.


That just depends how you word terrorist, as bush said your either with bush or again him (ie with the terrorists)

What's the IAEA going to do? Send another "harshly-worded" message?
um no, thats what the idiot(Bush) does. IEAE doesn't have to threaten iran as long as there is no real evidence pointing to an iranian nuclear weapons program, nothing matters about what you think, its innocent until proven guilty, that is real proof iran is making a nuke, no proof = no action by the iaea.

That doesn’t make them any less credible though. Specially if you want to compare their credibility again the bush administration’s credibility.

[a7x1337]

csite, you're an iranian supporter, and probably a terrorist sympathizer. you have no grounds to talk about credibility.

[csite]

csite, you're an iranian supporter, and probably a terrorist sympathizer. you have no grounds to talk about credibility.

what does supporting iran have to do with my credibility you fool.

[whocares]

what does supporting iran have to do with my credibility you fool.
What does Heather supporting Bush have to do with his credibility?

But the link he gave is biased... so, it's not to be taken too seriously... I guess...

[Newground Spy]

What does Heather supporting Bush have to do with his credibility?

But the link he gave is biased... so, it\'s not to be taken too seriously... I guess...

haha Iran And what remains of Persia is a joke to the rest of the world and is no longer a world power.

[TFS]

haha Iran And what remains of Persia is a joke to the rest of the world and is no longer a world power.

That all changes once nukes are involved. Iran is the dominant Middle Eastern power as it stands.

csite, you have to be a fool to think sanctions from the Un or IAEA are going to have any effect. They work so well every other time, why, we have nothing but absolute peace in the Middle East thanks to UN and IAEA sanctions on everyone.

[Newground Spy]

That all changes once nukes are involved. Iran is the dominant Middle Eastern power as it stands.

csite, you have to be a fool to think sanctions from the Un or IAEA are going to have any effect. They work so well every other time, why, we have nothing but absolute peace in the Middle East thanks to UN and IAEA sanctions on everyone.

that is true but Persia lost its title of once was a world power although it has lost the title and now and are not worthy of having it even though it was a long time ago. the world.VS.Iran would be like steping on a grasshopper and the U.N would probbly would stop all traffic on ground, air, and sea. plus Iran is ran by a dumbass.

[Da Vinci]

Holy fucking geeez.....

As soon as any country gets any nuclear program going, it's an automatic 'threat' to the world. I don't see why a country isn't allowed powering itself with nuclear energy. Can every other country go ahead and say US might be using the same nuclear energy for making nuclear warheads? Sure they can, are you Americans freaking out about it? Shut up and get with the times, countries aren't going to sit around while the US keeps stacking themselves up.

Times a changing and if the US keeps feeling threatened with every fucking action going on in this world, then sooner or later someones gonna shut you up.

[Asbestos Crayon]

dude, if the iaea found any hard evidence against iran, iran would have been sanctioned not 1 min later by the un. The point is they can't find shit.


UNITED NATIONS - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signalled Tuesday his country is on the verge of mastering the entire nuclear fuel cycle, saying the country would soon celebrate the achievement.

VIENNA -- UN inspectors have found traces of plutonium, of possible use in atom bombs, at an Iranian nuclear waste site as Tehran pursues a nuclear program despite the risk of sanctions, an IAEA report said yesterday.

:rolleyes: What's there to prove??? :rolleyes:

Reports are saying Iran is using a heavy water reactor which could have been used to produce the plutonium. And for those that don't know, heavy water reactors are a key to low cost production of weapons grade materials.

[borgee]

Holy fucking geeez.....

As soon as any country gets any nuclear program going, it's an automatic 'threat' to the world. I don't see why a country isn't allowed powering itself with nuclear energy. Can every other country go ahead and say US might be using the same nuclear energy for making nuclear warheads? Sure they can, are you Americans freaking out about it? Shut up and get with the times, countries aren't going to sit around while the US keeps stacking themselves up.

Times a changing and if the US keeps feeling threatened with every fucking action going on in this world, then sooner or later someones gonna shut you up.

If cops can have guns, why can't criminals?:ahhh:

[Da Vinci]

If cops can have guns, why can't criminals?:ahhh:

That's the common knowledge of idiots these days.

I'm not saying every country should be able to have posessions of nuclear deposits, but just because the US fears it could lead to other things, doesn't mean they can't fucking power their country.

[American Infidel]

As Ahmadinejad completes his Doomsday Device and promises to exterminate the Jews, Iran reports unfriendly language from Israel to the UN.

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the United Nations on Wednesday that the Jewish state was repeatedly threatening to bomb it.

The threats were "matters of extreme gravity" and the U.N. Security Council should condemn them and demand that Israel "cease and desist immediately from the threat of the use of force against members of the United Nations," Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.

His comments came in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan dated Nov. 10 and circulated at the United Nations on Wednesday.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, has been aggressively pursuing a nuclear program that it says is meant only to produce electric power.

But Western powers and Israel, which is itself widely believed to be a nuclear power, insist the activities are a cover for making nuclear bombs.

Iran's activities have prompted speculation that Israel might launch preemptive strikes to destroy its nuclear facilities, as it did in Iraq in 1981 when it bombed a reactor at Osiraq.

The speculation increased after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," a statement Iranian officials have argued was not a threat.

Israel has fueled the speculation with a series of "unlawful and dangerous threats," Zarif said.

Read More (http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N15475121)

Looks like they've got another reason to "wipe Israel off the map" (not a threat, though).

[bergshadow]

Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, The Iranian president never threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

He never vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

And he never said Israel "should" be wiped off the map.

People who repeat long debunked and inflammatory accusations as if they were established facts are not reporting news, or dealing in truth, or honestly presenting analysis. Whatever they are up to, allowing oneself to be duped and vicitmized by it is probably not good for a person.

The program Ahmadinejad claimed was "nearly complete" can hardly be a weapons-grade uranium enrichment program culminating in a homemade bomb, if he was speaking accurately - Iran is not very close to that, by all accounts.

[whocares]

I do think that Iran's president wants to wipe off Israel... or at least said that.

[bergshadow]

I do think that Iran's president wants to wipe off Israel... or at least said that. He might want to, but he didn't say that.

This subject has been beat to death on this forum Try to find the original source of the alleged quote, and read it for yourself in a translation from a standard news service specializing in Iran (such as the IRNA website) and see what you think.

Notice that this has morphed into "vowed" and "promised to exterminate the Jews" and so forth. There is a concerted, sophisticated, and diligent propaganda campaign currently underway to present the Iranian President as mentally unbalanced to an extreme - a wingnut, a dangerous wacko, too crazy to talk to or negotiate with, a madman obsessed with Israel (or "the Jews" - same thing, in this context) who might unleash devastation at any moment. Can you think of any reason that image might be useful to somebody?

[borgee]

The Iranian president never threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

He never vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

And he never said Israel "should" be wiped off the map.

Um, nice try, but you're wrong.

Ahmadinejad: "Wipe Israel off map" (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816)

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/)

This is what I don't understand about you. You will bend over backwards defending Americas enemies, going as far as stating outright lies as you did in the above post.

But then you jump all over any chance to bash America and Bush. Why do you give other nations every benefit of the doubt, and assume they are innocent until guilty, yet will hammer America for anything it does or allegedly does?

And I'm sure you would of defended Bush if he was misquoted:lol: Yet you will defend Ahmadinejad to the point of lying for him.

[bergshadow]

Um, nice try, but you're wrong.

Ahmadinejad: "Wipe Israel off map"

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel.

This is what I don't understand about you. You will bend over backwards defending Americas enemies, going as far as stating outright lies as you did in the above post. Go get the original, from a standard translation source such as IRNA, and read it - the whole thing, in context, as a speech, so you can see why he was quoting the former Imam etc. See what you think about the accuracy of that widespread misrepresentation.

This was beat to death, on this forum, months ago. Although I notice the "denied the Holocaust" schtick seems to have faded - the misquote there was too obvious, apparently.

[borgee]

Go get the original, from a standard translation source such as IRNA, and read it - the whole thing, in context, as a speech, so you can see why he was quoting the former Imam etc. See what you think about the accuracy of that widespread misrepresentation.

This was beat to death, on this forum, months ago. Although I notice the "denied the Holocaust" schtick seems to have faded - the misquote there was too obvious, apparently.

My first link was right from Al Jazeera, do you not think they know how to translate?

[Cur67]

Holy fucking geeez..

Times a changing and if the US keeps feeling threatened with every fucking action going on in this world, then sooner or later someones gonna shut you up.

And who is going to do that?
We are the one and only superpower there is.
Despite our many flaws we ARE the world police.
And we haven't only been threatened, we have been attacked.

WWWIII is here, and we may not win, but we will not lose.
If we go down, the rest of you are coming with us.
Face it.

militarily, economically, culturally
We are the center of the fucking universe.

[bergshadow]

My first link was right from Al Jazeera, do you not think they know how to translate? It was out of context, and not necessarily, no. They are not as expert in English and Persian as in Arabic.

Sigh. One more time, using Wikipedia and Informationclearinghouse this time rather than Juan Cole and IRNA itself and the other experts used last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel Discusses the translation matters, not in depth but has links. According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," MEMRI, btw, is hostile to Ahmadinejad in general, and contributes to the propaganda campaign against him.

Further: Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".
New York Times rendition, 30/10/'05 from the ISNA translation, cribbed from here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." So you see he is not threatening Israel with Iranian force, but predicting the workings of fate, on which his audience (of Israel haters) could depend. Not at all the same thing., and not nearly as crazy as alleged - right? And the "occupying regime" is not at all the same thing as "the Jews" or even (to nitpick) "Israel" - the one can disappear, while the others remain.

another note on the translation, in detail about one specific proiblem: Ahmadinejad did not use the word ordinarily translated as "map": An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time.

The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.
You could even take that speech as a call for patience, and a deflection of demands for violence against Israel - he was elected as a hardliner, and expected to act as one, after all. He was telling his audience that time and fate were on their side, not that Iran must attack Israel.

And if you dismiss these arguments as semantics, note that the whole thing is based on semantics - including the alleged craziness of the political rantings of an Iranian President with whom we must never, never negotiate.

Unless we are Chevron or Halliburton, and have oil and contracting interests, of course. Then, suddenly, things are different.

[borgee]

It was out of context, and not necessarily, no. They are not as expert in English and Persian as in Arabic.

Sigh. One more time, using Wikipedia and Informationclearinghouse this time rather than Juan Cole and IRNA itself and the other experts used last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel Discusses the translation matters, not in depth but has links. MEMRI, btw, is hostile to Ahmadinejad in general, and contributes to the propaganda campaign against him.

Further:
New York Times rendition, 30/10/'05 from the ISNA translation, cribbed from here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
So you see he is not threatening Israel with Iranian force, but predicting the workings of fate, on which his audience (of Israel haters) could depend. Not at all the same thing., and not nearly as crazy as alleged - right? And the "occupying regime" is not at all the same thing as "the Jews" or even (to nitpick) "Israel" - the one can disappear, while the others remain.

another note on the translation, in detail about one specific proiblem: Ahmadinejad did not use the word ordinarily translated as "map":
You could even take that speech as a call for patience, and a deflection of demands for violence against Israel - he was elected as a hardliner, and expected to act as one, after all. He was telling his audience that time and fate were on their side, not that Iran must attack Israel.

And if you dismiss these arguments as semantics, note that the whole thing is based on semantics - including the alleged craziness of the political rantings of an Iranian President with whom we must never, never negotiate.

Unless we are Chevron or Halliburton, and have oil and contracting interests, of course. Then, suddenly, things are different.

From your own link, here are the translations:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.."

"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

"The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time"

And you don't see that as a call to eliminate Israel???:banghead:

And you further say:
"You could even take that speech as a call for patience, and a deflection of demands for violence against Israel ":banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Are you fucking serious?

Look how far you will go to defend Americas enemies. If only you would give America the same respect:mad:

[American Infidel]

Bergshadow, you make me laugh out loud...extremely loud!

...and Kerry was misinterpreted, too.

...and Kim Jong Ill was misinterpreted, too.

...and Osama Bin Laden was misinterpreted, too.

...and Harry Reid was misinterpreted, too.

...and Nancy Pelosi was misinterpreted, too.

...and Stalin was misinterpreted, too.



As long as it's an anti-American or anti-Israeli slander, it's an innocent misinterpretation.

When it comes to President Bush or any conservative, it's damnation to the tenth power.

[bergshadow]

And you don't see that as a call to eliminate Israel??? No. Did you read the speech and the analysis? Can you read? Do you understand English as your native language?

Are you fucking serious?

Look how far you will go to defend Americas enemies. If only you would give America the same respect If you're going to call people names and the like you should at least read what was posted for you. I went to some trouble to get you that stuff. Read it, think for at least three consecutive minutes about what it means, and either apologise or go soak your head.

You are going to a great deal of trouble - and embarrassing yourself, if you care - to defend the interests of people who are much more serious enemies of America than Ahmadinejad could dream of being. You are being played for a fool by a propaganda campaign. Time to take a second look at some stuff.

[borgee]

No. Did you read the speech and the analysis? Can you read? Do you understand English as your native language?

If you're going to call people names and the like you should at least read what was posted for you. I went to some trouble to get you that stuff. Read it, think for at least three consecutive minutes about what it means, and either apologise or go soak your head.

You are going to a great deal of trouble - and embarrassing yourself, if you care - to defend the interests of people who are much more serious enemies of America than Ahmadinejad could dream of being. You are being played for a fool by a propaganda campaign. Time to take a second look at some stuff.

Yes, I did read it all, and yes he is saying Israel should be eliminated:banghead:
How can you not fucking see that?

BTW, is that you Hanoi Jane?:eek:

Embarrassing myself? Well, I guess we'll have to let others decide that, huh.

[whocares]

...and Kerry was misinterpreted, too.


Actually, Kerry misinterpreted himself...

As long as it's an anti-American or anti-Israeli slander, it's an innocent misinterpretation.
I doubt that Kerry or Pelosi are anti-American or anti-Israeli.

[bergshadow]

Yes, I did read it all, and yes he is saying Israel should be eliminated
How can you not fucking see that? !? You can pour the water down the horse's fucking throat, sometimes, and get spit in the face for it.

On topic, anyone found out whether these latest plutonium findings are the same ones we heard about a year or more ago, that turned out to be unrelated to even imported bombs, let alone homemade?

[firepiss]

If you're going to call people names and the like you should at least read what was posted for you. I went to some trouble to get you that stuff. Read it, think for at least three consecutive minutes about what it means, and either apologise or go soak your head.

You are going to a great deal of trouble - and embarrassing yourself, if you care - to defend the interests of people who are much more serious enemies of America than Ahmadinejad could dream of being. You are being played for a fool by a propaganda campaign. Time to take a second look at some stuff.

bergshadow, nothing personal. But nobody owes an apology. user: borge, did prove a good point. It's how far you go to defend a terrorist(enemy) that would murder you if they could get a chance. I always found that odd from you. Makes me wonder....

[bergshadow]

bergshadow, nothing personal. But nobody owes an apology. user: borge, did prove a good point. Proved nothing (assertion is not proof) and called me a liar - for something I went to the trouble of actually demonstrating right here, for the third or fourth time.

So of course it is personal. And you know that, so don't bother apologising yourself.

BTW: you drink the Koolaid on the Ahmadinejad stuff? You can't see blatant agitprop when it stares you in the face either? Do you really think I am "defending" Ahmadinejad? I don't think Ahmadinejad is the one being attacked, here. The people spreading this crap about what the Iranian president says aren't attacking him, personally. They're just poisoning a certain well.

Do you think the people running this campaign against the Iranian President have America's best interests - yours and mine - at heart?

[cormega]

Bergshadow, you make me laugh out loud...extremely loud!

...and Kerry was misinterpreted, too.

...and Kim Jong Ill was misinterpreted, too.

...and Osama Bin Laden was misinterpreted, too.

...and Harry Reid was misinterpreted, too.

...and Nancy Pelosi was misinterpreted, too.

...and Stalin was misinterpreted, too.



As long as it's an anti-American or anti-Israeli slander, it's an innocent misinterpretation.

When it comes to President Bush or any conservative, it's damnation to the tenth power.


ann-coulter enough allready

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

the link below shows you how America funded saddams killing of Iranis its safe to say that the supported terroist they are fighting today normal american bigots on this forom
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

[TFS]

!? You can pour the water down the horse's fucking throat, sometimes, and get spit in the face for it.
Wow, so you do know how it feels to have to put up with your bullshit content of your posts...

I seriously have never met anyone who could look at the sky on a clear day, and then look me dead in the eye and tell me it isn't blue, but I think you just might be the one.
On topic, anyone found out whether these latest plutonium findings are the same ones we heard about a year or more ago, that turned out to be unrelated to even imported bombs, let alone homemade?

Considering it's all over most major news sources, I'd venture a guess that it's current. There is some merit to watching network television as opposed to reading your editorials written by extreme liberals on web blogs.

[csite]

From your own link, here are the translations:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.."

"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

"The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time"

And you don't see that as a call to eliminate Israel???:banghead:

And you further say:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Are you fucking serious?

Look how far you will go to defend Americas enemies. If only you would give America the same respect:mad:

Iran can destabilize the israeli regime, but i see nothing inthere saying kill jews or kill israelis, i read wipe the zionist regime off the map and i agree 100%, so do many other people but too scared to admit it.

Im sure many in the whitehouse agree as well, but if they do voice such opinions they would be branded anti Semitic and you know what the Zionist lobby group will do to you when you say things like that.

Considering it's all over most major news sources, I'd venture a guess that it's current. There is some merit to watching network television as opposed to reading your editorials written by extreme liberals on web blogs.

Booh... they found traces of plutonium, means nothing. show me an iranian nuke and i'll shut up, till then you have no argument except propaganda set in your head by your regime that iran is making a nuclear weapon with evidence they only dreamt of.

[bergshadow]

Considering it's all over most major news sources, I'd venture a guess that it's current. It was all over the news in '04, and turned out to be the same basic situation as in '02. '06?

An example of the great fuss about this very same issue from '02: http://meria.idc.ac.il/research-g/iran.html

From an article in '05 about events in '04
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAR20050923&articleId=986
If the IAEA was still not in a position to declare that Iran had no undeclared nuclear material and undeclared enrichment activities, this was for two sets of reasons. First, it was still assessing Iran's explanations for questions raised by it about the Gchine uranium mines and two long-since abandoned research projects into polonium (Po-210) and plutonium separation. Secondly, questions still remained on two important fronts. In the course of its visits to the not-yet-operational Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz and the Kalaye Electric Company in 2004, the IAEA had found trace amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and low enriched uranium (LEU), giving rise to concerns that Iran had already begun enriching uranium — presumably at an undisclosed third location.

The Iranians denied producing the HEU and LEU but the IAEA needed to satisfy itself. Moreover, the Agency felt it had yet to learn the full extent of Iranian research work on the P-2 gas centrifuge, the designs for which had been procured from the A.Q. Khan clandestine network.

After analysis of swipe samples, IAEA experts now say the HEU was Pakistani and presumably came to be in Natanz because imported centrifuge components were contaminated. The origin of the LEU contamination has yet to be established but there are some indications it is of Russian provenance. And, as an obvious pattern of the past several years: Not only is Iran's failure in this regard far less dramatic than the American accusations of a "clandestine weapons programme" and of "deception," it also cannot conceivably be called a threat to international peace and security. Yes, the IAEA has yet to conclude there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. But, as Dr. El-Baradei himself noted in his September 2 report, "the process of drawing such a conclusion, after an Additional Protocol is in force, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process." Since the Agency believes Iran has had a "past pattern of concealment," this conclusion "can be expected to take longer than in normal circumstances."

In effect, Dr. El-Baradei was saying that the IAEA's inspectors should be allowed to do their work. For this, "Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue." What he did not — and could not — say was that the inspections process should not be short-circuited or politicised by interested parties. A case in point is the polonium-beryllium controversy, - -
- -
Seizing on this, the U.S. insisted Iran had imported beryllium as well. When the IAEA investigated this and ruled out any such imports, U.S. officials planted stories about how Dr. El-Baradei had "succumbed to Iranian pressure." These stories were then used to build a campaign to deny him another term as Director-General, a campaign which ultimately failed.

Regardless of U.S. motivations, however, Iran, at the end of the day still has a responsibility to demonstrate to the world that it is in full compliance with its safeguards obligations. - -
- -

As matters stand, the only major unexplained issue is the extent of Iran's research work on the P-2 centrifuge. Even if the Agency's worst fears are true — that Iran actually worked on the P-2 design during that time — this matters only if that knowledge was used to set up another enrichment facility somewhere else in the country. Though this is unlikely, especially given the rather modest achievements on display at Natanz (which itself was supposed to be a "concealed" facility), the Additional Protocol gives the IAEA a broad licence to inspect any facility it wishes. Using those powers — and relying on intelligence inputs from the U.S. — Agency inspectors recently visited military sites at Kolahdouz, Lavisan, and Parchin. Nothing was found. - -
That's where we were last year at this time. The previous two cycles ('02 and '04) started out just like this one, involving the same sources of the same panicky hype. It sounds like the same story. It would not be the first time that the same basic routine made the major media news several times, at long intervals, pushed by the same people. So it's a reasonable question. If Iran has concealed a huge uranium enrichment facility somewhere, then that is news - but this is "wolf!" again, and by the same people as last time.

So a reasonable person would be sceptical, no? Expressions of doubt, questions of motive and timing and reality, are not way out of line in situations like this.

btw: Pakistan is directly implicated in whatever proliferation of nukes is real, here - Pakistan faces no US sanctions, no public threat of invasion using "any means available", no big media propaganda campaign focused on its crazy leaders and fanatical mullahs. Russia is likewise implicated in any reality to this - W stops by on his way to Vietnam for a pleasant social visit, no threats, no big hype. Hello? If this is real, those two countries may be giving Iran nuclear weapons - right now. If Iran is really led by crazies, that's at least as big a threat as potential Iranian enrichment ten years down the road. And does the US administration take this seriously? No: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:py1zIg3NWSkJ:www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/international-law/annual-symposium/2006_papers/bali_asli_napf-2006-international-law-symposium.pdf+iran+plutonium+trace+import+found&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=19

[Son of God]

So you see he is not threatening Israel with Iranian force, but predicting the workings of fate, on which his audience (of Israel haters) could depend. Not at all the same thing., and not nearly as crazy as alleged - right? And the "occupying regime" is not at all the same thing as "the Jews" or even (to nitpick) "Israel" - the one can disappear, while the others remain.[

Iran can destabilize the israeli regime, but i see nothing inthere saying kill jews or kill israelis, i read wipe the zionist regime off the map and i agree 100%, so do many other people but too scared to admit it.

^ Agreed with both.

Someone could call for the neo-conservative movement to be taken down without intending that America herself should be destroyed, or Americans for that matter.

[Asbestos Crayon]

Ok, you all have to be smoking crack or something to believe that.

It's not been said once, but several times that the Iranian president wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map and restore the original Palestinian state. Why else does Iran send money and weapons to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbolah? And no, you can't say its a misinterpretation.

Now as to the subject of the thread, will he ever nuke Israel? If he does he's a fool. Israel has bigger nukes and would most certainley go on a carpet bombing campaign with them. Not to mention, an Iranian nuke detonating at any time would trigger a ground war with possible first strike tacticle nukes deployed by multiple countries.

The one thing that disturbs me the most about Iran is they are looking too much to the past with the direction they are going. Their foreign policy hasn't changed since the Shaw. They are stuck on the Israel. The best thing for them is to become open and non-threatening and make up with the US and Israel. They are the only country in the middle east that could possible become an economic power house and they are not going to achieve this by keeping the UN in a twist over expensive useless weapons.

Now if they really wanted to show up the US in the energy sector, solar farms and wind generators. If they went over 50% in green electrical generation that would make the US look really bad.

[TFS]

Booh... they found traces of plutonium, means nothing. show me an iranian nuke and i'll shut up, till then you have no argument except propaganda set in your head by your regime that iran is making a nuclear weapon with evidence they only dreamt of.

So easy to brush it off as propoganda when it doesn't match up with your idealistic candyland of a world that you live in, isn't it? You're worse than grown people who mark out for wrestlers as if it's real and get pissed whenever someone tells them the truth.



Bergshadow, just because it's the same situation doesn't mean it's an old story. If anything the stories show a progression of nuclear technology found, and now they have enriched plutonium, advanced beyond what was reported in years past by any credible source. The pattern is simple: every two years the IAEA reports on the progression of Iran's nuclear capabilities, showing how it's moving closer and closer to them having weapons-grade plutonium, and now they report that they have it, and you brush it off just because, like with csite, it goes against what you WANT to believe, which is not necessarily the reality that you should accept.

[bergshadow]

It's not been said once, but several times that the Iranian president wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map and restore the original Palestinian state. Why else does Iran send money and weapons to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbolah? And no, you can't say its a misinterpretation. It's way beyond misinterpretation, by now. It's lying and agitprop (or functional illiteracy - a common problem around here, apparently). The actual speech, the translation issues, the discussion of same, is all cut and dried and available for anyone to read for themselves. I've posted it a couple of times on this forum.
The best thing for them is to become open and non-threatening and make up with the US and Israel. They are the only country in the middle east that could possible become an economic power house and they are not going to achieve this by keeping the UN in a twist over expensive useless weapons. They are cornered. There is no indication that the US (or Israel) is willing to make up with them, regardless of what they do or say, and the US has targetted them for military strike.

The threats and violence here have not been coming from Iran. Iran has been under seige since they overthrew the Shah (their own Saddam, but that was before getting rid of Saddams was favored by the US). That seige is reaching a critical stage.

Open and non-threatening? With a huge, well-equipped army on their border, warplanes overhead, warships stationed outside their ports, and the leaders of the most powerful military the world has ever seen labeling them as Evil and threatening them with nuclear strike? Call off the dogs of war, and then ask for "open" and "non-threatening".
Now if they really wanted to show up the US in the energy sector, solar farms and wind generators. So they are not wise. Threatened people are often unwise. They look at Pakistan, and they want the immunity enjoyed by Pakistan, the respect accorded Pakistan, the tolerance of Pakistan's problems. As with most running after nukes, often led by physicists and "hard" scientists (Ahmadinejad is a physicist), the soft solutions have no attraction. Too bad. But it doesn't make them a threat to civilization. And it doesn't justify the US behavior here.

edited in: side point - the embargo makes solar power and wind generation difficult for them. They cannot buy the advanced, and would have to invent adn produce stuff already widely available elsewhere. Not that I think that's the real issue, but it is something to consider - almost every option except nuke has been made more difficult. Nuclear power, unlike the others, has support from big international business for overcoming embargoes etc.
and now they have enriched plutonium, advanced beyond what was reported in years past by any credible source. The pattern is simple: every two years the IAEA reports on the progression of Iran's nuclear capabilities, showing how it's moving closer and closer to them having weapons-grade plutonium, Plutonium is not "enriched". All plutonium is weapons grade. If they have any in quantity, rather than just traces on imported or fission-used gear, they probably got it from somewhere - it's quite a bit of trouble to make and concentrate, and the underground city-sized facility they would need would be really difficult to conceal all these years.

Their reactor might make it, of course. Some fission reactors do. Another good reason to not build fission reactors.

[csite]

So easy to brush it off as propoganda when it doesn't match up with your idealistic candyland of a world that you live in, isn't it? You're worse than grown people who mark out for wrestlers as if it's real and get pissed whenever someone tells them the truth.



Bergshadow, just because it's the same situation doesn't mean it's an old story. If anything the stories show a progression of nuclear technology found, and now they have enriched plutonium, advanced beyond what was reported in years past by any credible source. The pattern is simple: every two years the IAEA reports on the progression of Iran's nuclear capabilities, showing how it's moving closer and closer to them having weapons-grade plutonium, and now they report that they have it, and you brush it off just because, like with csite, it goes against what you WANT to believe, which is not necessarily the reality that you should accept.

:lol: i can't belive you are so gullible to believe bush coming up with the same lies he made up about iraq and the iraqi threat. Its ok when the us lies, threatens countries, destabilizes regimes, kills mass civilians in wars, its just not ok for iran to threaten israel when israel and america both have threatened iran numerous times even before ahmadinejad was even known in iranian politics. BOTH israel AND America have very bad records in terms of aggressions and wars, all america is good at is killing people, thats the only common purpose they have with israel.

Thankfully iran is far smarter than you are, a nuke in iran at this very moment of time will do NOTHING for iran at all except screw it up, iran doesn’t need a nuke at this time unless it wants a serious sets of sanctions imposed upon itself. And nuking Israel will do iran no good either. So the nuclear weapons program nonsense is nothing but your government’s propaganda.

[skymater]

And a supporter of a terrorist state has no credibility in criticizing opponents of Israel's nuclear weapons program.


Quoted for Truth.

[Da Vinci]

And who is going to do that?
We are the one and only superpower there is.
Despite our many flaws we ARE the world police.
And we haven't only been threatened, we have been attacked.

WWWIII is here, and we may not win, but we will not lose.
If we go down, the rest of you are coming with us.
Face it.

militarily, economically, culturally
We are the center of the fucking universe.

Wow, don't know how this cook managed to fit through the cracks...

Talk high for now Mr.Patriot. But you are hardly the world police, and when your next war breaks out, we'll most likely see the fall of your 'power.'

[Cur67]

not the world police?
Holocaust- Europe looks the other way, America ends the bs
Kosovo- ethnic cleansing of Muslims stopped when US gets involved.

next war? we are there, and the "power" has not fallen but we are
divided as to how much Hell we should unleash.

quote by Da Vinci -
(Angels and Demons was better BTW)
"Wow, don't know how this cook managed to fit through the cracks..."

I do like to cook, how did you know? oh , I guess you meant kook?
You are an idiot, but I like your avi , which album is that from?

[Viet Era Marine]

Holy fucking geeez.....

As soon as any country gets any nuclear program going, it's an automatic 'threat' to the world.




That certainly explains why we stomped the UK and France
back to the stoneage, doesn't it?



I don't see why a country isn't allowed powering itself with nuclear energy. Can every other country go ahead and say US might be using the same nuclear energy for making nuclear warheads? Sure they can, are you Americans freaking out about it?



To the best of my knowlege, the US doesn't have a problem
with Nations using Nuclear Energy for power either.
It's when those same nations turn around and convert to
weapons manufacture that the 'Red Flag' goes up.

Or perhaps you are in favor of letting a 10th century mentality
nation, that doesn't grasp the concept of 'MAD', develope a big
new nuclear arsenal?




Shut up and get with the times, countries aren't going to sit around while the US keeps stacking themselves up.

Times a changing and if the US keeps feeling threatened with every fucking action going on in this world, then sooner or later someones gonna shut you up.



As to your last line: You had better hope not, or can you say Allah Akbar.


Regards,
VEM

[Master. kirby]

we should nuke them for the fuck of it, who would see it comeing?

[Asbestos Crayon]

The threats and violence here have not been coming from Iran. Iran has been under seige since they overthrew the Shah (their own Saddam, but that was before getting rid of Saddams was favored by the US). That seige is reaching a critical stage.

Open and non-threatening? With a huge, well-equipped army on their border, warplanes overhead, warships stationed outside their ports, and the leaders of the most powerful military the world has ever seen labeling them as Evil and threatening them with nuclear strike? Call off the dogs of war, and then ask for "open" and "non-threatening".
So they are not wise. Threatened people are often unwise. They look at Pakistan, and they want the immunity enjoyed by Pakistan, the respect accorded Pakistan, the tolerance of Pakistan's problems. As with most running after nukes, often led by physicists and "hard" scientists (Ahmadinejad is a physicist), the soft solutions have no attraction. Too bad. But it doesn't make them a threat to civilization. And it doesn't justify the US behavior here.


Then why were they doing the same thing before the Gulf War in the 80's when there were no was no US military power in the region? How about the 90's when the US was only in Saudi? What the early 80's when they bombed the US marines in Lebinon there on a UN mission?

The real reason we are seeing the same is the Islamic revolution has deflated into the same status quo that the Shaw had. And the Iranian government in order to keep power have divereted the people to concentrating on the US.

The common man there is still living from pay check to pay check when oil revenue is about $50 billions. Iran has about 60 million people. For those that can't do math, that's about $3000 per family of 4 per year. Plug that into an open market with the west and your looking at even more money.
trueth (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/09/irans-leader-loses-support-among-poor/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F1464027 3%2Fsite%2Fnewsweek%2F&frame=true)

[csite]

The real reason we are seeing the same is the Islamic revolution has deflated into the same status quo that the Shaw had. And the Iranian government in order to keep power have divereted the people to concentrating on the US.


sounds too much like the us government at the moment, to keep power only scare the people shitless about terrorism and concentrated on muslims..

What the early 80's when they bombed the US marines in Lebinon there on a UN mission?


The bombing of the us base IF done by hezbollah is well deserved since the us supported the israeli invasion of lebanon.


FYI, ahmadinejad enjoys wide support amongst all groups in iran, considering since most rich iranians have some type of links with the government or religious group you wouldn't expect anything less.

Iran is well divided in political lines. There is the old who tend to be more conservative and the youth, then there is the 40% who live in rural areas who are dead conservative. Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of the conservatives and the rural area Iranians, just not so much the youth. But even the youth are right behind him in terms of economic reform policies he announced and his attempt to crack on Iranian corruption and his nuclear policy (http://www.csite.net/youth/03.jpg).

Ultimately iran's political environment is so complex, when you study into it you get an headache, there is just too many ethnic groups, too many political groups inside and outside iran and too many different opinions.

[Asbestos Crayon]

sounds too much like the us government at the moment, to keep power only scare the people shitless about terrorism and concentrated on muslims..



The bombing of the us base IF done by hezbollah is well deserved since the us supported the israeli invasion of lebanon.

Well, I have to admit our people have learned quite a bit from your people over the years.

And if you read the UN mandate, it was done so the Israeli's would withdraw from Lebenon. And from what you are saying, muslims think the US is evil if we don't support everthing a muslim country does??? I wonder what Egypt thinks of that since we save their butt's from the europeans and Israel in the 50's. You just prove my point that the Islamic world has developed a sadistic fetish for a conflict with Israel.

[csite]

And if you read the UN mandate, it was done so the Israeli's would withdraw from Lebenon. And from what you are saying, muslims think the US is evil if we don't support everthing a muslim country does??? I wonder what Egypt thinks of that since we save their butt's from the europeans and Israel in the 50's. You just prove my point that the Islamic world has developed a sadistic fetish for a conflict with Israel.

in the 50's america wasn't yet totally inslaved by israel.

Well, I have to admit our people have learned quite a bit from your people over the years.

Thats just bs, you learned nothing about iran as shown by your government's policies.

[Asbestos Crayon]

in the 50's america wasn't yet totally inslaved by israel.

We're not enslaved by them. We do a lot for the Islamic world now, just Islamist choose to negate everything through comments like the one you just made because of the support for Israel's autonomy.

[csite]

We're not enslaved by them. We do a lot for the Islamic world now, just Islamist choose to negate everything through comments like the one you just made because of the support for Israel's autonomy.

when was the last time america was the only country to veto a resolution against an islamic state when others were for the resolution or abstained?

[bergshadow]

Then why were they doing the same thing before the Gulf War in the 80's when there were no was no US military power in the region? How about the 90's when the US was only in Saudi? What the early 80's when they bombed the US marines in Lebinon there on a UN mission? The US has had a military presence in the Middle East since before WWII. The Iranians have been "doing the same thing" (whatever that is - hasn't always included nukes) since they came under seige from the US, which was one day after the Shah fell. Before that they were being governed by a British/American puppet, and they didn't like it. They don't want to be recolonized, as Iraq seems to have been - can you blame them?
The real reason we are seeing the same is the Islamic revolution has deflated into the same status quo that the Shaw had. And the Iranian government in order to keep power have divereted the people to concentrating on the US. If the US hadn't embargoed and sanctioned Iran for so many years, and had allowed the liberal movement in Iraq some elbow room, the natural affinity of Iranians for the US and their dislike of the rigid authoritarians that toppled the Shah would probably have carried at least the last elections (if not much earlier ones) for more pro-Western candidates. The polls, the news, the mood from Iran, looked pretty good - until the US screwed the pooch in Iraq. It isn't the Iranian government you should be blaming for holding the US over the Iranians' heads as evil threat, thus distracting the Iranians from domestic and economic failures - Iranians would see through that if unsupported in fact. It's hard to ignore sanctions, embargoes, and overt threats backed by serious military power bringing war right to your doorstep.

This war has cost us so much, in so many ways - - - -

btw: The Dawa group bombed the Marines in Lebanon. The worst terrorist attack - if military strike is ever "terrorist" - on US citizens until 9/11. They are now US "allies" in Iraq, members of the US "associated" "government". Some of the very same people, even. Worth recalling the next time you hear the "can't negotiate with {designated crazy of the month}" from some political charlatan.

[skymater]

We're not enslaved by them.

Israel is holding the United States by the balls, be careful of what you say.