Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

And I am sure giving the other guys is a pass is okey. I am not racist but I can understand why Israel is because they are 5 million and muslim world is 1.5 billion. Not saying all muslim are bad just saying that there more terrorist then the number of israeli soliders.

EDIT the one Group that could drive israel into the sea is Hezbullah!!! Ten times more powerful then Al-qadea!! and here the news of Hezbollah getting Stronger http://aomid.com/growing-fear-hezbollah-is-getting-stronger/229107/
and here is the news of Iran building more bombs!!
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=234102

Hezbullah and Iran are on the same team

 

The entire citizenry of Israel has compulsory military service. Can you really tell me which combination of terrorist organizations has a roster of fighters that is more than the entire adult population of Israel? Really? I'd like to see that list. Let me give you a hint: The entire population of the West Bank, Gaza, and all the Shia in Lebanon doesn't even total 5 million. Maybe your math is a little bit off, huh?

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened during the most recent war in Lebanon. Oh, wait.

 

There's no mention of the word 'bomb' anywhere in that article. It's about Iran PLANNING to build more centrifuges. What is produced in those centrifuges can be used in nuclear warheads later on, yes. But first they have to get the centrifuges up and running, and before even that, they have to build them! The article says that Iran is PLANNING on building facilities that one can speculate will be used to create bombs in the future, while you are using the article to support your claim that they ARE building more bombs right now.

Now, I don't doubt that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability, but going by the source you gave here, they're still, at best, a couple years away from achieving that goal. At least next time pick a source more favourable to your own accusations. Of course the Tehran Times, the regime's own International news outlet, isn't gonna insinuate any link to ambitions of weapons production.


In other news, Parazit made CNN too.


Finally, a clip from September 2009. In this clip, people from the city Esfahan have gathered to shout Not for Gaza, nor Lebanon. My life is for Iran.

 

Iranian reactions to the situation in Tunisia.

 

To add to Boba's post which covers much I'd have mentioned - I'm not sure why Israel is squawking as much as they are about Iran given their own nuclear capability, oh but wait, they claim not to have one. (Yep, one of the world's worst kept secrets) - I'd cite that what is likely driving Iran is fear. Fear that the west will invade it like it did Iraq - let's be honest, Khomeini was a bastard but the Shah weren't an angel either - or that Israel will take advantage of its military superiority to attack.

What would deter either option? Their conclusion is nukes, after all, it worked for N Korea. To anyone who says they'll give it a terorist group, you really think that sort of transaction could be hidden? No. If nations upon acquiruing nukes suddenly also manifested suicidal tendencies en masse then, by rights, both India and Pakistan should be radioactive wastelands by now. They're not. Why? Because once they both had nukes, they had to grow the hell up if they wanted to keep their countries intact. Everything I can see is that Iran wants the bomb for security, which is hard to argue against due to the geography, but what they want perhaps more is nuclear power plants and if resources go into those rather than weapons, which they might be persuaded to do if the sabre-rattling is restrained.

 

LOL what the hell?
1.5 billion terrorists?

 

Unfortunately for him, it seems BS can only contemplate the world as total blocs thus it is all Israelis versus all Muslims or Arabs, he doesn't allow for the numerous shades of opinion that exist amongst both groups and overlooks completely that the extremists in both tend to exist in an unholy alliance of mutually supporting the other, despite professing absolute hatred of them.

 

Never said all muslims are at war with Israel but keep in mind Hezbullah is one of the Strongests groups in the world and they are everywhere around the globe. Keep in mind these terrorists groups are not just overseas in Iraq and Afganistan, There here in the USA as well.

Why does the whole world not confront the growing threat in the middle east?

 

Because the whole world doesn't agree on which side is the "threat."

 

They are getting very dangerous and they as the Terrorist have to be stopped. I also know that White supremacisms is on the rise too and this time they won't work with the extremist from the muslim world. one time they made a pact in world war 2 but thousands of years of conflict even today they are at each others throats. Nazis and klan are the many different factions of white hate groups. Soviets count as hate groups as well

Anyways back to topic about Iran and Hezbullah.

 

I've only read two posts of yours ever, but I still should have guessed that you wouldn't have understood my post.

 

Hezbollah is not strong militarily, at all....and you're out of your mind if you think that they can somehow raise an army that can beat Israel's first-rate military. They're only a problem because they're entrenched in Lebanese society and it's impossible to root them all out without killing thousands of civilians.

 

Configuring Hezbollah, a regionally-based terrorist group, as a global SPECTRE force is frankly ludicrous.

If Israel really wanted to cut the legs from Hezbollah they'd do two things:

1. Properly Lebanon so as to enable it be a country
2. Not invade on spurious ground ie. for domestic political gain and wreck much property, including power plants that took much to create.

This isn't rocket science: If you bulldoze a person's house in a country not your own, the owner isn't going to have a good opinion of you and while he mayt not agree totally with terrorism, if a group like Hezbollah does give the bastards with the bulldozers a bloody nose, he's hardly going to be cut up about it. Israel knows everything possible and war and enemies, but it's clueless on how to make and keep friends, which is what it ultimately needs. Lebanon, forever caught between the two powers of Israel and Syria, would be a good place to start.

Iran is a country split, it has a very oppressive regime, but its people are a good deal more subversive of that than most know and they are quite pro-western, the anti-west feeling? Generally grounded on the history of the west supporting totalitarian bastards and overthrowing their democratically elected leaders, which until it's addressed by the US and UK isn't ever going to be just history. Hell it wouldn't be for us if the positions were reversed so why should we expect the impossible of the Iranians? And that's before the Iran-Iraq war is factored in too.

 

Op-ed about US strategy toward Iran.


Fragment:

After 30 years' pursuit of the same policy of isolation, whatever its variations, America obviously needs to choose a different course of action to meet its objectives. First, it needs to be recognized that the approach the United States has taken toward Iran has not only failed in this case, it has rarely succeeded anywhere else. Even a cursory view of the historical record, from Mao's China, to North Korea, to Saddam's Iraq, to Cuba, to the Sudan, to different experiences with the Islamic Republic itself, shows clearly that the use of isolation as a policy tool simply fails to achieve the objective of regime change or major behavioral change. The elementary reason is that while this policy imposes hardships upon society, it rarely disturbs the core functionality of the targeted state. Over time, economic sanctions, in particular, erode the power of the most capable domestic agents of change, namely the middle class, making them dependent upon the very regime that is meant to be isolated, entrenching that same political order.

On the other hand, if the United States wants Iranian normalization, there is another way, a method that has not only a high chance of success with Iran, but tangible proof of accomplishment in virtually every place it has been attempted. This is the integration approach, a process that involves the assimilation of the supposed "rogue" state into the global economic and political spheres. In time, as the country's middle class interacts, politically, socially, and economically, with its region and the world at large, a normalizing effect occurs within that society and, invariably, upon the government in question. Usually this involves the economic advancement of the middle class, which provides them with concrete means of influence, which in turn builds pressure from below on the regime. From post-Mao China to postwar Vietnam to post-military dictatorships in Turkey, Chile, Spain, and Argentina, the integration approach has successfully made extremism "bad for business" and persuasively threatened these governments with real losses if extremism reemerges.

The trouble with America's Iran policy is that from the very beginning of the Islamic Republic, U.S. and U.S.-backed sanctions, isolation, and military force yielded a regime that became hardened and numb to pressure. Consequently, as the Islamic Republic is a political order that was born and developed in the harshest of conditions -- revolution, war, economic deprivation -- the sort of actions and threats that have been employed only bring them back to familiar territory. In this light, it can be seen that the United States has never had any real leverage over Iran, and the custodians of the Islamic Republic have never had anything to lose -- hence, Tehran's continued defiance.

 

Even if they don't do anything, I still think sanctions are important as a matter of symbolism. If we don't impose sanctions, it sorta implies that we're spineless wishy-washy types who will just let them get away with anything, and it just might encourage them to create more mischief. And when the issue is something as serious as nuclear proliferation, do we really want to let Iran go off scot-free?

 

Where nuclear proliferation is concerned, once you've got the nukes you have gotten away with it, but if it was the doomsday scenario everyone leaps to why haven't Pakistan and India nuked each to oblivion in an orgy of MAD by now?

If you ask the question of why nuclear tech should be restricted, the answer is a no-brainer, but if you ask who shouldn't, in light of those nations that already do and it's far harder to answer. There have been investigations of Iran's nuclear programme and the conclusions were they're not developing nuclear weaponry, power yes, weapons no. The problem is one can lead to the other and our politicians lack nerve in foreign policy. Since 09/11 the US has been on a mission to try and control just about everything it can and is having to re-learn the hard way that which it has forgotten: It can't - which is why there is diplomacy.

If you think about it, diplomacy and the modern news cycle that politicians are in thrall to just don't go together, but it's the slow, patient former process that'll deliver the bigger dividends.

 

I'm a pragmatist. You want to potentially create an obstacle for homegrown internal change and normalization because of symbolism? The way the US stands up (read: doesn't do anything) to Saudi Arabia when their legislature makes women the legal property of their fathers or spouses? That kind of symbolism?

 

I really liked that fragment that was posted, as it's accurate, there's been a policy for 30 years on Iran and that policy has been a failure and nothing can change that. So, do you keep with a failing policy in a display of futile heroic conviction or do you try something else?

 

If I remember right, we sanctioned India when they built nukes....not sure about Pakistan, since they were a Cold War ally and we probably didn't want to say anything bad about them at the time. But just because these two countries broke the rules doesn't mean that others should be allowed to follow suit. This should especially be the case for Iran with its firebrand demagogue of a president. If a man comes into a gun shop muttering about how his neighbor deserves to die and how much he hates him, would you let him buy a gun even if he had the legal right to do so? So why should Iran, who supports terrorist groups, who provokes confrontation with Israel, provokes confrontation in international waters, and who does it all because of a cynical revisionist ideology, be allowed to have something that can be turned into a nuclear weapon? That's the difference between Iran having a civilian nuclear program and Brazil having a civilian nuclear program.

 

The satire duo from Parazit will guest The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight.

 

The only problem is we have Pakistan, which is as equally volatile if not more so, as a state than Iran and has a arguably equally strong connection to terrorism and there's North Korea.

Generally, most people would be against nuclear proliferation but exactly how do you really stop it? It's exceedingly difficult to do, without a declaration of war - and were one ever started for that reason, every other state would immedately go and acquire nukes as fast as they could from anybody or anyone.

About the only reassurance in this matter is that when states do become nuclear powers, they tend to sober up quite a bt as the full nature of what they've obtained dawns on them. For all Iran has the negative traits you cover, they are also rulers who want, despite their religious claims, to go on ruling - and that means something worth ruling and not, say, a radioactive wasteland that their idiocy brought upon them.

As to your gun example, that person would likely be sold a gun given US gun laws in all likelihood, but what is the probability of him actually following through on his intent, with all the consequences that'd result? Probably low, because verbal statements are not always plans of absolute action, how often have you thought: This is crap, these idiots ought to be killed for such crappy service. Probably more oten than you'd like to admit, but you've never acted on it, have you? Nukes tend to be the same for nations, once you've got them, you better grow the hell up.

 

The mentioned interview on The Daily Show - extended online version.

 

Hezbollah is really getting Stronger in the middle east. They can inflict more losses on Israel then any other insurgent around the world.

Israel can probably still bet them but they will have to pay a big price with many losses.

I will try to find a link about hezbollah to see if they are getting more out of hand but I think its going to get worse and Worse between Israel and Hezbollah. much bigger losses on both sides on the rise then that of 2006 summer war coming up.

 

Seriously? With the Hezbollah-fearmongering again? Stop dumbing down the issue. How is Hezbollah "stronger"? Do they have more rockets? More soldiers? More political influence? And where are you hearing this from?

 

The opposition has really been dismantled in Iran. Moussavi is under house arrest, Rafsanjani lost his role as chair of the assembly of experts. The latter is sadly underreported; Rafsanjani is one of the three most powerful people in Iran and if he feels he can't hold the Assembly of Experts chair its a bad sign for the broader opposition going forward.