Defend Iran from American Imperialism!

What, last week it was Iraq, the week before it was North Korea, Libya, Syria....yadda yadda. there will always be a new boogie man.

No ones lighting off any nukes, period. No ones that stupid!
And none of those foreign leaders got where they are by being stupid,
I'll tell ya that.

Do I need to say IMHO? Too late, already did..:smoking:

ZW

 

I don't even know why war with Iran even comes up. There's not going to be any full scale war with Iran. The thread is Israel and Iran may continue to escalate their attacks on each other into their blatant military strikes vs more subvert attacks on personal by bombings and such. And if that escalates enough Iran may block the Straits of Hormuz or something, which will force the US among others to force the straits open, and Iran might throw some shells or missiles to prove a point, and the US will fight back, but neither country has the capacity, or more importantly the desire to actually wage war on each other.

 

Holy Shit, SK! You don't even recognize sarcasm when you hear it. Again, not surprised; not even a little.

 

opps..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeM9w3L4H6I"]Ellen DeGeneres on 15-year-old boy, Larry King, killed for being Gay - YouTube

 

Here is the history of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA. What some of you fail to realize is that, according to the NPT, Iran is within its legal rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S., in contravention of that law, changed the law when it came to Iran. That was illegal. Now, read an assessment of the assessment. It is rife with illegal procedures and demands.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17975

 

" Iran is within its legal rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes "

That's right , which makes it all the more clear it's for arms . They signed an N.P.T. a non proliferation treaty . Which in fact gives them more rights to develop energy based reactors as a signatory to the agreement . They could of had nuclear energy with no problem . At least India, Pakistan and North Korea weren't under an n.p.t. .

The I.A.E.A. found Iran in non compliance with the n.p.t. THEY SIGNED , and their finding was correct . At which time they notified the u.n. security council , at which time they demanded Iran stop enriching uranium . Of course Iran is going to say the actions were illegal . yet nothing about their covert actions and non compliance is illegal however , right ?

The treaty THEY signed gave Iran , a soverign signatory nation of the agreement , the right to nuclear energy FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES .

They had the right not only to enrich uranium , but buy it on the international market . Yet again , why did they choose non compliance ?

Why are they moving operations underground ? Why are they still enriching , in direct defiance to the U.N . security council ?

And why now are the I.A.E. reports begining to say what intel. agencies were saying all along ?

 

I think you need to research what the Intelligence Agencies were saying before you speak.

 

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau.
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.

Translation by The Middle East Media Research Institute — Excerpt:
Imam said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’

Translation by Juan Cole

Juan Cole (Prof History, U MI) on his website Informed Comment, originally written 23 April 2006.
“The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”

Jonathan Steel gives an excellent summary of the situation.
Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel “wiped off the map”.

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished.
Arash Norouzi – who despises Iran’s current leadership as a “backward regime” – notes:

What did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regimeoff the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said.Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently laid out the case this way:

The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that ‘this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,’ just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The ‘page of time’ phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon.

Rather odd that the one associated with the New York Times got it wrong. Just a fluke, I'm sure.

 

Yeah, I'd move underground, too, if the U.S. and Israel were constantly threatening me with destruction. You are a one-dimensional thinker.

 

And before I forget, I should thank you boys. I couldn't have done this without you!

 

Wrong thread . . .

 

Petro Euros vs. Petro Dollars

Iran's proposed Euro-based oil trading system is a factor behind the threat of war on Iran. Saddam Hussein's shift to petro-euros was a reason the US attacked Iraq.

http://www.oilempire.us/euro.html

I believe that this should clear up any misconceptions about why America attacks.

 

this and before that its about where most money is: islamic banking/western banking and petroeuros/petrodollars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

 

ah and the 907 tons of gold reserves...will they end up like the Iraq or Libya gold reserves?

and who the hell is Gasem Azzoz?

Why do stupid people not care enough what happens to the central bank in a war defeated country?

 

Now you're hitting truth homeruns .

 

These are the consequences of having an oil backed economy . And the great links there willing to go to keep the monopoly on dollar based currency . And don't forget Venezula.

 

Well thanks, PW. But I'm not sure how I feel about such a compliment coming from the one who didn't believe that the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological agents to use on other humans until I pointed it out in no uncertain terms.

But your point is well taken.

 

This is one of the silliest thing I have ever read on the internet.

 

I knew what you were hinting at before you said it didn't I , so that should tell you something . I got the feeling you didn't want to come right out with it either . You were kind of toying with it . Like I said I know the truth of who did what to whom . I'm old enough to remember it .

 

Try making a point in a coherent manner.