BREAKING NEWS: Iran nuclear issue now closed

The president of iran said that he is no longing discussing the nuclear issue with the United Nations and will disregard future UN resolutions.

Looks like the next war will be in iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_general_assembly

You guys give the President too much credit, most of Iran ignores him, the Ayatollah has much more power than him.Sajo7

if the ayatollah had any problems with the nuclear issue he would have spoke up by now. looks like hes the ayatollah puppet.

You guys give the President too much credit, most of Iran ignores him, the Ayatollah has much more power than him.Sajo7

You are right about that. He is more of the spokeperson for the Iranian supreme leader and the mullahs.

I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

Not likely. They'd retailiate by shutting down the oil supply coming from their country sending an already weakened American economy into a tailspin. And of course the whole region would be further destabilized.

Im not saying it won't happen, but there would be a serious, immediate economic impact.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesPrimordialMeme

Not likely. They'd retailiate by shutting down the oil supply coming from their country sending an already weakened American economy into a tailspin. Then the whole region would be further destabilized. It would be a giant problem.

we dont get any of their oil anyway. they are under economic sanctions and are not allowed to export their oilmig_killer2

Wrong, the whole world market gets oil from them. They are a key country in the oil cartel OPEC. They have the second most oil reserves in the region behind Saudi Arabia.

Also its obvious why they would want to arm themselves, its just too bad for them that their leader had to make crazy comments about the jews, since now we can take them out justifiably. But if you look at the history its clear that we are planning to take them out when the opportunity is right, and its all about economic imperialism. It happened in 1953 when they nationalized their oil interests, the british we'rent allowed to take the oil anymore and so we in the west overthrew their democratic govt and installed a brutal shah that got overthrown in a revolutionary movement in 1979. Its no wonder they are trying to guard against the west.

That guy is a modern hitler I hope he gets bombed soon.xooco

except he has no land and no capital.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"] we dont get any of their oil anyway. they are under economic sanctions and are not allowed to export their oilPrimordialMeme

Wrong, the whole world market gets oil from them. They are a key country in the oil cartel OPEC. They have the second most oil reserves in the region behind Saudi Arabia.

we have to bomb them. we cant invade them for 2 reasons

1. there is absolutely no reason to assume that the occupation of iran would be at all different from the occupation of iraq

2. our military forces are stretched WAY to thin, and they're approaching exhaustion

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

Iran has been under US economic sanctions ever since it was declared a state sponsor of terrorism. oh, and they woulden't dream of cutting off oil supplies to the rest of the world because that is their#1 source of income.

we have to bomb them. we cant invade them for 2 reasons

1. there is absolutely no reason to assume that the occupation of iran would be at all different from the occupation of iraq

2. our military forces are stretched WAY to thin, and they're approaching exhaustion

mig_killer2

Economic sanctions, yes, but they still sell oil at will. Im not sure where you got your info.

Yes they would choke the world economy even if it meant less income for themselves. If they shutdown 1/3 of their production it would send prices way over $100 a barrel.

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2

So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

Sajo7

I'm sure a ninja would have a good answer.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

Iran has been under US economic sanctions ever since it was declared a state sponsor of terrorism. oh, and they woulden't dream of cutting off oil supplies to the rest of the world because that is their#1 source of income.

we have to bomb them. we cant invade them for 2 reasons

1. there is absolutely no reason to assume that the occupation of iran would be at all different from the occupation of iraq

2. our military forces are stretched WAY to thin, and they're approaching exhaustion

PrimordialMeme

Economic sanctions, yes, but they still sell oil at will. Im not sure where you got your info.

Yes they would choke the world economy even if it meant less income for themselves. If they shutdown 1/3 of their production it would send prices way over $100 a barrel.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

Sajo7

So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

again, we cant take any action against them without the approval of the UN security counsil

you dont think the oil prices would go up to 100$ a barrel if one of those iranian nuclear bombs exploded in a major US or European city?mig_killer2

that won't happen, believing that is a scare tactic by the bush types that falsely led us into the war in iraq

oil is most vulnerable at the source, so if we further destabilize the region you can guarantee that will disrupt oil badly

[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

Not likely. They'd retailiate by shutting down the oil supply coming from their country sending an already weakened American economy into a tailspin. Then the whole region would be further destabilized. It would be a giant problem.

Lets go blow em up! Thats the American way! They must have WMD's, they just plain must. We went into Iraq due to them having......oh thats right they never did have any WMD's, now everyone thinks were there for terrorism. The country is being heavily effected by the Iraq "war", we don't need another one. How many more days till Bush is done?

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

mig_killer2

again, we cant take any action against them without the approval of the UN security counsil

I don't understand what you're trying to say, howis an air strike on a sovereign state not considered an attack?

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2

So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

again, we cant take any action against them without the approval of the UN security counsil

LOL! Approval? I'm sure we had a lot of that when the U.S went to "war" with Iraq.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

Sajo7

again, we cant take any action against them without the approval of the UN security counsil

I don't understand what you're trying to say, howis an air strike on a sovereign state not considered an attack?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesjd7-03

Not likely. They'd retailiate by shutting down the oil supply coming from their country sending an already weakened American economy into a tailspin. Then the whole region would be further destabilized. It would be a giant problem.

Lets go blow em up! Thats the American way! They must have WMD's, they just plain must. We went into Iraq due to them having......oh thats right they never did have any WMD's, now everyone thinks were there for terrorism. The country is being heavily effected by the Iraq "war", we don't need another one. How many more days till Bush is done?

[QUOTE="jd7-03"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesDivergeUnify

Not likely. They'd retailiate by shutting down the oil supply coming from their country sending an already weakened American economy into a tailspin. Then the whole region would be further destabilized. It would be a giant problem.

Lets go blow em up! Thats the American way! They must have WMD's, they just plain must. We went into Iraq due to them having......oh thats right they never did have any WMD's, now everyone thinks were there for terrorism. The country is being heavily effected by the Iraq "war", we don't need another one. How many more days till Bush is done?

Meh not surprised if I was the ruler of Iran I would try to do that as well.. If you have Nuclear weapons it garentees for the most part that you can not get invaded by the United States.. Lets not forget people that the United States overthrew the last democratically elected president in Iran.. The reason for this was the President threatned the US about cutting them off from the oil because they will getting cheated by giving them such a low price to sell.. He wanted to raise the prices to give more money to his nation... Conviently enough 3 days later the United States found him to be a communist and overthrew him to put the dictator Shah in place..

The UN and United States needs to talk with them.. In the end the UN will not commit to war, and the US can not afford another occupation.. This is a difficult and problematic situation.. And I think its stupid by thinking that just "bombing" them will make matters better.. The US would infact igniting the entire Middle East.. Because in the end this would be a pre-empitive strike yet again.. So yeah there is no good conclusion from this situtiation no matter how you look at it.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]you dont think the oil prices would go up to 100$ a barrel if one of those iranian nuclear bombs exploded in a major US or European city?PrimordialMeme

that won't happen, believing that is a scare tactic by the bush types that falsely led us into the war in iraq

oil is most vulnerable at the source, so if we further destabilize the region you can guarantee that will disrupt oil badly

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]So what exactly is the difference between a surgical strike and an attack? :?

Sajo7

again, we cant take any action against them without the approval of the UN security counsil

I don't understand what you're trying to say, howis an air strike on a sovereign state not considered an attack?

The meddling Iran does is in Israel, and both sides are to blame there and thats it.

Meh not surprised if I was the ruler of Iran I would try to do that as well.. If you have Nuclear weapons it garentees for the most part that you can not get invaded by the United States.. Lets not forget people that the United States overthrew the last democratically elected president in Iran.. The reason for this was the President threatned the US about cutting them off from the oil because they will getting cheated by giving them such a low price to sell.. He wanted to raise the prices to give more money to his nation... Conviently enough 3 days later the United States found him to be a communist and overthrew him to put the dictator Shah in place..

The UN and United States needs to talk with them.. In the end the UN will not commit to war, and the US can not afford another occupation.. This is a difficult and problematic situation.. And I think its stupid by thinking that just "bombing" them will make matters better.. The US would infact igniting the entire Middle East.. Because in the end this would be a pre-empitive strike yet again.. So yeah there is no good conclusion from this situtiation no matter how you look at it.

sSubZerOo

Yep, most people calling for war with Iran have no knowledge of history.

How can you expect them not to want to defend themselves? Again, the only caveat is the political grandstanding their leader did to get elected in which he resembled Hitler

Interesting on the assumptions being made in this thread. How about actually reading up on the situation before jumping to conclusions?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Iran's president has criticised "illegal" UN Security Council sanctions against his country, in a speech to the General Assembly in New York.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said debate over Tehran's nuclear programme was "closed" and the issue was now in the hands of the UN's nuclear watchdog.

Earlier, France's president said a nuclear Iran could threaten the world.

Other issues raised by world leaders included Darfur, climate change, protests in Burma and human rights.

'Transparent' programme

During a wide-ranging speech, Mr Ahmadinejad reiterated his assertions that all of his country's nuclear activities had been "peaceful and transparent".

Iran's nuclear work would be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), its "appropriate legal path", he added.

He denounced the "arrogant" and "bullying" permanent members of the UN's Security Council, which has imposed sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment programme.

And he offered educational programmes to help other UN member states with their own nuclear work.

Representatives of the US and Israel were absent for Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, in which he also repeated his verbal attacks on Israel as an "illegal Zionist regime".

Earlier on Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that while Iran had the right to nuclear energy, allowing Tehran to develop nuclear weapons would mean an "unacceptable risk" for regional and world stability.

There would be no world peace if the international community showed "weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons", Mr Sarkozy added.

But there were dissenting views, among them Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who asked how the US - the only country to have used nuclear weapons - could challenge the rights of Iran and North Korea to a peaceful nuclear programme.

US sanctions

US President George W Bush used his 15 minutes at the podium to highlight human rights violations around the world, highlighting Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran.

The central theme of the US president's speech was the struggle against extremism.

He focused on the themes that have dominated much of his presidency: the need to spread freedom, to reward advocates of democracy and to isolate regimes whose policies run counter to what he sees as the tide of history.

Mr Bush contrasted those who were seeking the path of democracy: Lebanon, Iraq and those he dubbed moderate or mainstream Palestinian leaders, as opposed to the leadership of North Korea, Syria and Iran.

'Climate of change'

UN chief Ban Ki-moon told global leaders the world faces "daunting challenges" from tackling climate change to ending conflict in Darfur.

Addressing the general assembly for the first time as UN chief, Mr Ban called for "an internal climate of change" at the international body to deal with a "fractured world". He said the UN needed to adapt and focus not on rhetoric but on results.

He stressed that peace in the Middle East was vital to regional and world stability, and insisted that "no stone would be left unturned to end the tragedy in Darfur".

"I expect the year ahead to be among the most challenging in our history. And I am sure that, together, we can make it one of the most successful," he said.

He also called on Burma's military leaders to show restraint in the face of continued pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks.

This line was echoed by Mr Bush, who said Americans were "outraged by the situation in Burma".

He announced "tighter" economic sanctions against the junta and urged other nations to apply pressure.

The ritual of the general assembly allows each country's head of state or government - though some are represented by their foreign minister - to speak for 15 minutes.

The will be nearly 200 speeches over several days. Each country determines the issues that it wants to raise.

There is no agenda as such, but the speeches of key countries are closely watched for any evidence of an inflection or shift in their foreign policies.

you dont think the oil prices would go up to 100$ a barrel if one of those iranian nuclear bombs exploded in a major US or European city?mig_killer2

If Iran was going to nuke anyone it would be Israel.

But I think Iran understands mutually assured destruction, Israel has nukes too; i think Iran just wants to be able to throw its weight around and have nukes to back it up. Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if Saudi Arabia follows suit. If bush hasnt already sold them nukes that is.

Personally I don't mind if the US goes to war with Iran. Although Iran is actually one of the more civilised countries in the middle east it is still ruled by religious fundamentalists and enforces sharia law.

[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"] we dont get any of their oil anyway. they are under economic sanctions and are not allowed to export their oilmig_killer2

Wrong, the whole world market gets oil from them. They are a key country in the oil cartel OPEC. They have the second most oil reserves in the region behind Saudi Arabia.

we have to bomb them. we cant invade them for 2 reasons

1. there is absolutely no reason to assume that the occupation of iran would be at all different from the occupation of iraq

2. our military forces are stretched WAY to thin, and they're approaching exhaustion

If they bombed Iran from the air, Iran would attack the already weary U.S forces in Iraq and probaby launch missile attacks at U.S bases in th region. If the U.S attacks Iran the only logical way to get anything accomplished is by putting boots on the ground and I honestly do not see that happening.

Hmmm WW3 coming round the corner... where'd my pasport go.

[QUOTE="PrimordialMeme"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

Iran has been under US economic sanctions ever since it was declared a state sponsor of terrorism. oh, and they woulden't dream of cutting off oil supplies to the rest of the world because that is their#1 source of income.

we have to bomb them. we cant invade them for 2 reasons

1. there is absolutely no reason to assume that the occupation of iran would be at all different from the occupation of iraq

2. our military forces are stretched WAY to thin, and they're approaching exhaustion

mig_killer2

Economic sanctions, yes, but they still sell oil at will. Im not sure where you got your info.

Yes they would choke the world economy even if it meant less income for themselves. If they shutdown 1/3 of their production it would send prices way over $100 a barrel.

This is the problem with western media, it strikes fear into civilians. Iran cannot create a nuclear weapon for at least another 10 years and so far there is absolutely no evidence that any diversion of uranium is happening to fuel a nuclear weapons program. Some countries are suspicious that Iran would like a nuclear weapon, but no visible steps have been taken by that country to start a nuclear weapons program. So far all we know is that they are trying to build a civilian nuclear program, and if the public does not realise this then I am afraid this situation will go the same route as Iraq, you go into the country guns blazing only to find nothing and now you're stuck there.

This is the problem with western media, it strikes fear into civilians. Iran cannot create a nuclear weapon for at least another 10 years and so far there is absolutely no evidence that any diversion of uranium is happening to fuel a nuclear weapons program. Some countries are suspicious that Iran would like a nuclear weapon, but no visible steps have been taken by that country to start a nuclear weapons program. So far all we know is that they are trying to build a civilian nuclear program, and if the public does not realise this then I am afraid this situation will go the same route as Iraq, you go into the country guns blazing only to find nothing and now you're stuck there.MGS9150

Thank you. Looks like I'm not the only one who actually reads into these issues, instead of turning on the TV and pretending there is no agenda at hand.

Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?rimnet00

Since Iran said they wanted Israel wiped off the map. Well no, thats a lie, people wouldnt probably wouldnt want Iran to have anything radioactive anyway.

when did I say that attack and surgical strike were any different?mig_killer2

I'm just trying to make sense of this:

I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2