If Iran's president were killed ?

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Aimster
Hezbollah and Iran's research of nuclear technology are not a threat to the U.S.

Iran is an instability in the region? The U.S has invaded two nations in that region and you say Iran is an instability?

Would you trust Hamas or Hezbollah to have access to any type of nuclear material?

Iran doesn't give WMD to Hezbollah or Hamas.

It has chemical weapons and neither of those groups has any of it.

It is the U.S who gives it to nations to use on people fighting for their lives.

Your original statement stated/implied a union of Hezbollah and Iran.

My question is was not relating to Iran providing WMD.
My question was if those two groups (that happen to be supported by Iran) were to have nuclear material, would you trust them to NOT use it?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no evidence of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons program. None!

Are you sure about that? Or, are you only sure that there has yet to be a public disclosure of such evidence?

you certainly speak in terms of absolutes... what type of "evidence" would you require?

The IAEA saying otherwise. They are the only ones who can know one way or the other.

That is, if they're shown the truth to begin with...

If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no evidence of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons program. None!

Are you sure about that? Or, are you only sure that there has yet to be a public disclosure of such evidence?

you certainly speak in terms of absolutes... what type of "evidence" would you require?

The IAEA saying otherwise. They are the only ones who can know one way or the other.

That is, if they're shown the truth to begin with...

They are the only ones who can determine the situation. Anyone else who insists that the Program exists is:

a) Making a wild guess
b) Lying

trust me, there are other categories...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Aimster
Hezbollah and Iran's research of nuclear technology are not a threat to the U.S.

Iran is an instability in the region? The U.S has invaded two nations in that region and you say Iran is an instability?

Would you trust Hamas or Hezbollah to have access to any type of nuclear material?

Iran doesn't give WMD to Hezbollah or Hamas.

It has chemical weapons and neither of those groups has any of it.

It is the U.S who gives it to nations to use on people fighting for their lives.

Your original statement stated/implied a union of Hezbollah and Iran.

My question is was not relating to Iran providing WMD.
My question was if those two groups (that happen to be supported by Iran) were to have nuclear material, would you trust them to NOT use it?

Sounds like you're trying to frame the question to get the desired answer you are looking for rather then asking a open ended honest question. Iran doesn't provide WMD intel to those groups period. Supposing that those groups would get a hold of a even more dangerous and easier to trace piece of WMD material is an attempt to paint a picture that is not likely to ever happen.

 

[Auric]

Terrorism schmerrorism. Most of it is sooo subjective. Indeed, even the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list is known to be politically tainted at the very least. It is a tool of influence because of the economic implications of being on that list.

North Korea was proclaimed e-vil and a so-called "SSoT" until another deal was agreed to to halt nuclear development in exchange for oil &c. Well, that has no impact on anything else the country does. If they were e-vil for wanting nuclear weapons then what does that make the first and only country to use them in anger? The USA not only used them but keeps making them yet somehow other countries are not allowed?

As Ahmadinejad mentioned, Iran has not been to war before being attacked by USA backed Iraq yet the USA has been at war constantly since its inception.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Aimster
He is not the leader of Iran.
He is a nobody.

The media makes him into a somebody.

Exactly.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

Just about any country with a satellite.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

Just about any country with a satellite.

Ah, you think the IAEA doesn't get that Data. Also, how well did Satellite Data alone work in Iraq? Not very well at all, the Inspectors on the Ground knew what was going on though.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

 

[Jadow]

why bring IKEA into this? They're not hurting anybody with their meatballs and cheap furniture.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

After the Iraq fiasco, I seriously doubt it. You need feet on the ground, the IAEA has it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: piasabird
A-dumb-a-job took part in the attack on our US Embassy when the Marines and other officials were attacked and held hostage. He is a war criminal as far as I am concerned. He does not deserve diplomatic immunity, and President Clinton should not let him step one foot on our soil. If he gets shot, that will just be poetic justice. Iran is already at war with the USA, you just dont know it.

Hysterical post much? I like that Freudian slip too.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To answer the question in the OP:

I don?t think his military would start a war with the US over this. But their terrorist friends might step up their attacks.

I don?t think killing him is a good solution. Replace the devil you know with the devil you don?t know, not a good idea.

he doesn't have terrorist friends. his boss might, but he doesn't.

I think that distinction is irrelevant to the scope of their response. Moreover, what is the assertion here, is it one of innocence?

it's not irrelevant, jackalass... it's a response telling john not to be careless in his assessment of who has the terrorist friends.

YOUR question to ME is the irrelevant one.

He's part of the Iranian government. The Iranian government itself is a czar of terrorism from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Taliban in Pakistan. Trying to distance the President from that is irrelevant to the subject. Whether it?s Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who commands them will not change their response.

Moreover, what basis do you have for saying he isn?t friends with radicals? He himself is one.

The Taliban are Sunni and have no influence from the Iranians, if anything, they are supported through Pakistan ISI and Saudi Arabia (who helped get them in power the first place). Likewise, the "reports" of Iran supporting Al Qaeda are also false, as Al Qaeda are hardcore Sunni/Wahhabis who are opposed to Shias/Iran.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

We're the ones who found Iran's nuclear sites in the first place. Until then they remained secret.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

We're the ones who found Iran's nuclear sites in the first place. Until then they remained secret.

Nuclear Sites and Nuclear Weapons Programs are very different things.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

After the Iraq fiasco, I seriously doubt it. You need feet on the ground, the IAEA has it.

LOL... a lot has changed since 9/11... especially our focus on HUMINT.

look it up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To answer the question in the OP:

I don?t think his military would start a war with the US over this. But their terrorist friends might step up their attacks.

I don?t think killing him is a good solution. Replace the devil you know with the devil you don?t know, not a good idea.

he doesn't have terrorist friends. his boss might, but he doesn't.

I think that distinction is irrelevant to the scope of their response. Moreover, what is the assertion here, is it one of innocence?

it's not irrelevant, jackalass... it's a response telling john not to be careless in his assessment of who has the terrorist friends.

YOUR question to ME is the irrelevant one.

He's part of the Iranian government. The Iranian government itself is a czar of terrorism from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Taliban in Pakistan. Trying to distance the President from that is irrelevant to the subject. Whether it?s Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who commands them will not change their response.

Moreover, what basis do you have for saying he isn?t friends with radicals? He himself is one.

The Taliban are Sunni and have no influence from the Iranians, if anything, they are supported through Pakistan ISI and Saudi Arabia (who helped get them in power the first place). Likewise, the "reports" of Iran supporting Al Qaeda are also false, as Al Qaeda are hardcore Sunni/Wahhabis who are opposed to Shias/Iran.

There are factions out of eastern Iran who are supporting the Taliban near Kandahar... and they're certainly not Saudis.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

We're the ones who found Iran's nuclear sites in the first place. Until then they remained secret.

Nuclear Sites and Nuclear Weapons Programs are very different things.

"very" different? not quite...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

We're the ones who found Iran's nuclear sites in the first place. Until then they remained secret.

Nuclear Sites and Nuclear Weapons Programs are very different things.

"very" different? not quite...

Quite.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If Iran does not want them to look at certain places, the IAEA can not say otherwise.

That is what got Saddam into trouble by not opening up all the books.

Impossible. Lefties here swear the IAEA and the great Baradei are superb inspectors who are given access at will to anything and everything...They can't possibly hide anything from the inspectors!

Who else can know more than the IAEA? Nobody.

you're kidding, right? I can name several US agencies, usually written with three letters each, that can, and do, know more than the IAEA.

They have proven on more than one occasion that they are vulnerable to political persuasion, unfortunately. As for Saddam not opening all the books, it's not always easy to prove you don't have something. If the administration was absolutely 100% sure in their minds that Saddam had WMD, would they accept anything as evidence that was contrary to that notion?

All that being said, I don't doubt that Iran is seeking to become a nuclear power.

 

[Nebor]

If the president of Iran were killed.... I gaurantee you there wouldn't be Americans dancing in the street. And yet, if our President were killed, it would be a national holiday throughout Iran.

Savages.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: piasabird
A-dumb-a-job took part in the attack on our US Embassy when the Marines and other officials were attacked and held hostage. He is a war criminal as far as I am concerned. He does not deserve diplomatic immunity, and President Clinton should not let him step one foot on our soil. If he gets shot, that will just be poetic justice.

dude! how long since you read the papers or watched news on TV?

Clinton was a little while ago

Iran is already at war with the USA, you just dont know it.

actually, on second thoughts, you should not read any papers or watch news.
nor post on any forums.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To answer the question in the OP:

I don?t think his military would start a war with the US over this. But their terrorist friends might step up their attacks.

I don?t think killing him is a good solution. Replace the devil you know with the devil you don?t know, not a good idea.

he doesn't have terrorist friends. his boss might, but he doesn't.

I think that distinction is irrelevant to the scope of their response. Moreover, what is the assertion here, is it one of innocence?

it's not irrelevant, jackalass... it's a response telling john not to be careless in his assessment of who has the terrorist friends.

YOUR question to ME is the irrelevant one.

He's part of the Iranian government. The Iranian government itself is a czar of terrorism from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Taliban in Pakistan. Trying to distance the President from that is irrelevant to the subject. Whether it?s Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who commands them will not change their response.

Moreover, what basis do you have for saying he isn?t friends with radicals? He himself is one.

The Taliban are Sunni and have no influence from the Iranians, if anything, they are supported through Pakistan ISI and Saudi Arabia (who helped get them in power the first place). Likewise, the "reports" of Iran supporting Al Qaeda are also false, as Al Qaeda are hardcore Sunni/Wahhabis who are opposed to Shias/Iran.

exactly.