Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
Iran is funny!
Viewing posts 1 to 39 of 39 messages posted.
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
"A day will come that the current U.S. president and officials will be tried in an international supreme court for the catastrophes they caused in Iraq," he said.
"Americans will have to answer for why they don't end occupation of Iraq and why waves of terrorism and insurgency have overwhelmed the country," he added. "It will not be like this forever and some day they will be stopped as happened to Hitler, Saddam and certain other European leaders."
Iran rocket used in attack on key Iraq base: U.S.
U.S. commanders say that apart from rockets and mortars, sophisticated roadside bombs made from Iranian components have killed scores of U.S. troops.”
“I ran so far away”
This is called "misdirection".”
“Or an indication that Iran & Washington have come to an agreement.”
“To clarify - the misdirection is on the part of the U.S. Intelligence.”
“Miss Intelligence(36-22-36) is putting candles on the yellow cake again?
last edited: 12/03/07 10:36:43 AM”
“[snip] The notion of a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands appeared so threatening that the United States might well negotiate away other things -- particularly in Iraq -- in exchange for a halt of the program. Or so the Iranians hoped. Therefore, while they halted development on their weapons program, they were not eager to let the Americans relax. They swung back and forth between asserting their right to operate the program and denying they had one. Moreover, they pushed hard for a civilian power program, which theoretically worried the world less. It drove the Americans up a wall -- precisely where the Iranians wanted them.
As we have argued, the central issue for Iran is not nuclear weapons. It is the future of Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 was the defining moment in modern Iranian history. It not only devastated Iran, but also weakened the revolution internally. Above all, Tehran never wants to face another Iraqi regime that has the means and motivation to wage war against Iran. That means the Iranians cannot tolerate a Sunni-dominated government that is heavily armed and backed by the United States. Nor, for that matter, does Tehran completely trust Iraq's fractured Shiite bloc with Iran's national security. Iran wants to play a critical role in defining the nature, policies and capabilities of the Iraqi regime.
The recent U.S. successes in Iraq, however limited and transitory they might be, may have caused the Iranians to rethink their view on dealing with the Americans on Iraq. The Americans, regardless of progress, cannot easily suppress all of the Shiite militias. The Iranians cannot impose a regime on Iraq, though they can destabilize the process. A successful outcome requires a degree of cooperation -- and recent indications suggest that Iran is prepared to provide that cooperation.
That puts the United States in an incredibly difficult position. On the one hand, it needs Iran for the endgame in Iraq. On the other, negotiating with Iran while it is developing nuclear weapons runs counter to fundamental U.S. policies and the coalition it was trying to construct. As long as Iran was building nuclear weapons, working with Iran on Iraq was impossible.
The NIE solves a geopolitical problem for the United States. Washington cannot impose a unilateral settlement on Iraq, nor can it sustain forever the level of military commitment it has made to Iraq. There are other fires starting to burn around the world. At the same time, Washington cannot work with Tehran while it is building nuclear weapons. Hence, the NIE [report]. [snip] - Friedman”
“And I'm a pacifist......
See the CNN pic's of AA Guns at Nantanz?
what we need for now is for the Iranians to get complacent, so when we let the dogs loose, there are fewer obstacles to overcome....
“Somehow I doubt the Iranians are going to get "complacent".”
“Even the biggest baddest meanest MOFO needs to sleep......and they tend to do that when they feel the safest..."what me? hit ya with my stick?...nah, I don't think you're a threat, why, we could be friends, whadda ya say pal...wanna go get a beer, see a movie...?" (puts down stick...)
hey, let's take MY car okay?....(Trunk packed with knives, guns, a roll of duct tape and a sheet of heavy plastic)......
"Hey, it's MY IDEA...so it's MY TREAT, okay?......”
“Nah...the citizenry are at the edge of revolution there...you start 'cutting" the basic services you will see people start to revolt.
If the US would sponsor anti government rebels (and I bet you could find some) who would hit power grids, and stuff to just put a pinch on the citizenry....Iran might not be able to really field an army in a few years.”
“Glad I'm tall , many of you are probably having a time breathing?”
“LOL..the National Intelligence Estimate....Iran no threat....
Okay lets look at some other historical successes of the National Intelligence
Examination of information released since the War has revealed there was considerable intelligence information available to US and other nations' officials. It may have been the failure to process and use this information effectively that has led some to invoke conspiracy theories rather than a less interesting mix of mistake and circumstance.
Then there was 9/11....yep totally missed that one...”
“The elected officials have to take the blame for this another Katrina. These people never get off the spin cyclelong enough to see the real world time flying by.
last edited: 12/05/07 7:24:17 AM”
“Interesting Stratfor/Friedman analysis. I wondered the same thing. How could Bush back down on Iran - and possibly avoid taking blame for Iran developing nukes: he could report that they had stopped developing nukes under his watch.
The question that remains (and I'm curious what Mutt, Stratfor - or anyone else has to say about it): when were we getting BS'd? If Bush changed his tune for strategic reasons, when (if ever) were we getting the truth.
I guess a third possibility is that Iran and the US made a deal and that the agreement was that Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, especially, could save face in dropping the nukes by putting out the info that they had stopped for their own reasons years ago - years before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. I guess if I was pro-Bush, I'd love to see that speculation coming out.
last edited: 12/07/07 10:22:31 AM”
“I know-Well, what about when Clinton, After Bush? This is the last time I'll bail you dudes.”
LOL..I say run the boats down, chop the sons of the drunken childmolester up in the propellers.”
“This is one of my favorite thread titles ever.”
“How anti-climactic. :(”
“Well either they are going to have a MASSIVE Revolution or they will attack someone..(here's hoping its Iraq).
The US needs to be supporting "insurgents" who will blowup electrical and other infrastructre that the Weird Beards cannot maintain. Make life so difficult that the leadership starts looking for nice places to move...(LOL)
Then when they do bug out, intercept the aircraft so they can return to the hell hole they created.”
“Iran has banned the mullet.
“...hell mebbee they are more progresive than we think...WE just waited for the fad to die..they are going to KILL it!”
Let's send NASA!!!!!
“Son pleads for help as mother awaits stoning in Iran
(CNN) -- Sajjad Mohammedie Ashtiani travels to a Tabriz jail in Iran every Monday to see his mother.
And for 15 minutes each week, he speaks to his mother, Sakine Mohammedie Ashtiani, through the prison glass that divides them.
Neither mother nor son ever know if the visit will be their last.
Convicted of adultery in 2006, Ashtiani has been sentenced to be stoned to death for her alleged crime.......
...and the moonbats never say a word, as usual.”
“Well...no Stovie, we need to "understand and cuddle" these people. Now putting a convicted Rapist (for liberals here lets say it was a real "rape-rape") murderer to death by lethal injection is WRONG>”
“When it cost the taxpayer more than life in a fancy hotel prison, YES, I agree it is wrong. Either the court is right or no justice exist, Make up your minds.”
July 7, 2010
U.A.E. Diplomat Mulls Hit On Iran's Nukes
Prefers strike to armed foe
By Eli Lake, The Washington Times
ASPEN, Colo. -- The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion ... there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid."
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."
"They also know - and worry - that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.
Arab leaders, Mr. Bolton said, regard a pre-emptive strike as "the only alternative."
The U.A.E. ambassador "was thus only speaking the truth from his perspective," Mr. Bolton said.
Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said of the ambassador's comments: "This is a significant increase in the concern from the United Arab Emirates."
"Important Arab officials have privately indicated to me personally and to my colleagues that they would prefer an American military strike on Iran to an Iran with nuclear weapons. However, one can never be certain what they are saying in private to other audiences," Mr. Clawson said.
Senior Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, have not ruled out the use of a pre-emptive military option against Iran.
However, administration officials have sought to play down that option, notably because of heavy U.S. military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the danger that Iran would respond by disrupting the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz or by encouraging more terrorist attacks in the West and in the region.
Iran has been developing uranium-enrichment facilities, some in underground military facilities, in violation of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Military specialists have said a strike on as many as two dozen Iranian facilities could set back Tehran's nuclear program that U.S. officials have said appears on track to build nuclear arms in a period of as little as two years.
The United Arab Emirates is the union of seven Arabian Peninsula emirates, with a historically weak federal government based in Abu Dhabi. The emirate of Dubai has been a banking center for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and was used as a major transshipment point for the cover nuclear-supplier network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan that supplied nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Mr. al-Otaiba said that his country would be the last Arab country to cut a deal with Iran, if Tehran were to go nuclear. But he predicted other wealthy Arab states in the Gulf would dump their alliances with the U.S. in favor of ties with Tehran if President Obama does not stop the Islamic republic's quest to become a nuclear power.
"There are many countries in the region that if they lack assurance that the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover with Iran," he said. "Small, rich, vulnerable countries do not want to stick their finger in the big boy's eye if they do not have the backing of the United States."
The ambassador also said that "talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous."
He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn't have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.
"Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?" he asked.
Mr. al-Otaiba also said that an Iranian acquisition would set off a nuclear arms race in the region, predicting that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey would all start nuclear programs if Iran acquired such weapons.
He said however that the U.A.E. would not seek to transform its peaceful energy program into a military one in that situation.
The ambassador in the end stressed that his country would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
"The United States may be able to live with it," he said. "We can't."”
“And, they'll keep making Billions while we protect them--Make these useless OPEC pigs protect themselves. If they want to pay off a hundred billion of our debt, we'll protect them.”
I wonder how Iran is going to handle their traitor (and his family)...”
“Let's assume for a moment that you're an Iranian scientist who wants to help overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime. Let's assume that you decide to work with U.S. officials to do so but that after a while, you see that in fact, the United States isn't serious about it and that in fact, they've made moves that instead seem to bolster the regime and weaken her enemies.
Is there little wonder that you get cold feet about the whole thing? I mean really.
Amiri was likely a very willing player in the beginning who became discouraged the longer he had to deal with Obama and his minions.
And so he flopped. His hope for change dashed by the ideology of Barack Hussein Obama.
Lots of hope for change dashing going on with this President.”
“Now why would Iran want to kill their double agent after a successful mission?”
“It's just more 3 Stooges government from the moonbat messiah.”
“Maybe, maybe not.”
“Now why would Iran want to kill their double agent after a successful mission?
What intel do you think he got (or hoped to get) considering we held his hand through the process of him giving us intel?”
“Something reliable, rather than some out of fear, maybe.”
“LOL...this guy came over and the DOLTS in the Boy King Administration thought they had a coup...right now the PrezBo is advising his staff that the Iranians can make a bomb scraping the glow in the dark stuff off wristwatches.....”
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites