Iran threat just another lie from the White House

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Kicking, Aug 15, 2008.

  1. The US government struck an agreement with Poland to place missile interceptors on Polish soil in exchange for military assistance . These interceptors are needed to counter Iranian missiles the White House says!

    http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6kOsE60Adag&refer=home

    Sounds familiar ? Remember they said Saddam had WMD and could hit Europe. Same bullshit people are believing today. At the time reading this stuff from my home PC in the UK thousands of miles away and not being a military expert , it was obvious to me this was nonsense, even if they had WMD they didn't have the delivery capability nor did they have the intent or the motives to hit Europe , And there was no way they could hit the US with missiles.

    The same can be said today of Iran, what in the world would Iran try to accomplish by targeting Europe ? For starters, they don't have the delivery capability either as I understand. Pure nonsense again.

    The reality is unless you change the Iran government from the inside and in a democratic way there is no way you can prevent them to go nuclear for civil purposes. That 's their legitimate right.
    It's also one can argue, their legitimate right to have nuclear weapons , after all the US have struck a neigbouring country in an illegal war that was based on lies and deception, and Israel has threatened Iran numerous times. So put yourself in the position of the Iranian people.

    The current hardline regime has made very difficult to have any trust in them but in the end, the anti -Israel statements are just a lot of rhetoric. That noone understands this as well as the fact that only a diplomatic solution is viable is very worrying. It means people don't learn lessons given just 4 years ago.


    One then has to wonder what the real reason behind the missile shield is . I am not against the idea, but it's obvious this shield wil not be built because of Iran. Perhaps that's why Russia is so opposed to it.
     
  2. So just so I understand this.

    What Isreal says about Iran is a legitimate threat to Iran and Iran's repeated threats to "wipe Isreal off the map" is just rhetoric.

    Is that correct?




     
  3. there is no way you can prevent them to go nuclear for civil purposes. That 's their legitimate right.
    Hmm, somehow no one, not even the UN and IAEA think that what the Iranians are doing is within their legitimate rights.

    It's also one can argue, their legitimate right to have nuclear weapons
    It can be, as soon as they leave the Non-proliferation treaty (NPT) that they ratified it will become their legitimate right.

    Israel has threatened Iran numerous times. So put yourself in the position of the Iranian people.
    I have an idea, why don't the Iranian people elect the kind of government that instead of threatening Israel with annihilation on a daily basis sign a peace treaty with her. They don't have territorial disputes with Israel, do they? What's stopping them? All their problems and fears will quickly disappear, Israel might actually be willing to help them harness that peaceful atom, that they've been trying to do for so long.

    the anti -Israel statements are just a lot of rhetoric.
    Exactly!!! Because history teaches us that when someone in a position of power threatens the Jews with annihilation or promises to "solve" the jewish problem once and for all - he's just kidding. Right?

    it's obvious this shield wil not be built because of Iran. Perhaps that's why Russia is so opposed to it.
    And the situation in Georgia has proved beyond any doubt that our fears of Russia are not justified as the country is completely different from what it was when it invaded Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan. Chechnya...
     
  4. Why don't we focus on the missile radar and leave the Bush and Israel bashing aside? It detracts from whatever merit there is to the argument that the missile radar is unnecessary and a deliberate provocation to the Russians.

    Frankly, I've never understood the point of this radar. Why should the US put itself out to defend a bunch of ungrateful europeans? And piss off the Russians in the process?

    The US would be better off blowing off the europeans and forging an alliance with the Russians. We have more in the way of common interests with them than we do with, say, France.