Why does the United States not want Iran to get Nuclear Weapons?

Why would we want ANYBODY else to have nukes?

****, if we could have it our way, we'd be the only ones with them.

Does it warrant a war? Not yet.

There are many diplomatic ways to present the case against Iran having nuclear weapons , but the most honest reason would be that we don't need another unstable regime in that area with the capability to attack its enemies with such a devastating force . We don't believe Iran's leader when he says they are only going to produce peaceful energy . We think Iran is unstable and incapable of controlling their desire to eliminate enemies by any means available .
They won't honor any agreements already made , nor will they honor any future ones . Why should we let them get the power that kind of weaponry would give them ?

Will the situation lead to war ? It certainly will , and I don't think we can do anything about that . I think Iran wants war , and wants us to attack them so they can be martyrs to their cause .

I don't think that if they do produce such weapons we have to go to war against them , but if they use them , we are bound to go , and in full force !

You know, Curmudgeon, that is basically almost the same reason that Dubya gave us to believe regarding Iraq. Iraq has WMD,s, Iraq is a treath to his neighbors, Iraq is a treath to the US, Iraq is a treatrh to the world....

The only thing Dubya can't say about IRAN is, that the current Iranian leader has used gas to murder the Kurds or some other tribe.

The main reason Dubya invaded Iraq is, the Iraqi oil.

And Iran has a lot of oil too.

Dubya's dad (Bush41) split $250BILLION of Persian Gulf Oil kickback money with then his friend Saddam Hussein just before Desert Storm. (Russel S. Bowen in his book:"The Immaculate Deception"-the bush crime family exposed-)

BTW Dubya's grandpapa, as a banker, also made his family fortune by financing Hitler's Nazi Warmachine.

Comme pere, comme fils...c'est magnifique !

Dear ndjs,

You're quite fond of our famous patriotic general. You always quote his, now famous, command: "You're talking to a general, soldier, maintain discipline"
(Apparently his soldiers are un-disciplined?)

Where is he now? He went from major-general to lieutenant-general in just a couple of days. Amazing !

Can you read?

He was a retarded kid. My signature is a joke. It's ok to laugh man.

I can lay it out for you too, if you wish.

John P. came to this site pretending to be a "three star general" in the U.S. Marines. Most of us didn't believe him. Many things gave him away. He called an enlisted Marine a "soldier" as seen in my signature. Marines don't refer to themselves as soldiers. Lieutenant Generals don't refer to themselves as "three star generals." So I googled "three star general" in a google image search, and it came up with the same picture on several sites that he used as a picture of himself. And this individual was the only one whose image came up. We called him out. He was found out, gave up, and confessed.

He was banned.

Okay, if you say so.

I would think that their advocating of the destruction of another state by any means or methods points to a good reason to limit Iran's ability to project power throughout the region. Also, the reports that Ahmadinejad is out to bring back the 12th Imam and start Mahdi are also reason enough to say that he's atleast imbalanced enough to warrant him not getting nuclear weapons.

When you ask do they warrant a "war" with Iran, what exaclty do you mean? Do you mean boots on the ground - a US (or some international) multi-divisional incursion, or do you mean air strikes, or do you mean giving Israel the means and then the approval (even covertly) of a strike into Iran?

I can see us launching cruise missles and air sorties into the country (there's less than 2000 aim points that we would need to take out), I can even see us letting Israel do the whole thing themselves. There is no need to put boots on the ground, so I can't see of a situation with the current set of circumstances that would warrant it.

Lasombra,

Why are you so sure that Iran will use Nuclear weapons against America or Israel?

I'm quite sure that you don't want Iran using nuclear weapons, but Israel or the US are allowed?

Your post indicates as if Israel and the USA are inseparable?
Is perhaps Israel the satellite of the US or the other-way around?

I think we don't want them to have them is because the will use them. On us or isreal, probably the first targets. I believe them having such a weapon will bring them to there calling which is to bring an end to this world. Research there view on the 12th eman(sic).

Prove it.

Maybe because they said they would?

Why do you mention israel? They have never used such a weapon on an enemy? And we have only used them once, against japan. We are allowed because we invented the dam thing. While others were racing for the same. to the victor goes the spoils.
Yup, get used to it.

Which ever way suits your agenda.

And ???? ---

I still believe his reasons were good , and I still have not seen proof that Bush , or the US was (is) after the oil , other than perhaps attempts to stabilize the supply .

Yup, if we were stealing there oil why would we be paying 3 bucks a gallon?

We pay $3 a gallon because of Venezuela, but that's a whole nother topic.

You need to go back and reread what I said, as I said no such thing.


Thank you, come again.




Yes. Iran doesn't get to use nukes and we do.

Is it fair, no. But who ever said that life is fair. It's just the way the world works. We (the members of the UN security Council - whom Israel isn't a part of) get to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons and who doesn't.

Are you advocating the position that Iran deserves nuclear weapons just because other countries have them?



I have indicated no such thing. The voices in your head apparently have made a leap from an apple to an orange. Perhaps it is time to increase the thorizine dosage?

Wow... can't you come up with an original thought? You'd make more sense if you stopped breathing.

OIL IN IRAQ
Global Policy Forum-United Nations Security Council.

There are 29 of 8.5 X 11 pages of highlighted documents and articles published by this UN Security's Global Policy Forum.

I copied this information on November 27, 2003, by Oil in Iraq - Global Policy Forum - UN Security Council - Oil in Iraq

Here are some excerpts:


OIL IN IRAQ.
Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserve to 2-3000 barrels of high grade crude, extraordinary cheap to produce, leading to a gold-rush of profits for international oil firms in a post-Saddam setting. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972.
They face companies from France,Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere, who already have major concessions.
But in a post-war military governments, imposed by Washington, the US-UK companies expect to overcome their rivals and gain the most lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.

>>Highlighted Documents<<

IRAQ: THE STRUGGLE FOR OIL.(August, 2002)
James A. Paul analyzes the influence or Iraq's oil on UN sanctions policy. Behind the the threatened war on Iraq, there is a US drive for "free acces" to Iraqi oil and control by US and UK companies over Iraq's vast riches in oil and gas resources. (Global Policy Forum)
OIL IN IRAQ: THE HEART OF THE CRISIS (December, 2002)
International oil companies stand to profit enormously from control over Iraq's high-guality, plentiful oil supply and lucrative gas reserves. James A. Paul argues that a US-dominated Iraq would support US and UK oil companies' claims on Iraq's state-owned oil and nullify Iraqi contracts with France and Russia,(Global Policy Forum).
OIL IN IRAQI HISTORY.
On this page we post many materials in the history of Iraq's oil and the international struggles to control it. Of special interest is information on the control of Iraqi oil in the World War I era, the role of the international companies in Iraq and the Middle East, and the disputes leading up to Iraq's oil nationalization in 1972.

>>Highlights of Articles<< 2003-2002-2000

LOOTING IRAQ BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (October30,2003)
Many critics focus solely on the missing billions of dollars from the Deleopment Fund for Iraq, but 'Znet' sees the problem as one component in a sinister pattern. On the first day of the Fund's existence, US President George Bush issued an Executive Order that formalize "crony capitalism" in Iraq by substantially protecting US oil corporations.

OIL. WAR AND PANIC (October1,2003)
US domestic oil deposits are dwindling, Iraqi oil comprises a quarter of global reserves. Robert Frisk wryly remarks, "Don't tell me the US would have invaded Iraq if it chief export was "beetroot" (Independent)

CHENEY TASK FORCE EYED ON IRAQ OIL (July 18,2003)
According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force was interested in early 2001. The documents prove Cheney's interest in specific foreign companies pursuing business in Iraq. The documents also contain detailed maps of Iraqi oil fields, terminals and pipelines. (Associated Press)

IMMUNITY FOR IRAQI OIL DEALINGS RAISES ALARM (August7,2003)
PresidentBush's Executive Order 13303 has raised serious concerns that US oil companies may have handed blanket immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution in connection with the sale of Iraqi oil. (Los Angeles Times)

WHAT ARE AMERICANS DYING FOR NOW? (June18,2003)
Oil is a precious commodity for which the US government will sacrifice its citizens' Oil represents the real reason for why the Bush administration went to war. This conclusion becomes increasingly apparent as US soldiers continue to die at a growing rate. (Boston Globe)

WOLFOWITZ: IRAQ WAR WAS ABOUT OIL ((June 4,2003)
US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited oil as the main reason for the war, confirming thw wordt fears of those opposed to the US invasion. His statements could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, both under fierce criticism over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to justify military action (Guardian)

THE OILY AMERICANS (May19,2003)
This remarkable article in Time Magazine makes the case that major US oil interests wer a key factor in the Iraq war.

US, UK WAGED WAR ON IRAQ BECAUSE OF OIL - Blair adviser says - (May1,2003) Jonathan Porritt, adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair's government on ecological issues, stated that he does not think "the war would have happened if Iraq diddn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world" (Bloomberg)

IS SYRIA NEXT ON THE US HIT-LIST? (April 14, 2003)
The US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has tried to restart an old pipline that ran from Iraq to Israel during the mid-1980, but all attempts have failed. This article explains why the US needs a "regime change", both in Iraq and Syria. (Hindustani Times)

SECRET BECHTEL DOCUMENTS REVEAL: YES, IT "IS" ABOUT OIL (April9,2003)
This article describes a report by the Institute of Policy Studies regarding connections between the Bechtel Corporation and US policy towards Iraq since the 1980s. It includes an interview with Jim Valette, one of the authors of the IPS report. (Counterpunch)

Voila Curmud.

Dubya, Cheney and Rumy (The republican axis of evil-greed) were already eyeing Iraq since the 1980s.
They got their big chance on 9/11/01. Those terrorists were their "angels in disguise"
Iraq's Oil has to be grabbed. A formula had to be found to get it. And finding they did. Saddam has WMDs ready to be launced in just a couple of weeks to destroy Israel, the USA and ultimately the world. Poor Collin Powel was ordered to produce graphics showing the locations of the mobile trucks where those nuclear missiles were mounted. It proved to be bogus.

When it was clear to them that they can't hide their lies they substitute Saddams so-called WMDs with "Saddam is a monster", he killed and gassed the Kurds and his own people, but deliberately "forgetting" that Rumsfeld at that time was supporting Saddam the monster(?) with money and war material to do his thing. Rumsfeld even posed before the camera with his excellency the Monster to remember him by for his deeds, gassing the Kurds and fellow Iraqis.

Then they tried to play the Saddam with 9/11 and Bin Laden scenario.
And when this scenario was shot to pieces by the Congressional Committee Investigating al-Qaeda and 9/11 who declared that Saddam had not a single connection with 9/11 nor with OBL, a new project came forward from behind the horizon....

They've now blamed that faulty intelligence was the culprit.
(Well they have to find something to blame, right)


If you live in or near New York City, you can easily check above mentioned documents in the UN Library or copy and print them there.
Otherwise, use the Internet. I did.
Happy reading !

So, you copy a bunch of opinion articles, and expect me to take them as fact? haha

>>I have indicated no such thing<<

Okay, I apologize, my fault.

>>The voices in your head apparently.....<<

Wow, relax, mon ami. you're acting as if your blood-pressure is going through the roof, jeeeez!

>>Perhaps it is time to increase the thorizine dosage<<
Are you using it yourself?

Non, merci garcon. Je prefere un biere de Bushlight s'il vous plait.