1
   

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to war we go (again)

 
 
Doly
 
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 05:38 pm
U.S. warns Iran to back down By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.

Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was "not possible" until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

"Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.

Iran is in a standoff with the West over its defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is aimed solely at generating energy, but the United States and some of its allies suspect it is geared toward making weapons. The U.N. imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,203 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Willie cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 06:35 pm
@Doly,
I happen to agree with the Iranian President. American oil companies are the only ones to win in this war....:FU1:
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jan, 2007 06:50 pm
@Doly,
I wonder how far Bush will push this "opportunity". I guess it depends on just how much it will benefit the oil companies. I also wonder if the people in this country would tolerate a war in Iran.

I'm no expert on congressional power -- could Congress stop him if he decided to declare war on Iran? Didn't Congress pass legislation after 9/11 that gave him the right to declare war without their approval?
0 Replies
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 01:33 am
@Doly,
I'm all for sending a few bombs Iran way. Don't have a single problem with Israel going after their Nuclear program either. I do have a problem with a full invasion though.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:24 am
@Doly,
What do you think the world's reaction would be to our bombing Iran?
0 Replies
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 02:11 pm
@Doly,
I could careless. The world has showed me time and time again they have no will to stop terrorist states.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jan, 2007 08:46 pm
@Doly,
Well, do you think us bombing Iran would start another world war?
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 07:06 am
@Doly,
This latest development has the potential of throwing the whole region into turmoil. They didn't have to make a public statement about it. Just shoot them and call them insurgents.

This is just part of the master plan, leading up to an attack.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jan, 2007 10:55 pm
@Doly,
Countdown to Armageddon:

Iran says it's installing centrifuges By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

[SIZE="1"]Iran is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges, a top lawmaker said Saturday in an announcement underlining that the country will continue to develop its nuclear program despite U.N. sanctions.

The lawmaker, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said the installation under way at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant "stabilizes Iran's capability in the field of nuclear technology," IRNA reported.

Three inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who arrived in Iran on Saturday are scheduled to visit the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, Iranian state-television reported.

Iran last week barred 38 inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog because they come from countries that voted for sanctions on Iran. State television did not give the nationalities of the three inspectors, and the IAEA could not immediately confirm their arrival in Iran.

Iran's announcement appears to be its latest gesture of defiance toward the international community over its nuclear program. It faces the prospect of additional United Nations sanctions unless it stops uranium enrichment by the end of a 60-day period that ends next month.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in favor of economic sanctions Dec. 23 after Iran ignored an earlier deadline to halt enrichment.

Large scale use of centrifuges makes it possible to produce more enriched uranium in a shorter period.

Enriched uranium is used to fuel nuclear reactors and to make nuclear weapons. Many countries, including the United States, believe that Iran is using its nuclear program as a cover to produce an atomic weapon. Iran says its program is only for generating electricity.

Iranian officials had said in recent weeks that the country was moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material.

The comments from Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, came a day after IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said he believed Iran planned to begin work in February on a uranium enrichment facility underground. The subterranean facility is intended to protect the nuclear project from attack.

There had been speculation the leadership might launch the project at Natanz next month to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that brought the clerical leadership to power.

A senior State Department official warned Iran against accelerating its atomic program. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Friday. "If they think they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure, then they are very badly mistaken."

Iran ultimately plans to expand its program to 54,000 centrifuges.


In enrichment plants, centrifuges are linked in what are called cascades. For now, the only known assembled centrifuge cascades in Iran are above ground at Natanz, consisting of two linked chains of 164 machines each and two smaller setups.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran's decision last week to bar the entrance of IAEA inspectors from countries whose governments voted in favor the U.N. sanctions resolution was within Iran's legal rights.

"This decision is lawful and will not harm our cooperation with the IAEA," Mottaki said Saturday.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 04:05 am
@Doly,
Doly;9889 wrote:
Well, do you think us bombing Iran would start another world war?

No. Even if it does it will only prove George Bush correct in that the world has aligned itself with evil.
0 Replies
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 04:07 am
@Doly,
Doly;9913 wrote:
Countdown to Armageddon:

Iran says it's installing centrifuges By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

[SIZE="1"]Iran is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges, a top lawmaker said Saturday in an announcement underlining that the country will continue to develop its nuclear program despite U.N. sanctions.

The lawmaker, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said the installation under way at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant "stabilizes Iran's capability in the field of nuclear technology," IRNA reported.

Three inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who arrived in Iran on Saturday are scheduled to visit the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, Iranian state-television reported.

Iran last week barred 38 inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog because they come from countries that voted for sanctions on Iran. State television did not give the nationalities of the three inspectors, and the IAEA could not immediately confirm their arrival in Iran.

Iran's announcement appears to be its latest gesture of defiance toward the international community over its nuclear program. It faces the prospect of additional United Nations sanctions unless it stops uranium enrichment by the end of a 60-day period that ends next month.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in favor of economic sanctions Dec. 23 after Iran ignored an earlier deadline to halt enrichment.

Large scale use of centrifuges makes it possible to produce more enriched uranium in a shorter period.

Enriched uranium is used to fuel nuclear reactors and to make nuclear weapons. Many countries, including the United States, believe that Iran is using its nuclear program as a cover to produce an atomic weapon. Iran says its program is only for generating electricity.

Iranian officials had said in recent weeks that the country was moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material.

The comments from Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, came a day after IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said he believed Iran planned to begin work in February on a uranium enrichment facility underground. The subterranean facility is intended to protect the nuclear project from attack.

There had been speculation the leadership might launch the project at Natanz next month to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that brought the clerical leadership to power.

A senior State Department official warned Iran against accelerating its atomic program. "If Iran takes this step, it is going to confront universal international opposition," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Friday. "If they think they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure, then they are very badly mistaken."

Iran ultimately plans to expand its program to 54,000 centrifuges.


In enrichment plants, centrifuges are linked in what are called cascades. For now, the only known assembled centrifuge cascades in Iran are above ground at Natanz, consisting of two linked chains of 164 machines each and two smaller setups.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran's decision last week to bar the entrance of IAEA inspectors from countries whose governments voted in favor the U.N. sanctions resolution was within Iran's legal rights.

"This decision is lawful and will not harm our cooperation with the IAEA," Mottaki said Saturday.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Iran really should think twice before they defy the UN like that. The UN itself may not do anything but there are at least 4 countries in this world with enough power to make the leaders of Iran's lives a living hell. All without putting one US troop on the ground.

In all reality Israel could handle Iran with very little assistance from us. Israel could not only disrupt Iran's nuclear program but also send Iran into a civil war by disrupting the government. Iran's only strength is man power on the ground should an invasion occur. They have no means of executing an air attack on Israel as no country would grant Iran permission to fly through their airspace to reach Israel. Israel would be able to get that access through the power of the United States. Not only that but if Iran ever launched even a conventional missile at Iran it would have to fly through other countries airspace before it got to Israel, if it ever did. This would not sit well with neighboring countries especially if the missile falls short and causes civilian causalities. Iran has nothing going for them in a war against Israel and the United States.
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 03:26 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent;9917 wrote:
Iran really should think twice before they defy the UN like that. The UN itself may not do anything but there are at least 4 countries in this world with enough power to make the leaders of Iran's lives a living hell. All without putting one US troop on the ground.

In all reality Israel could handle Iran with very little assistance from us. Israel could not only disrupt Iran's nuclear program but also send Iran into a civil war by disrupting the government. Iran's only strength is man power on the ground should an invasion occur. They have no means of executing an air attack on Israel as no country would grant Iran permission to fly through their airspace to reach Israel. Israel would be able to get that access through the power of the United States. Not only that but if Iran ever launched even a conventional missile at Iran it would have to fly through other countries airspace before it got to Israel, if it ever did. This would not sit well with neighboring countries especially if the missile falls short and causes civilian causalities. Iran has nothing going for them in a war against Israel and the United States.


I certainly hope that you are right, but my fear is that if Israel and/or the U.S. strikes Iran, other Middle Eastern countries will get involved - maybe not directly but behind the scenes like Iran and Syria have done in Iraq. We can fight only so many people and I don't see Europe stepping up to the plate to help us.
0 Replies
 
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 04:37 pm
@Doly,
I agree Doly, Europe is slowly be taken over by Muslims. Their governments won't do anything to upset the cry babies lest they riot and burn their homes down. Iran's leader is crazy, he believes the end is nigh and he's the one true prophet. The US is damned if it does, and damned if it's doesn't. Russia could teach us a thing or two on how to "Poison the enemy" and not get caught.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jan, 2007 05:03 pm
@Doly,
Hey, now that's an idea, we can poison Ahmadinejhad
(aka "Ah-ma-mad-jihad") with his own nuclear material and then say we don't have the slightest idea how it happened. Great suggestion. I'll send Bush an e-mail tonight. Wink
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 10:15 pm
@Doly,
I'm surprised Doly, you would actually would have him killed? Isn't that illegal by international and US law?
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 06:19 am
@Doly,
Drnaline - I wasn't being serious. I was being a smarta**. Jeez. Lighten up.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 11:11 am
@Doly,
When i'm joking i usually put "LOL" some put "sarcasm." It's hard to tell who is joking unless some form of notice is employed.
0 Replies
 
Doly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 12:01 pm
@Doly,
I used a smilie with "a smile and a wink". Doesn't that mean you are joking around? I thought it did.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:10 pm
@Doly,
I didn't see it the first time. But i usually don't pay much attention to emoticons.

wink1 /wɪŋk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wingk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object) 1. to close and open one or both eyes quickly.
2. to close and open one eye quickly as a hint or signal or with some sly meaning (often fol. by at): She winked at him across the room.
3. (of the eyes) to close and open thus; blink.
4. to shine with little flashes of light; twinkle: The city lights winked in the distance.
–verb (used with object) 5. to close and open (one or both eyes) quickly; execute or give (a wink).
5. to close and open (one or both eyes) quickly; execute or give (a wink).
6. to drive or force by winking (usually fol. by back or away): She attempted to wink back the tears.
7. to signal or convey by a wink.
–noun 8. an act of winking.
9. a winking movement, esp. of one eye in giving a hint or signal.
10. a hint or signal given by winking.
11. the time required for winking once; an instant or twinkling: I'll be there in a wink.
12. a little flash of light; twinkle.
13. the least bit: I didn't sleep a wink last night.
—Verb phrase14. wink at, to ignore deliberately, as to avoid the necessity of taking action: to wink at minor offenses.


I've seen other people use it as you have but no definition i find means you were joking. But then again neither does LOL.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to war we go (again)
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 09:06:39