President of Iran

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Darth Squirrel RE:The Late Great Former Head of CIA CounterIntel Has a Theory 12/19/2005 7:36:55 PM

After carefully considering the article, I can only say..... lmao, sounds like yet another Hollywood butcher-job on a Clancy tale. Do not be fooled by all of these people who hint at secret plans, promoting more ace-in-the-hole theories, desperately trying to assure us (those of us who actually possess some real geopolitical intelligence) that the Iranian nuclear problem is well in hand. It most certainly is NOT. The people promoting such theories fall into two categories: 1) Those who represent power structures that will benefit from a nuclear Iran 2) Astute observers who see there is a real problem here but cannot accept the reality of # 1. We have seen this before with North Korea. Even AFTER they got the bomb we were told about Clinton's secret plans to bomb NK. We were assured that Bush would not allow our country to be blackmailed. If you examine the deals the Bush administration would consider ideal, they offer MORE 'rewards' than the Clinton deal even if they do demand more verification. But the here-and-now of Korea isn't the issue. They have the bomb and we have no plan but to buy them off. By the way, if anyone is ever interested, I have the perfect solution to this problem that doesn't require us to attack them. It's too late for that. But Iran is a much more serious case, imo. For one thing, it is much more financially viable than NK, and it is situated in a manner to threaten the entire global economy. Actually, this is what they are using to deter any attack on Iran, the threat to destroy all regional oil infrastructure, scuttle a few large ships in the Strait of Hormuz, all of which will precipitate a global economic meltdown and spark a Middle East War. There are many other aspects of this that I don't have time to discuss now, but if one looks at how Iran is behaving, and how the world is reacting, it becomes clear that Iran is in a strong position and while the US could take down Iran alone or with the aid of other Western Powers, the risks and stakes involved would be much higher than anything the US has dealt with since WWII. Iran has the strategic advantage.

Quote Reply

Admiral Kirk RE:President of Iran- 12/19/2005 8:16:02 PM

I do not doubnt that Iran has a advantage over the US right now diplomatically. I kind of hate to see this but that is the way it is going. I do believe the president of Iran and the country of Iran should be banned from the UN for a time frame. Perhaps 1-5 years depending on their behaivor. Unfortunately, this will not happen because Russia and China support Iran in major ways-weapon sales. In my opinion, all the aid we give Russia should be cut off immediately. Why do we continue to help another country that supports a country that harbors terrorists. Any thoughts. Lets Roll

Quote Reply

Basilisk Station RE:President of Iran- 12/21/2005 4:19:10 PM

I was listening to NPR today and they had an interesting if perhaps even scarier explanation of why Iran's president has been behaving like he has. Apparently, Evangelical Christians aren't the only ones convinced we're living in "End Times" and that the Messiah (or in this case the Mahdi(?))is going to be showing up Real Soon Now. So it's the Iranian Prez's job to make sure things are ready and suitably "Islamic" for the Mahdi when he shows up.

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Basilik the Messiah is here - its me 12/21/2005 4:20:52 PM

Please send 10% of your monthly wages to me as tax.

Quote Reply

Admiral Kirk RE:President of Iran 12/21/2005 8:12:00 PM

Iran now has nuclear capable cruise missiles-at least 12. It will only be a matter of time that this country will use them on Israel. Any thoughts on this issue? Should the US step in now or continue to play the wait game? Lets Roll

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc RE:President of Iran 12/21/2005 8:31:00 PM

12 Cruise missiles some old Soviet version. No worries. Its old news. It could explode in Iran itself.

Quote Reply

Herc the Merc Interesting chat here- its not me 12/22/2005 6:13:20 PM

Just got back from Dubai... Had the occasion to meet an Iranian businessman (who had arrived from Tehran) of some financial wherewithal and very well plugged into the Iranian political scene... During casual conversation, talk turned to general issues and I began a gentle probe out of left-field by suggesting that the "Americans are getting crazy" as far as Iran was concerned. His response, while not entirely unexpected, was jarring (to me) because of its intensity... In response to my the "Americans are getting crazy" comment, he shot out that "our president is crazier than the Americans". He went on to add that Ahmedinejad "is not only crazy externally, but also interior (sic). He has opened a front with all the managers (of state) who have been in power for 25 years". To "moderate" and give an impression of my faith in Iran , I pointed out that I had read a rather sane interview by Ahmedinejad in Time magazine. The man just shook his head while looking aside, implying that I didn't know my ass from my elbow... Then to dispense the notion that I favoured Ahmedinejad for whatever reason, I suggested that things would have been done differently under Khatami... "ohhh Khatami was much better... the difference between the earth and the sky" between him and Ahmedinejad. He added "if one side is crazy (iran) and the other side (US) only wild, a solution can be found. If both sides are crazy it will be a disaster... He (Ahmedinejad) is looking for trouble". I can assure you that the businessperson may be regarded as highly reliable in terms of the accuracy of his perception of the situation in Iran. Needless to say, as soon as the conversation ended I quickly slid out of eyesight and noted down his comments so as to provide you all with the quotable quotes...

Quote Reply

EKAdams RE:Interesting chat here- its not me 12/27/2005 11:48:11 PM

Very interesting... Thank you for relaying that.

Quote Reply

Admiral Kirk RE:President of Iran 1/2/2006 1:47:15 PM

The president of Iran now has definately gone to the extreme now. He states the following: "Europeans had decided to create a "Jewish camp" as the best means for ridding the continent of Jews. He said the camp, Israel, now enjoyed support from the United States and Europe in the slaughter of Muslims." When is the UN going to ban this country? An emergency meeting needs to be called and this needs to be done. This president is definately not playing with a full deck. Iran now also has key technology to separate uranium from its ore, marking a significant step closer to the country's ambition to construct and run nuclear fuel cycle independently. They are on their way to making their first nuke. Any thoughts on this? Admiral Kirk Peace Folks

Quote Reply

P3RSIAN RE:President of Iran 1/10/2006 12:19:41 AM

Hes insane! But he speak the truth. Isreal Should have been formed on european soil and middle east bringing the problem there. * . Off course its impossible to do so now!

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:President of Iran 1/10/2006 6:47:58 AM

...Hes insane! But he speak the truth. Isreal Should have been formed on european soil and middle east bringing the problem there. * . Off course its impossible to do so now! .... Sorry to disappoint you, there have been Jews living in what is known as Israel continuously since Biblical times - ARABS have been the intruders and invaders - they should have stayed in the Arabian Peninsula - and stayed out of Byzantine and Persian territories. So therefore, the ARABS are the cause of the problem. Time to lance their boil and drain the desert of their plague, returning it to its former Arab-free condition. But of course, it's impossible to do that now. swhitebull

Quote Reply

Herodotus RE:President of Iran 1/10/2006 12:52:23 PM

"When is the UN going to ban this country?" The UN cannot ban countries arbitarily. Taiwan was banned because there were two countries or rather governments claiming to be the same country, China. "Recalling the recommendation contained in its resolution 396 (V) of 14 December 1950 that, whenever more than one authority claims to be the Government entitled to represent a Member State in the United Nations and this question becomes the subject of controversy in the United Nations, the question should be considered in the light of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the circumstances of each case," Taiwan was not recognized as the offical government of China, and thus they cannot have representation in the UN. Taiwan never claimed to be anything but the ROC, even to this day. A country has the right to chose its leaders how it sees fit, be it elections, or gladiator contests; that's called soverignity. It does not have the right to claim to be another country, that's called infringement on soverignity. In the case of North and South Korea, both countries have seperate governments and call themselves by different names, and do not claim to be one Korea. The same was true of the two Germanys in the Cold War. Now as for what to do with Iran---the Security Council can sanction the member, though the US has had sanctions in place for twenty years, they can declare Iran's pursuit of nuclear power as unlawful, though the IAEA can find no violation of the NPT, or the US can launch its own pre-emptive attack against any nuclear facility it deems to be a threat. With a weakened and more friendly Iraq as its neighbor, and with Russia also helping Iran withs its weapons program, the best bet is to keep US troops in Kurdistan as a check, and stir up internal rebellion against the regime; start with the Iranian Kurds and see where it leads.

Quote Reply

TriggaFingaz Dumb question from an ignorant dope 1/19/2006 6:53:41 PM

ARABS have been the intruders and invaders - they should have stayed in the Arabian Peninsula - and stayed out of Byzantine and Persian territories. So therefore, the ARABS are the cause of the problem. Time to lance their boil and drain the desert of their plague, returning it to its former Arab-free condition. I've only recently learnt that the Arabs were not native to North Africa and about half the Middle East before the founding of Islam. Does that mean that NO ONE in the Classical or Ancient era (ie, Romans, Greeks, Persians) ever met Arabs before the Prophet led Arab warriors out on an orgy of conquest for Islam... aka Jihad? Did Arabs remain a people hidden in the south of what is now Saudi Arabia, only revealing themselves alongside Islam in the 600s?

Quote Reply

Shirrush RE:Dumb question from an ignorant dope 1/19/2006 8:17:21 PM

This is far for being a dumb question, and the ignorant dope, in this case, seems to be the poster that is so certain that all Arab "intruders and invaders" must be forcibly returned to the confines of the Arabian peninsula where he is so sure they belong. He is, however, to be exonerated from being stoned to death for foaming-mouth hate mongering at some rock pillar in Medina, owing to the appalling lack of evidence pertaining to the early, pre-Islamic history and archeology of the said Arabian Peninsula. Islam is supposed to be the one and only truth, and anything that preceded it has been, and still is supressed by Islamic authorities wherever they hold sway. This has been, apparently, particularly successful in Arabia itself, and the Bamyian Buddhas are only a recent, outstanding example of this jihad against memory. Other examples abund, and it is enough to contemplate the smashed sculptures and the lost texts from Egypt to India. My very own bunch of historians of the Middle-East urges me to take into account, the complexity and the diversity of this area's ancient ethnoscape, that was moulded by the conflicting forces of Nomadism and of Settlement. The Bible has plenty of hints and straight data about this shifting situation, from the highly allegorical Cain & Abel and Jacob and 'Esav stories to the many accounts of kings and heroes battling roaming desert tribes. It thus appears that the Arabs were always present, in low numbers, across the Middle-East including Mesopotamia and the edges of Goshen, and are seen beduining around much of the Bible itself. These proto-Arabic speaking nomads become gradually more abundant and more sedentary, at least in the southern part of Eretz-Israel, in the days of the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium, where they happen to take quite successfully to trade and commerce, become Christians and literate in Greek, and begin building stuff that is markedly better-looking and more durable than camel-hair tenting. These astonishingly well-preserved Nabatean ruins can be visited today, primarily at Petra in Jordan, but also at Avdat in the Negev Highlands of Israel link and are proof of a higher order Arab-Hellenistic civilization in the 1st to the 6th centuries, at some distance away from the northernmost reaches of the Arabian peninsula. Intruders and invaders? That wouldn't describe them too accurately in this case due to their low numbers and decidedly non-military, businesslike posture. Nomadic infiltrators? Oh yes, definitly, but then, who wasn't in those days?

Quote Reply

Admiral Kirk RE:Dumb question from an ignorant dope 1/21/2006 12:30:31 PM

When will history not be repeated? We have not learned from the hitlers of the world. This president is just another hitler in the makes. Any thoughts on this? Admiral Kirk

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - November 22, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us