Iran warns US

[Jana Lewis]

Isn't this the best news Bush could have gotten? Another golden opportunity for Kerry to show Americans that Bush's only goal is to plunge the globe into a massive nuclear holocaust. Let's see how Kerry will react to this:

Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

more at:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040818/1/3mio0.html

This literally scares the hell out of me!

[chm2023]

I saw the news this AM and the Najaf situation goes on. This scares the hell out of me. This mosque is destroyed in whole or in part, and voila, another recruitment poster for AQ. You think somebody would have foreseen this outcome, the US being played into the infidel role, the Iraqi factions at each others' throats. Oh wait, someone did. Me.

[Jana Lewis]

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/19/iraq.main/ind...


This is horrid, they say the damage has been confined to two minarets. The largest most identifiable part of the mosque.

[rbaker]

When I went to bed last night Iran did not have any nuclear weapons. They don't have the physics, engineering or means to produce their own. They have been trying to get their hands them but none of the countries that possess them are willing to destabilize that part of the world by placing these weapons in the hands of these rogues.

So, I go to sleep again tonight secure in the knowledge that the defense of my country is in good and proper hands.

Sorry Janna, no nuclear holocaust this time.

[Jana Lewis]

When I went to bed last night Iran did not have any nuclear weapons. They don't have the physics, engineering or means to produce their own. They have been trying to get their hands them but none of the countries that possess them are willing to destabilize that part of the world by placing these weapons in the hands of these rogues.

So, I go to sleep again tonight secure in the knowledge that the defense of my country is in good and proper hands.

Sorry Janna, no nuclear holocaust this time.

HUH?????

[rinselberg]

hello Jana Lewis and chm2023

Are you both breathing from the same laughing gas cylinder today?

I think you are both having an "off day". I hope that you have some backup statements prepared in case the Najaf mosque is left standing, largely undamaged -- and we are all left alive and not buried under the ash from a massive nuclear war. The DoD mission in Iraq is seen as a reluctant but necessary measure by some (like me); or as the product of totally flawed thinking by others. But either way, what's going on in Najaf is just a little sideshow, politically. The good news is that the IIG (interim Iraqi government) will improve its credibility by asserting some control over Najaf and shifting the Al Sadr militia out of there. I don't know how the sartorially challenged Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (lose that sailor's cap, dude) is going to come out of this, but I don't think he will gain any larger following than he already had.

"Another recruiting poster for AlQaeda" ... ah, how quickly that phrase has become a meaningless cliche.

Here's the only recruiting poster that AlQaeda needs or even wants:



See ya!

[mrba]

Am I still on earth or has an alternate universe happened ala Star Trek?

All I know is when My church, armed with rocket launchers and snipers in the choir loft gets bombed, I'm gonna be really mad. Jerry Fallwell and Billy Grahm will then start a nuclear program from where they will launch a pre-emptive strike with weapons they don't have.

Ohh... wait. I'm channeling Shanbaum logic.

:bbg:

[rep]

Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites

O how I wish they would do just that. Then we would have no pretense as to what this is all about and could take them out just like we did Sadam. The Iranians are terrified that Iraq is actually becoming a democracy right smack in the middle of their Arab world. In their own country Iranian youth are becoming increasing disenchanted with the ruling mullas and see hope in the democracy next door.

Iran is sending terriorist to Iraq to try and stop the spread of democracy. They are surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other advocating democracy in the region to the leaders own peril.

It will be interesting. I am pretty sure GW is pulling the troops home for multiple reasons. One is payback for the non support from our Kraut Nato members, the second just might be to have a major invasion force for Iran and Syria who both continue to export terriorism. Remember he warned them, and this President keeps his word.

I am not the least bit worried about them having nuclear weapons. If they did Israel would have taken them out by now. Your listening to a lot of Arab hot air similar to their threats of destruction just before the 7 day war and we all know what happened then.

Rep

Rep

[shanbaum]

O how I wish they would do just that. Then we would have no pretense as to what this is all about and could take them out just like we did Sadam. The Iranians are terrified that Iraq is actually becoming a democracy right smack in the middle of their Arab world. In their own country Iranian youth are becoming increasing disenchanted with the ruling mullas and see hope in the democracy next door.

Iran is sending terriorist to Iraq to try and stop the spread of democracy. They are surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other advocating democracy in the region to the leaders own peril.

It will be interesting. I am pretty sure GW is pulling the troops home for multiple reasons. One is payback for the non support from our Kraut Nato members, the second just might be to have a major invasion force for Iran and Syria who both continue to export terriorism. Remember he warned them, and this President keeps his word.

I am not the least bit worried about them having nuclear weapons. If they did Israel would have taken them out by now. Your listening to a lot of Arab hot air similar to their threats of destruction just before the 7 day war and we all know what happened then.

Rep

Rep

Wow. You managed to get just about every demonstrable fact wrong.

It was the "Six Day War", not the "7 day war", and Iran did not participate in it.

Iranians are not "Arabs", and Iran is not "surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other" - check a map.

As for your subjective assertions, they appear to be about as well-informed as your objective ones.

To assert that something "democratic" has happened in Iraq is wishful thinking. Were you thinking that there had been something like a vote on something?

The Iranians are going to sit back and await the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iraq, with which they will form an alliance - though perhaps not a particularly close one. While they are both Shiite, there's a history of animosity between the two which may never be overcome - each side killed lots of the other, and the legacy of injury is injury.

An invasion of Iran would be nothing short of insane; to not be worried about their acquiring nukes is idiotic.

But, thanks for demonstrating just how misinformed people can be. Please, don't let that stop you from forming strong opinions, and sticking to them. After all, that's leadership.

[shanbaum]

Ohh... wait. I'm channeling Shanbaum logic.

:bbg:

That'll be the day.

[chm2023]

They are surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other advocating democracy in the region to the leaders own peril.

It will be interesting. I am pretty sure GW is pulling the troops home for multiple reasons. One is payback for the non support from our Kraut Nato members, the second just might be to have a major invasion force for Iran and Syria who both continue to export terriorism. Remember he warned them, and this President keeps his word.

I am not the least bit worried about them having nuclear weapons. If they did Israel would have taken them out by now. Your listening to a lot of Arab hot air similar to their threats of destruction just before the 7 day war and we all know what happened then.

Rep

Rep

First, buy a map.

Second, it's interesting that you think "Israel would have taken them--Iran's nuclear weapons by now". Presumably the Israelis thought Saddam had nuclear weapons or capability, didn't take them; knew Libya had them, didn't take them. But in Iran's case, they would??? How so??

Third, I know it's hard for Shrub to walk and chew gum at the same time, but the big problem with the pullback of troops--and for a giggle, take a look at the proposed time line--is Korea. Remember them? The guys we KNOW have nuclear weapons? And as for the "Krauts"--nice--it has been many, many years since we have kept weapons on German soil at their request. They have allowed us to keep our bases there as an ally. But we don't need allies anymore, right?


http://www.cincypost.com/2004/08/19/hall081904.html


Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[rep]

shanbaum

With a front, as an Optiboard scholar I am shocked and stunned that you forgot (or evidently have no knowledge of) the 1948 7-day war between Israel and and the Arabs. Don't make me further embarass you by posting references. Try Google ( I never said it was with Iraq, just similar Arab boasting as they did in 1947) It's a trait of the middle east and middle easterners.

In regards to the map reference, I was refering to both Iran and Syria. Israel is on one side of Syria - Irag the new democratic government (weather you like it or not) is on the other side . Iran has Iraq on one side and the new democratic government of Afganistan on the other side. Nice sandwich.

I admit it, I did post in error that Iran had Israel on one boarder, which was incorrect, I knew better just typed in the wrong country. Your correct. I apologize

My point is/was that both, now have democratic countries very close or on their boarders, for the first time in history. And they aren't too happy about it. That's why there is a lot at stake, world political geographic changes of major proportions.

As a true democrat I know it greeves you to have democracy's popping up all over the world but that seems to be the trend.

Now who's misinformed? I misplaced a country - You missed a whole war.

chm2023

News Flash this Just In (1981)

Evidently you haven't heard Israel did take out Sadam's French Nuclear plant in 1981. References in case you need additional education. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3014623.stm

Evidently you also haven't heard that the Krauts (that's what they deserve to be called again) are screaming bloody murder that we're leaving, and all those American dollars are going back home to the States. Seems it might cause them economic problems. Shame Shame Shame.
http://en.ce.cn/World/Europe/200408/..._1538816.shtml


Please look up references on Google before you go off half cocked again.

Your ruining your reputation for inteligent responses.

Rep

[chm2023]

shanbaum

With a front, as an Optiboard scholar I am shocked and stunned that you forgot (or evidently have no knowledge of) the 1948 7-day war between Israel and and the Arabs. Don't make me further embarass you by posting references. Try Google ( I never said it was with Iraq, just similar Arab boasting as they did in 1947) It's a trait of the middle east and middle easterners.

In regards to the map reference, I was refering to both Iran and Syria. Israel is on one side of Syria - Irag the new democratic government (weather you like it or not) is on the other side . Iran has Iraq on one side and the new democratic government of Afganistan on the other side. Nice sandwich.

I admit it, I did post in error that Iran had Israel on one boarder, which was incorrect, I knew better just typed in the wrong country. Your correct. I apologize

My point is/was that both, now have democratic countries very close or on their boarders, for the first time in history. And they aren't too happy about it. That's why there is a lot at stake, world political geographic changes of major proportions.

As a true democrat I know it greeves you to have democracy's popping up all over the world but that seems to be the trend.

Now who's misinformed? I misplaced a country - You missed a whole war.

chm2023

News Flash this Just In (1981)

Evidently you haven't heard Israel did take out Sadam's French Nuclear plant in 1981. References in case you need additional education. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3014623.stm

Evidently you also haven't heard that the Krauts (that's what they deserve to be called again) are screaming bloody murder that we're leaving, and all those American dollars are going back home to the States. Seems it might cause them economic problems. Shame Shame Shame.
http://en.ce.cn/World/Europe/200408/..._1538816.shtml


Please look up references on Google before you go off half cocked again.

Your ruining your reputation for inteligent responses.

Rep

Look, are we playing gotcha or having an intelligent conversation? Your point (though it's hard to tell with you, see "I was referring to both Iran and Syria"???) appears to be that Israel not attacking Iran is proof positive they do not possess nuclear weapons. True, Israel took out a nuclear processing facility 23 years ago in Iraq, but no action since, irrespective of the fact that Israel supported the notion that Saddam had nuclear capability up thru 2003, and ditto Libya, Israel knew they had, no action to take out. Therefore, your premise, that Israeli attacks is the litmus test of nuclear capability, is flawed.

Germany is sorry to lose the bucks, not the military presence per se. Go google that. (That the problem with the net and google etc. People mistake access to information for knowledge and the ability to think critically. Big mistake.)

And I'll take care of my reputation sonny, you take care of yours.

[shanbaum]

shanbaum

With a front, as an Optiboard scholar I am shocked and stunned that you forgot (or evidently have no knowledge of) the 1948 7-day war between Israel and and the Arabs. Don't make me further embarass you by posting references.

The Israeli War of Independence lasted seven months, from May of 1948 to January of 1949.

Please, let me see the embarrassing references.

[mrba]

Wow. You managed to get just about every demonstrable fact wrong.

And yet none of your facts proved the premise of his argument wrong. For instance...

It was the "Six Day War", not the "7 day war", and Iran did not participate in it.

Ok, then like God, on the 7th day they rested. So what.

Iranians are not "Arabs", and Iran is not "surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other" - check a map.

Yes they are Persians, that changes everything. And I suggest you check a map, maybe they aren't surrounded, however they are boardered by Iraq and in range of Isreal's weapons. So the point holds.

To assert that something "democratic" has happened in Iraq is wishful thinking. Were you thinking that there had been something like a vote on something?

Yes they were supposed to have a vote immediatly after W landed on the carrier and proclaimed an end to hostilities. Right...

The Iranians are going to sit back and await the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iraq, with which they will form an alliance - though perhaps not a particularly close one. While they are both Shiite, there's a history of animosity between the two which may never be overcome - each side killed lots of the other, and the legacy of injury is injury.

Now you are making sense for just a second. But then...

An invasion of Iran would be nothing short of insane; to not be worried about their acquiring nukes is idiotic.

Who said anything about invasion? I thought he was talking about nuclear retaliation if the event occured.

But, thanks for demonstrating just how misinformed people can be. Please, don't let that stop you from forming strong opinions, and sticking to them. After all, that's leadership.

Uh huh. Ok.

[mrba]

Therefore, your premise, that Israeli attacks is the litmus test of nuclear capability, is flawed.

I agree with Chm. The liberals in Washington and Isreal would never allow another attack on a nuclear facility.

[shanbaum]

And yet none of your facts proved the premise of his argument wrong.

What do you think the "premise of his argument" was?

If one asserts that a country is surrounded, and it is not surrounded, in what sense, exactly, does the "point hold"?

Let's grant that Iran is in fact "surrounded" by Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you were surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan, what would be your biggest concern with regard to your neighbors? Does "democrary" spring to mind?

"Anarchy", maybe. "Chaos", maybe. Democracy?

Who said anything about invasion?

He did: "we...could take them out just like we did Sadam"

Uh huh. Ok.

Now, there's an insightful comment.

[chm2023]

And yet none of your facts proved the premise of his argument wrong. For instance...
.

Can you tell me what the premise of his argument is? Succinctly if possible.

[shanbaum]

Yes they were supposed to have a vote immediatly after W landed on the carrier and proclaimed an end to hostilities. Right...

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, isn't it?

Regardless (or, as you would put it, "irregardless") of the validity of the assertions that a) it's not practical to have a vote right after an conquest; and b) there may be such a vote in the future; it is not unreasonable to characterize a description of the present state of Iraq as "democratic" as "wishful thinking".

Do you actually have something to say on that point?

[shanbaum]

And I suggest you check a map, maybe they aren't surrounded, however they are boardered by Iraq and in range of Isreal's weapons. So the point holds.

Except, rep's point had nothing to do with the range of Israel's weapons; he was asserting that Iran was surrounded by the democracies of Israel and Iraq, and that they feared democracy: "Iran is sending terriorist to Iraq to try and stop the spread of democracy. They are surrounded by Israel on one side and Iraq on the other advocating democracy in the region to the leaders own peril."

The Iranian theocrats may indeed come to be nervous about democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, if successful ones are ever established there.

But to suggest that these are democracies at present is exactly what I said it was: wishful thinking.

Do you disagree? Is Iraq a democracy today? Is Afghanistan?

[rep]

As requested http://www.varchive.org/obs/481031.htm

Your right it took 7 months of negotiations, but in reality it was over in 7-days.


Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot more democratic today than they have ever been in the past. Dont your agree?

Rep

[rep]

chm2023

You believe that Israel thinks Iraq and Libia had nukes. I would like to see your references on that please . Yes, I believe they think they were developing them( just as we did) but no they don't have them.

I also don't believe that anyone could or would stop Israel from taking them out with a preemptive strike if they thought they were a treat.

Rep

[shanbaum]

As requested http://www.varchive.org/obs/481031.htm

Your right it took 7 months of negotiations, but in reality it was over in 7-days.

That article (which I had never seen) refers to a single battle (with which I'm not familiar), and the phrase "7-day war" is not used anywhere else to describe that conflict, or any other part, of the War of Independence. There is simply no measure by which one can say that any aspect of that war was "over in 7 days". Look here for more information about Israel's wars:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ry/wartoc.html

Having been a Jewish child (and having had a Jewish religious education) in the 1950's, trust me, if the term "7-day war" were used in such a manner, I'd know about it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot more democratic today than they have ever been in the past. Dont your agree?

Rep

No, I don't agree. So far as I know, there's not a whit of democracy in either country, so far. In both cases, the governments have been established by us, basically. We appointed them. That isn't democracy.

I'm not saying that there will never be democracies in either of these places. But it's absurd to say that just because they've been relieved of their former tyrannical governments, they're now democratic. There has to be some actual infrastructure that promotes the will of the people into force of law. I hope that sort of thing is under construction; but it sure as heck isn't there yet.

My reading of the situation is that at this point, both countries are more chaotic than anything else.

[mrba]

Do you disagree? Is Iraq a democracy today? Is Afghanistan?

I would not expect them to be any time soon. However, I do believe there is hope of that outcome yet.

[chip anderson]

As to any an all threats against the United States: In the words of Roosevelt, Teddy Roosvelt that is: "Bring 'em on we'll whip them before breakfast."

Message given Kiser Willhelm when he was bragging about the might of Germany. Germany refrained at least while Teddy was in office.

Chip