Russia: Attack on Iran "Direct Threat to Our National Security"

Border-Rat

“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

MyKeyG

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

Does your IQ allow for the fact that Iran are enriching uranium?

Zillah

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

Do you think nuclear weapons are an urban myth or something?

Border-Rat

Zillah wrote: »

Do you think nuclear weapons are an urban myth or something?

Can they be prepared in 45 minutes?

MyKeyG

Border-Rat wrote: »

Can they be prepared in 45 minutes?

So you're saying the world waits until they have them?

Border-Rat

MyKeyG wrote: »

So you're saying the world waits until they have them?

Why should we believe the people who lied about Iraqi WMD? Do you think David Kelly killed himself?

irishh_bob

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why should we believe the people who lied about Iraqi WMD? Do you think David Kelly killed himself?

i believe blair and the team who trumped up the cause for war with iraq are liars but kelly probabley did kill himself , he wasnt important enough to be taken out

Border-Rat

irishh_bob wrote: »

i believe blair and the team who trumped up the cause for war with iraq are liars but kelly probabley did kill himself , he wasnt important enough to be taken out

I guess the reason they're keeping documents relating to the case under lock and key for the next 70 years is because of... well, I dunno. Not even this 'Conspiracy Theorist' can make up an excuse for that one.

Suryavarman

Can't see what people's deal with Iran having the bomb is. Plenty of countries already have the bomb, why should Iran be treated any different?

Biggins

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

While I don't dispute some of the basic facts and treaties etc mentioned in that article, its oft times hard to take such websites as 100% accurate when they link to ("And see this.") as their source others sites that provide material like:

Important to note is that the Western powers first use of a deadly flu virus to destroy their enemies and overthrow the established global order was first used less than a century ago in 1918 when the Spanish Flu variant was unleashed at the ending of World War I and killed an estimated 50-100 million people which represented fully 3-6% of the world’s entire population. Some 500 million, or 27%, were infected.

Archived KGB files on the Spanish Flu pandemic have always stated that this deadly virus was “bio-engineered” by US military scientists who used as their “guinea pigs” American Soldiers who were the first recorded victims and were stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas.

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/12/china-joins-russia-orders-military-to-prepare-for-world-war-iii/

dlofnep

Russia is just posturing. It doesn't want to see a war in the area, so it will send out a few soundbytes to gauge the reaction, and make the US/Israel second guess an attack on Iran. I don't get the feeling that the Brits will want to take part in this war if it goes down.

Should Iran have nuclear weapons? No. Do they have nuclear weapons? There is nothing to suggest that they do. Could they potentially be attempting to deviate outside of their nuclear enrichment program for energy, to create a nuclear warhead? It's possible.

But we simply can't pick and choose who to impose sanctions on in the middle east for nuclear weapons. We either impose it on all of them (including Israel), or none of them. This selective sanctioning will only cause more trouble.

Cardinal Richelieu

MyKeyG wrote: »

Does your IQ allow for the fact that Iran are enriching uranium?

Is that a valid reason to go to war against any country? When does the invasion of North Korea, Pakistan, India start?

Dirk Gently

Considering the us has armed Israel and saudi to the teeth, bombed and occupied 2 neighbouring countries and have land air and sea forces right next door and israels nuclear armed regieme is itching for a war, I think Iran would be mad not to build a bomb.

doomed

Look at this from the point of view of a country that is thinking of developing WMD.

First, Israel, Pakistan and India have them so why not us?
Second, Iraq had none and was invaded whereas North Korea had lots and even the US hawks never even contempleted invasion. Hmmm?

bwatson

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

The English? Really?

I take it you aren't quite so politically unaware that you do not understand the concept of what a sovereign state is, and that you are trying to express an opinion on the English (who you clearly dislike) in a not so subtle manner?

RichieC

Suryavarman wrote: »

Can't see what people's deal with Iran having the bomb is. Plenty of countries already have the bomb, why should Iran be treated any different?

Iran has the makings of a regional superpower and america cant afford that.

Biggins

bwatson wrote: »

The English? Really?

I take it you aren't quite so politically unaware that you do not understand the concept of what a sovereign state is, and that you are trying to express an opinion on the English (who you clearly dislike) in a not so subtle manner?

The reference to 'the English' threw me as well.
I was like "...what?"

tricky D

RichieC wrote: »

Iran has the makings of a regional superpower and america cant afford that.

Add Saudi Arabia, the elephant in the room wrt the current Iranian crisis.

guitarzero

Let me get this straight.

The arabs cant have weapons because, what? They're crazies? Right. But Israel can? Already things are looking warped.

So America, who are armed to the teeth should have weapons because they need to defend freedom all over the arab world using these WMD.

Basically, if you are not white you cant have these Nuclear WMD.

Why are these thing made in the first place? Who gets up in the morning, has a round of toast, shows up at the nuclear plant/weapon manufacturing and casually starts constructing these things that kill mass amounts of people? How do you go home after work and just tell the wife and kids that you were busy imagining how to kill as many people as possible in the coolest and most efficient way possible using technology. Surely people have a responsibility to put psychopaths in prison or to get help. Whats the UN's stance on these b*astards who waste tax payers cash on funding their sons deaths via fancy aircraft?

RichieC

tricky D wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Iran has the makings of a regional superpower and america cant afford that.

Add Saudi Arabia, the elephant in the room wrt the current Iranian crisis.

KSA are friendly to the west so their appalling human rights record and support of terrorism is not an issue.

Manach

If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, then this will likely start off a regional race to acquire nuclear weapons by other countries such as Saudi Arabia, who according to news reports part funded the Pakistani devices.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the English, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

Sabre-rattling and posturing. With the enrichment site underground in Fordo Iran can be used to obtain nuclear weapon within 6 months to 1 year if it so chooses, world powers are obviously concerned about this as Iran has constantly stated they have no wish to weaponise and are a signatory of the NPT.

Another anti-US/Israel agenda biased statement which doesn't take into account all factors, only those that will malign US, etc.

fran17

america has killed tens of thousands in the region but as long as its in "the defence of oil,sorry freedom" then thats fine.iran with nuclear capabilities might be just what is needed to strike a balance

Biggins

guitarzero wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

The arabs cant have weapons because, what? They're crazies? Right. But Israel can? Already things are looking warped.

So America, who are armed to the teeth should have weapons because they need to defend freedom all over the arab world using these WMD.

Basically, if you are not white you cant have these Nuclear WMD.

Why are these thing made in the first place? Who gets up in the morning, has a round of toast, shows up at the nuclear plant/weapon manufacturing and casually starts constructing these things that kill mass amounts of people? How do you go home after work and just tell the wife and kids that you were busy imagining how to kill as many people as possible in the coolest and most efficient way possible using technology. Surely people have a responsibility to put psychopaths in prison or to get help. Whats the UN's stance on these b*astards who waste tax payers cash on funding their sons deaths via fancy aircraft?

Wow, just wow!
I'm not even going to approach the largest latter paragraph, its so out there!

What you seem to be missing is a complete other picture also!

The arabs cant have weapons because, what? They're crazies?...

Basically, if you are not white you cant have these Nuclear WMD...

That statement is so crass, it borders on complete stupidity!

You totally fail to see that regardless of who is more guilty than the other on either side, the problem is nuclear material falling into the hands of those that would bring terror and destruction down upon innocent heads.
In the case of SOME Arab countries seen as to be in a higher risk category based on a great number of assessed variables, the passing of such material could lead to be:
1. used directly by a state or
2. passed directly to others by a said state or
3. taken by unstable internal factions within a state.

This could lead with said unstable factions/state to firing off either an armed weapon and/or by covert means, igniting a 'dirty bomb' which in all honesty could fit in a case.

The world fears SOME countries (NOT necessarily Arab ones!) that are so unstable and/or that have shown by previous actions, that they are willing to pass material/money/other weapons to others - that to allow the ante to be upped with now or later further nuclear material in their possible hands - is like allowing them to play a possible game of "Russian Roulette" with the world standing by waiting for an unfortunate incident to occur!

JustinDee

guitarzero wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

The arabs cant have weapons because, what? They're crazies? Right. But Israel can? Already things are looking warped...etc...etc

Arabs have nothing to do with it. The subject is about Iran (a non-Arabic country), which replacing Nasser's Egypt as Russia's vox majoris in the Middle East Cold War theatre has been in covert war with Israel since 1980.

Valmont

So what if Iran has a nuclear missile?! North Korea have one for goodness sake; they haven't blown us off the face of the earth just yet. Considering the American State was the only one evil enough to actually murder 200,000 civilians with one of the things, why is the spectre of an armed Iran so frightening to everyone all of a sudden?

Presented with the possibility of another drawn out, protracted, and altogether bloody conflict, I say let them have their fecking bomb and just leave them alone.

davoxx

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Is that a valid reason to go to war against any country? When does the invasion of North Korea, Pakistan, India start?

never, are you mad? they have nukes, usa only picks fights with weak sick kids, not ones that might be able to throw a punch ...

Headshot

Regarding north Korea having a nuke so why can't Iran? Well for one Iran sponsor terrorist

davoxx

Biggins wrote: »

You totally fail to see that regardless of who is more guilty than the other on either side, the problem is nuclear material falling into the hands of those that would bring terror and destruction down upon innocent heads.

yeah you are right, when will american apologise and pay compensation to the Japanese civilian victims of little boy and fat man ...

Killer Pigeon

America's direct, interventionist, neo-conservative foreign policy will eventually lead to a clash (of some sorts) with more formidable countries such as China or Russia.

davoxx

Headshot wrote: »

Regarding north Korea having a nuke so why can't Iran? Well for one Iran sponsor terrorist

even if that was true, are you also claiming that usa/isreal/uk do not sponsor terrorism? or are you saying that in their case it is okay?

you do know that usa/uk don't have squeaky clean backgrounds to back their 'jobs' as world police ...

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/220937.html oh hypocrisy, thy name be israel ...

so now are you going to campaign to get isreal sanctions/invaded for having nukes and sponsoring terrorists? ... didn't think so.

Killer Pigeon

Suryavarman wrote: »

Can't see what people's deal with Iran having the bomb is. Plenty of countries already have the bomb, why should Iran be treated any different?

Exactly. And even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be suicidal for them to actually use it or sell it to "terrorists". That would promote an immediate retaliation from Israel and the US.

Saying this, I don't believe they have the capacity to create a nuclear weapon - at the most, maybe a very low kilo-tonne weapon.

eire.man

Headshot wrote: »

Regarding north Korea having a nuke so why can't Iran? Well for one Iran sponsor terrorist

so do the USA ffs!!

wes

One would hope no one would do something stupid like attack Iran. The regional war it would likely spark would be bad for everyone. While wha the Russian are saying may well be just rhetoric, they know full well how bad a war will be for not just those involved, but for everyone.

As for the claims being made by the US etc, I find them simply impossible to believe, especially after the lies of Iraq, and I find it rather shocking at how naive some people are to believe the US, when they are peddling basically the same lie again, so shortly after there war of aggression against Iraq. IMHO, the US is not trust worthy in regard to claims about WMDs in Middle Eastern countries.

Killer Pigeon

I think the US/West's real motivation behind a possible war with Iran would be to hinder the growth of East Asian nations, such as China.

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

As for the claims being made by the US etc, I find them simply impossible to believe, especially after the lies of Iraq, and I find it rather shocking at how naive some people are to believe the US, when they are peddling basically the same lie again, so shortly after there war of aggression against Iraq. IMHO, the US is not trust worthy in regard to claims about WMDs in Middle Eastern countries.

What are you talking about "believe the US"? This isn't about people's petty bias against country A and country B. The Bush administration aren't in power any more.

This isn't Iraq, its a completely different situation.

Read the November IAEA report.

sweet jesus, enough with the broken record, every single international incident that involves either the US or Israel (or any European powers) is somehow a re-enactment of Iraq.

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

What are you talking about "believe the US"? This isn't about people's petty bias against country A and country B. The Bush administration aren't in power any more.

So people were put in jail for lies that caused the deaths of so many people then? Last time I checked very little has actually been done about those behind the Iraq war. Hell, they can't even close Guantanamo bay ffs. The current admin has done little or nothing to distance themselves from the previous admin. So, yes I think anyone who believes the US to be hopelessly naive.

Jonny7 wrote: »

This isn't Iraq, its a completely different situation.

No, its very similar, and involved a lot of the same people banging on about WMD's and we are suppose to believe a thing they say? Sorry, but not buying it this time.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Read the November IAEA report.

The one that was hyped up by war mongers, the report that reiterated information we already knew from before 2003? That report? I am well aware of it.

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus, enough with the broken record, every single international incident that involves either the US or Israel (or any European powers) is somehow a re-enactment of Iraq.

So the broken record of imaginary WMDs is meant to be ignored? Laughable!

The US causes the deaths of 1000s and we are suppose to forget about it, as it a-ok for the US to kill people, on the back of a bunch of lies, and how dare anyone bring up all the blood on the hands of the US, when they try to pull the same crap again. Its very simple, the US killed a lot of people, and apparently it to be forgotten, and no one is to ever be punished, and we don't dare mention the US crimes, or dare hold it against them or anything. Bloody absurd to ignore Iraq imho, and you can be sure people will bring it up again and agian, as long as the US and her apologist bring up the issue of imaginary nuclear weapons in Iran.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

What are you talking about "believe the US"? This isn't about people's petty bias against country A and country B. The Bush administration aren't in power any more.

therefore everything is different, and those lies were part of the past ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

This isn't Iraq, its a completely different situation.

yeah, iran is militarily stronger and russia/china have learnt their lesson from trusting america ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

Read the November IAEA report.

i did, what is the conclusion of the report? who provided the "information"? would it be the same member states that found "information" on WMD? how old is this information ... please bush is not in power anyone, so who is steering the train?

Jonny7 wrote: »

sweet jesus, enough with the broken record, every single international incident that involves either the US or Israel (or any European powers) is somehow a re-enactment of Iraq.

sweet mary, mother of jesus, wife of joseph, enough with the blind denial, everything single incident that involves either the us or israel (or any european powers) is somehow a completely new blunder with completely unexpected lies from proven liars, but we must not take past history into account here, only with iran, and iraq, and any other country the west wants to invade, then we can use past mistakes against them ...

eire.man

Jonny7 wrote: »

wes wrote: »

As for the claims being made by the US etc, I find them simply impossible to believe, especially after the lies of Iraq, and I find it rather shocking at how naive some people are to believe the US, when they are peddling basically the same lie again, so shortly after there war of aggression against Iraq. IMHO, the US is not trust worthy in regard to claims about WMDs in Middle Eastern countries.

What are you talking about "believe the US"? This isn't about people's petty bias against country A and country B. The Bush administration aren't in power any more.

This isn't Iraq, its a completely different situation.

Read the November IAEA report.

sweet jesus, enough with the broken record, every single international incident that involves either the US or Israel (or any European powers) is somehow a re-enactment of Iraq.

no, but those who controlled the bush administration are even more powerful today so whats your point??

Ellis Dee

When was the last time Iran attacked another country? Answer: 1768, eight years before the USA came into being.:)

When was the last time the USA attacked another country? Look it up.:D

When was the last time the zionazi terror entity that occupies Palestine and calls itself "Israel", has hundreds of nuclear warheads and is unquestioningly supported by the USA in all of its illegal and genocidal actions, attacked another country? :rolleyes:

There will never be any hope of peace based on fairness in the Middle East until the zionazi terror entity's nuclear monopoly has ended and it must negotiate with its neighbours rather than behaving the way it currently does. I wish there were NO nuclear weapons in the world, but understand well why Iran would want to have them.

After all, it has a lot of oil and has been the subject of threats and aggression ever since it overthrew the psychopathic despot Reza Pahlawi, who was himself installed by the British and Americans after they had engineered a coup against the democratically elected Mossadeq government. Without that and the decades of brutal rule that followed, when the Shah and his savage secret police were trained by the CIA and Mossad, Iran might well be a semi-mature democracy like India by now. But given the brutality of the Shah's repression and the total support it received from the Americans, there was no hope of democratic development and the only people who could get rid of a regime like that couldn't be altar boys or boy scouts.

The Russians are quite legitimately worried about the impacts that an ill-considered attack by the USA and/or its zionazi junior partner would have on the entire region. I bet the Chinese and Indians are no less concerned.:)

And so should all of us be.:cool:

Hannibal

Israel had a secret nuclear program and look how whistle blower Vanunu ended up for telling the truth..
Plus Israel sponsor terrorism using other countries passports to help their agents, add in the ethnic clensing of the Palestinian population and tell me how is Iran worse than Israel.

WakeUp

Anyone who doubts the Russians mean business would really need to take another look at things they are seriously pissed/freaked out. Apart from the NATO encirclement of their country at the moment with regard to an attack on Iran they do view it as a threat to their country. For numerous reasons. The Russians believe an attack on Iran is imminent and have been planning for it for the past two years. Their military forces in Armenia and on the Turkish border are on high alert with military families evacuated and they have been sending extra equipment there since last year. They believe a US/NATO ground invasion force - if it goes in - will enter through Turkey.

The Russians have a military base in Armenia a crucial gateway/outpost for them in the South Caucasus and they fear losing it if Iran is attacked. Russia/Armenia/Iran have close ties and would in all likely hood be allies should an attack take place where as Turkey (NATO member) and Azerbaijan have closer ties to the West . Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at war on and off since the 90's one backed by Russia one backed by the West. An attack on Iran may open a window of opportunity for Armenia to be invaded and this crucial energy corridor secured this is what Russia fears.

In my opinion this is one reason why Russia might view an attack on Iran as a direct threat to its national security and all this boll0x talk and fear mongering in the press and by the West about Iranian attempts to build a bomb be they real or not, is just that , the exact same thing happened in Iraq, scare and frighten people into perceived outcomes and what ifs all the time readying the public and gaining support for an attack that will take place to "protect" them. It isnt about protecting anyone its about control of resources and territory.

Should the West and Israel be allowed continue on their path and possibly trigger a world wide conflict involving the use of nuclear weapon based on paranois and what ifs?? Of course they shouldn't but judging by a lot of responses and this thread and threads like it, it appears the propaganda blitz has worked, incredibly, again on a lot of people who are making excuses and buying into the bull sh1t.

The possibility of Iran potentially building one nuclear weapon in the next year or two is not a life or death catastrophe and certainly not a reason to start a new war. Iran surely realizes that were they to use such a weapon, it would be certain suicide. People have already been brainwashed into supporting an attack should "diplomacy" fail. But the press and media blitz isn't making any noise about the thousands of nukes the Russians have and the potential for a world wide conflict because they don't want us thinking of such things. The world is edging closer and closer to a conflict the likes of which we have never seen before can people not see this. The US/Israeli/West scare mongering and tactics are straight out of the Nazi txt book.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Hermann Goering ( a horrible evil man who I derive no pleasure from quoting )

Same tactic different decade, people need to snap out of and stop supporting these war mongers and believing their lies before they trigger a conflict that doesnt bear thinking about.

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

So people were put in jail for lies that caused the deaths of so many people then? Last time I checked very little has actually been done about those behind the Iraq war. Hell, they can't even close Guantanamo bay ffs. The current admin has done little or nothing to distance themselves from the previous admin. So, yes I think anyone who believes the US to be hopelessly naive.

jaysus.. more of it.

No, its very similar, and involved a lot of the same people banging on about WMD's and we are suppose to believe a thing they say? Sorry, but not buying it this time.

No it isn't very similar at all.

The one that was hyped up by war mongers, the report that reiterated information we already knew from before 2003? That report? I am well aware of it.

You are not judging the Iranian situation on its own merit.

The US causes the deaths of 1000s and we are suppose to forget about it, as it a-ok for the US to kill people, on the back of a bunch of lies, and how dare anyone bring up all the blood on the hands of the US, when they try to pull the same crap again. Its very simple, the US killed a lot of people, and apparently it to be forgotten, and no one is to ever be punished, and we don't dare mention the US crimes, or dare hold it against them or anything. Bloody absurd to ignore Iraq imho, and you can be sure people will bring it up again and agian, as long as the US and her apologist bring up the issue of imaginary nuclear weapons in Iran.

Read what you are writing, its an angry almost emotional rant about Iraq. It isn't anything else.

Sure I was the same way myself, but its just biased baggage that adds little or nothing to the debate - and generally just attracts the usual frenzy of US/Israel bashing - as you may have noticed..

Anyway back on topic.. if that's even possible... I think there is a lot of careful handling of the situation going on in Russia, on the one hand they want to appear strong and resilient esp. to Western powers (also recent domestic dents in the polls) and on the other hand they to express their own concern with Iranian developments, including the recent disclosure of the 20% enrichment plant.

I think that when push comes to shove the Russians are going to act as peacemakers rather than escalate the situation.

HamletOrHecuba

MyKeyG wrote: »

Does your IQ allow for the fact that Iran are enriching uranium?

Iran is very much threatened by "Israel" which is packing nuclear weapons but also by Pakistan which also has them and has an increasingly powerful anti-Shia Sunnai fundamentalist movement. So with two these enemies facing it would it not be just and right for Iran to have nuclear weapons also? That said Iran has stated that it believes nuclear weapons to be immoral, its concern to about its electrical supply though is also just. It is a country with a very ancient, beautiful and sophisticated culture; they are not the barbarians they are made out to be.

Black Swan

Ellis Dee wrote: »

When was the last time Iran attacked another country? Answer: 1768, eight years before the USA came into being.:)

"Iran-Iraq War, 1980–88, protracted military conflict between Iran and Iraq. It officially began on Sept. 22, 1980, with an Iraqi land and air invasion of western Iran, although Iraqi spokespersons maintained that Iran had been engaging in artillery attacks on Iraqi towns since Sept. 4."

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825449.html

Saddam Hussein officially started the Iran-Iraq War, but both countries had been involved in historic border disputes that lead to war, so realistically blame is probably shared.

Dannyboy83

Good ol'USA - fighting for truth and justice

The same USA that refused to extradite ex-Chilean President Pinochet (250k politically motivated executions?), yet extradites a British student (tiny fish in a huge pond) for file sharing

Or according to a recent Wikileak;
The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any Euroxpean Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.


Honestly, anyone who keeps up with Wikileaks should be able to understand why so many 'rogue states' seem so eager to acquire WMDs.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

The one that was hyped up by war mongers, the report that reiterated information we already knew from before 2003? That report? I am well aware of it

You don't appear to have read it fully in that case.

“As Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Why do you and others constantly bleating about Iraq, keep ignoring this?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

JustinDee

Ellis Dee wrote: »

When was the last time Iran attacked another country? Answer: 1768, eight years before the USA came into being.:)

Wrong answer.
Read up on the Pasdaran in Tajikistan, the Caucusus region, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kashmir and their relationship with Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, PKK then try and then try qualifying what you said with credibility.

walshb

Zillah wrote: »

Do you think nuclear weapons are an urban myth or something?

Yes, particularly when the West insist they exist outside of the West. Iraq isn't that long ago.

RandomName2

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

It appears the UK, Americans and Israelis are inching us towards a possible World War using the same, tired old 'WMD' chestnut. A fable which nobody with an IQ above 74 takes seriously.

World war? Pish, come off it: Iran is, as ever, isolated. Iran has typically hated Russia/USSR, in much the same way it has hated the UK and America; all due to the 'foreign interference' the antagonism to which helped drive the revolution.

Now you're trying to mix up the situation, in the same way that US propagandists during the cold war attempted to do, by saying that Iran and Iraq are synonymous. And, by the way, although the American and British intelligence agencies lied and exaggerated about Saddam's WMD programme, there were decent grounds to expect him to be in active development (the fact that he had had biological and chemical weapons, which he used, coupled with a programme to develop a nuclear bomb which was disrupted by the Israelis, not to mention his strange behaviour in the run up to war).

It is expedient for both China and Russia to support Iran for various reasons (although they won't actually go to war in support). A bit like yourself really.

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

jaysus.. more of it.

Sure dead Iraqi's, are not an issue, and sure we shouldn't hold it against the US. Afterall, holding the US to the same standard as anyone else is Anti-American apparently. Again, a lot of people already died due to claims of WMDs from the US, so as much as you may like to dismiss that catostrophic mess up by the US, some us, would prefer to not see it happen again.

Jonny7 wrote: »

No it isn't very similar at all.

The US banging on about imaginary WMDs again, is exactly the same. Same country telling the same lies, over and over again.

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are not judging the Iranian situation on its own merit.

I very am judging it on its own merit, and I know that the US the main country banging on about the imaginary Iranian WMDs, so I don't trust them, due to the fact they already lied about WMDs in the past.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Read what you are writing, its an angry almost emotional rant about Iraq. It isn't anything else.

What I see is someone who wishes to ignore recent history, that make the current US claims to be rather unbelievable. The old saying of those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, except in this case the history is rather recent, and I find it astonishing that so many are willing to forget all about Iraq.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sure I was the same way myself, but its just biased baggage that adds little or nothing to the debate - and generally just attracts the usual frenzy of US/Israel bashing - as you may have noticed..

I fail to see how bringing up the fact that the US recently lied about WMDs, is "biased". Past behaviour of the US government is just as valid as past behaviour of the Iranian government, which is often brought up in these discussion. I find it rather biased that talking about Iran's past is perfectly acceptable, but apparently talking about the fact that the US lied about WMD in the past isn't.

The simple fact is that US claims in regard to Iran, can't be believed due to there past actions, and the US hasn't done a single thing to put there past lies behind them.

This entire mess is just the US not wanting anyone to dare challenge them in the region, and if a few hundred thousand Iranians die as result, they could care less, as we saw in Iraq, the life of people in the Middle East, has little value to the USA.