Iran's nuclear work is nearing a "peak," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday, while the U.N. atomic watchdog chief said Tehran was probably at least three years from making atom bombs if it chose to do so.
Ahmadinejad dismissed Western pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear drive.
"With God's help, the path to completely enjoying all nuclear capacity is near its end, and we are close to the peak," he told a rally in the central Iranian town of Isfahan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice maintained a firm line Sunday against efforts to soften conditions for Iran to enter talks over its disputed nuclear program, dismissing as "chatter" discussions among U.S. allies about a new approach.
British, French and German officials have begun debating whether to tolerate something less than a full freeze on Iran's work to enrich uranium, an ingredient for both civilian nuclear power or a bomb, officials in Vienna told The Associated Press on Friday.
Germany was supportive of such a concession, while France was opposed and Britain noncommittal, said the officials, who included U.S. and European diplomats and government employees. They said the talks were preliminary, and that nothing had been decided.
Rice said in her discussions with other diplomats she has sensed no willingness to back off conditions that Iran's European and United Nations negotiating partners had set to begin formal talks.
Threats and economic sanctions will not stop Iran's technological progress, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Saturday at a large parade featuring fighter jets and radar-avoiding missiles designed to show off the country's military might.
The military parade outside the capital Tehran marked the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran that sparked the bloody 1980-88 war. Iran used the parade to display its latest weapons, including radar-avoiding missiles, super-fast torpedoes, unmanned surveillance drones, battle tanks and other domestically produced weapons.
Some of the trucks carrying Iranian missiles were painted at the back the popular slogans: "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel."
The parade also featured flights by two of Iran's new domestically manufactured fighter jets, known as the Saegheh, which means lightening in Farsi.
Meanwhile, the worst President of all time, Jimmy Carter, says Iran is not a threat to Israel.
Yeah, and if there's a guy who understands and knows how to handle crazies in Iran, it's Jimmy Carter.
But if you're Israel, I think it would be dangerous to think like Carter and err on the side of assuming that Iranians will behave rationally.
One nuclear attack could effectively destroy Israel, so the risk of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons should be viewed as unacceptable.
This does not even take into account the possibility that Iran, consistently the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, would pass nuclear material to a terrorist group such as Israel's direct enemies Hamas and Hezbollah, which are provided weapons and financing from Iran.
Even if Iranians do neither of those things, the strategic leverage they would gain from having nuclear weapons by itself is enough reason for Israel to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.... assuming the U.S. does not act first.
Meanwhile, the worst President of all time, Jimmy Carter, says Iran is not a threat to Israel. ....
Despite the headline though Carter didn't say that.
Quote:
Carter: Iran No Threat to Israel Now Sep 19 11:35 PM US/Eastern By DOUG GROSS Associated Press Writer
Syria Accuses Israel of BombingATLANTA (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that it was almost inconceivable that Iran would "commit suicide" by launching missiles at Israel.
Speaking at Emory University, Carter, who brokered the 1979 Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, said Israel's superior military power and distance from Iran likely are enough to discourage an actual attack.
"Iran is quite distant from Israel," said Carter, 83. "I think it would be almost inconceivable that Iran would commit suicide by launching one or two missiles of any kind against the nation of Israel."
Iran's deputy air force commander said Wednesday that Israel is within range of Iran's medium-range missiles and bombers and that Tehran would strike back if Israel "makes a silly mistake."
The White House said the comments almost sound geared toward provoking a fight and Israeli officials said they take the threats seriously.
Carter did not dismiss the idea that Iran might want to attack Israel, noting Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment production despite two United Nations resolutions imposing sanctions on the country. Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy for civilian use but the U.S., its European allies and many others fear the program's real aim is to produce nuclear weapons.
"Obviously, we all hope we can do whatever we can to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power," Carter said.
Carter said unease between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is a far greater threat to Israel's security than Iran. He criticized the Bush administration for not doing enough to broker peace in the region.
G-man's link From what he said it seems like a pretty good reading of the situation. He's not discounting that Iran would attack Isreal & keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power falls into the do whatever we can category.
I suppose it always makes Bush look a little better if another President can be made to look worse. Carter isn't going to go down as one of the greatest Presidents but he didn't start a war over bad intel & keep working that bad intel to justify bad call after bad call.
I suppose it always makes Bush look a little better if another President can be made to look worse. Carter isn't going to go down as one of the greatest Presidents but he didn't start a war over bad intel & keep working that bad intel to justify bad call after bad call.
don't forget record vacation days and deficit, low approval ratings, and many acts that experts consider breaches of constitutional rights.
Don't get me wrong. Bush isn't doing a good job. But, aside from the war (which some would say is going much better now), every screw-up he's had pales next to the failures of Carter.
Furthermore, Carter may not have started a shooting war, but his bungled handling of foreign policy, from the Soviet Union to the Middle East (most notably the Iranian situation), planted the seeds for nearly ever problem that subsequent Presidents, including Bush, have faced ever since.
Add in a shitty economy, scandals in his administration and his whining about malaise (effectively blaming the American people for his own failures) and there's little doubt that Carter is the worst.
Don't get me wrong. Bush isn't doing a good job. But, aside from the war (which some would say is going much better now), every screw-up he's had pales next to the failures of Carter.
Furthermore, Carter may not have started a shooting war, but his bungled handling of foreign policy, from the Soviet Union to the Middle East (most notably the Iranian situation), planted the seeds for nearly ever problem that subsequent Presidents, including Bush, have faced ever since.
Add in a shitty economy, scandals in his administration and his whining about malaise (effectively blaming the American people for his own failures) and there's little doubt that Carter is the worst.
oh, so when you compare Bush to Carter you don't count shooting wars that go against international opinion and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths based on either on lies or faulty intelligence? you don't see that as being worth counting? the Iraq debacle alone counts him as the worst. It's like saying "other than the double murder, OJ is a pretty friendly guy."
No, I counted the war. But even doing so, Carter still comes out worse than Bush. Trust me. I'm a lot older than you. I lived through the Carter administration. Those four years were worse than the eight under Bush.
I also note that this guy is still claiming that Sanctions Will Not Stop Nuclear Progress, which probably goes a long way to explaining reports that the U.S. is planning a potential strike on Iran.
Hillary Rodham Clinton called Barack Obama naive when he said he'd meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition.
But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."
"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said at an apple orchard.
Clinton on Thursday also characterized her recent vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization as a way to gain leverage for those negotiations.
So, what are you saying, Ray? That how a presidential candidate proposes to deal with a very serious foreign policy issue (in this case, Iran) is irrelevant evaluating their candidacy?
Oh, and Bush isn't running. So any answer about what he has or hasn't done is irrelevant.
i'm saying you made the same post on the hillary thread and the last I checked "Kabul Zick" isn't running for president. i'm saying you had one bullet for hillary and you decided to fire it twice at two threads instead of one. i'm saying this whole thread seems to be just you posting about some country you don't like. i'm saying that you're an asshole. i'm saying that i don't like salt, or at least only in small quantities. i'm saying that cheese is best when it's not the overly processed shit that's served in fast food. and i'm saying that you sir have the manners of a warthog and the class of the warthog's dung.
So, what you're really saying is that you don't think a country run by crazy Muslim extremists who have all but promised to wipe a couple of other countries off the map, and who keep promising to build a nuclear bomb, is a problem worth discussing?
I think if you look at the question she originally answered it was about her meeting with these countries. Her position on that hasn't changed but she is willing to talk to these countries. This is compared to Bush threatening to attack them & not so they get some time to arm up if we do attack them.
So, what you're really saying is that you don't think a country run by crazy Muslim extremists who have all but promised to wipe a couple of other countries off the map, and who keep promising to build a nuclear bomb, is a problem worth discussing?
did you post about Iran or did you post about Hillary? And do you ever post an honest examination of Iran that studies all the variables or do you just post "Iran wants to eat your puppy" style posts? you don't want discussions, g-man.
The President of Iran---saying he wants to die a martyr and Israel doesn't have a right to exist, all while bragging he's going to build nukes to accomplish both--is doing a pretty good job of making himself into a villain without any help from me.
That being said, the thread is not just about how "Iran is bad." It's also about how various people, governments and presidential candidates propose to deal with that. Accordingly, saying "Hillary's plan has changed" is well within the topics dealt with to date.
The President of Iran---saying he wants to die a martyr and Israel doesn't have a right to exist, all while bragging he's going to build nukes to accomplish both--is doing a pretty good job of making himself into a villain without any help from me.
I really think a lot of that is just bs like a lot of the tough talk threats made during the cold war. Besides, you do know that he's not the same as the President here. His office is beneath that of the Supreme Leader.
Quote:
That being said, the thread is not just about how "Iran is bad." It's also about how various people, governments and presidential candidates propose to deal with that. Accordingly, saying "Hillary's plan has changed" is well within the topics dealt with to date.
but you posted it in both and you know you only did it to attack her. Same as how the post above that is you attacking MEM. Is MEM running for president?
Ray, you really need to drop the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" schtick when it comes to guys like the President of Iran.
We all know that you hate Bush. But that doesn't mean that you have to support every two bit dictator and Islamo-fascist that also hates him.
Some of these guys are bad news. The one running Iran is one of those.
now right there you didn't try and have a discussion about the tensions with Iran. You attacked me for simply suggesting it wasn't as serious as you were saying. In other words you attacked someone for disagreeing. And you implied I support dictators. All a personal attack on your part.
Iran's military used its feet this week to send a clear message to the United States and Israel.
A colorful inspection exercise staged for Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and broadcast on Iranian TV featured precision drill teams massing into an American flag with a swastika and a Star of David, each "stabbed" by a formation of the Zulfiqar, the legendary scimitar of the Islamic leader Ali. Khamenei is shown in the broadcast inspecting the drill teams, which chant to him, "Khamenei, we are your soldiers. Khamenei, at your command," according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
One of the military formations spells out the words, "National Unity," MEMRI reported.
The announcer then tells viewers, " The army of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the contemporary Zulfiqar — the sword of Ali."
He goes on to say: "The faces of these warriors are radiant with love of the revolution. Together with such mythical heroes, once again we can chant epic poems about the aspirations, and relive the memory of those eight years of identity and bravery. We shout the glory of the name of Iran on the summit of fame and dignity. Our proud Iran is proud of you – its brave children."
The exhibition comes as the chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards shrugged off harsh new U.S. sanctions that are the most sweeping since 1979, saying "the corps is ready to defend the ideals of the revolution more than ever before.
I'm sure Ray will be along to explain how this behavior, complete with Nazi imagry, is completely reasonable in the face of the greater evil presented by George Bush.
It's a shame that some people still subscribe enthusiastically to more of the neocon 'remaking the middle east wars' when we're already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan and Al Queda is still safe in Pakistan.
On Thursday’s Hardball Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) talked with Chris Matthews about the strong push from Dick Cheney and some members of the Senate — namely Kyl and Lieberman — to move closer to invading Iran. Matthews gets it, by passing amendments condemning Iran, they’re tying to get other legislators on the record so they can come back later and use it to make the case for war.
Very insightful piece of video. It sounds like those war hawks sure know how to maneuver so they could come up with some manipulative sound bites afterwards.
Thank God for Jim Webb. Can you imagine if George Allen had gotten re-elected? Instead of one more administration puppet pushing for war with Iran we have a former Navy man who has a particular interest in the Middle East (his son) who really cares about the repercussions our actions may have in that region of the world. The Democrats, playing checkers (badly) while Cheney is playing chess, may not have gotten our troops out of Iraq yet, but then I think about George Allen and Rick Santorum and then sigh with relief.
I don't think the "Hawks" are, at this point, contemplating a protracted ground war against Iran. I think they are building up to the idea of quick raids and air strikes as necessary. More akin to Gulf War I than the current Iraq war.
You know, maybe if the U.S. had paid a little attention to the free elections in Iran a few years ago instead of, I don't know, say, LOOKING FOR WMDS THAT DIDN'T EXIST the problem might not be so bad now....
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
You know, maybe if the U.S. had paid a little attention to the free elections in Iran a few years ago instead of, I don't know, say, LOOKING FOR WMDS THAT DIDN'T EXIST the problem might not be so bad now....
You're saying we should have invaded Iran instead?
Are you sure you're gay, dude? Because you seem to have it pretty bad...
