spoken as Ron Paul, the US politician. I hear things like this from some of the US people but in the low percent.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

spoken as Ron Paul, the US politician. I hear things like this from some of the US people but in the low percent.

I always try to look at it from the Iranian perspective in this instance, I feel honestly there is no way you can dismantle any sort of tense situation anywhere if you don't put your self in the other party's shoes.

In my opinion I think Iran is not going to make nukes but you suppose that my supposition is wrong.
You know that two or three nuclear weapons can’t be a deterrent weapon for Iran against thousands west nukes or hundreds Israel nukes. So your reasoning can be the competition between ME countries and the world following it.
You suppose that Iran stop and destroy all his nuclear activities for this reason. So what will happen for west and others countries nukes?
Do they agree to destroy their nukes?
And if they don’t, what is their reason to have those?

Originally Posted by Yossarian

What the Western Media did, and still does not state in the last decade of coverage about the rapid tensions both real, and imagined by American journalists.
Is the recuring failure to look at the situation in a more logical sense.




The fact is there is a lot of overlooked logic in looking at this simple map.

Iran in some rights have plenty of reason to be worried , especially during the last decade, and I if I was a Iranian military leader, regardless of my opinions of the ruling regeime

I would be militarizing the populace heavily towards armed defense as well.

Why?

Look at Iraq, and look at Afghanistan, both had heavy Coalition prescenses in the last decade, on two of Iran's major borders.

Also, the world's only naval superpower was, and is prowling the waters around Iran's ports an major source of economic stimulation.

If I were a military leader in Iran, or a policy maker, I would be worried to.
It's this little mentioned fact that comes through when the Western media demonizes Iran. Let alone show a skyline picture of modern Tehran.

To put this in better perspective, imagine what Americans would feel like if a Massive Russian military presense exsisted in Canada. And say a massive Chinese force was deployed in Mexico, tell me some brows would not be sweating right now?

Given Iran's situation, and although as a individual I am strongly opposed to it, but if Iran has any real tangible hope at victory against any determined American incurision, short of drawing in a regional ally (a heavily equipped miltary power that can challenge U.S. troops) , which does not seem to be a diplomatic solution any time soon.

Then nuclear weapons may be the only vialbe option to use against any invading U.S. or Israeli military forces.

THIS is why the situation is so crictal at this junction if events keep going at this rate.

And the way the U.S. and Western powers are "pressuring" Iran is NOT helping in any way, all it seems to be doing is having the OPPISITE effect and pushing Iran ever closer to a nuclear arsenal, spurring either conflict or an arms race in the Region.

The fact that Iran is (was) surrounded by us forces has different reasons. The naval forces are there because of the Carter doctrine to protect US interests and to safeguard the oil supply so important for the world economy. During the Iran-Iraq war the Iranian air force attacked oil facilities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (a Saudi F-15 shot down a Iranian F-4 on June 5 1984) and oil tanker traffic and even conducted naval maneuvers in Saudi territorial waters. So there goes the myth that Iran does not attack other countries.

The US forces in Iraq are all gone. There is no threat from Iraq to Iran, on the contrary, the two countries like each other very well.

US forces invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, not because of Iran. Iran does supply the Taliban with weapons.

Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah (Lebanon is the world's biggest ammunition depot) and Hamas, which covenant demands the destruction of Israel.
Iranian weapons shipments were intercepted by Israel, Turkey, Nigeria (13 containers!), Yemen, NATO troops in Afghanistan and US naval forces.
UN Security Council resolution 1747 bans arms export from Iran.

The Iranian Quds Force has been described as "tasked with exporting" Iran's Islamic revolution or "responsible for extraterritorial operations" of the Revolutionary Guard and reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The translation is .....Jerusalem Force.

In 2006, Hassan Abbasi, Head of the Iranian Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies, said: "Britain's demise is on our agenda." He added: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.

ahmadinejad and khamenei on israel and the us and the uk

Originally Posted by hamidreza

In my opinion I think Iran is not going to make nukes but you suppose that my supposition is wrong.
You know that two or three nuclear weapons can’t be a deterrent weapon for Iran against thousands west nukes or hundreds Israel nukes. So your reasoning can be the competition between ME countries and the world following it.
You suppose that Iran stop and destroy all his nuclear activities for this reason. So what will happen for west and others countries nukes?
Do they agree to destroy their nukes?
And if they don’t, what is their reason to have those?

Your leaders have said :

1. That Israel, UK and the USA must be destroyed.
2. Nuclear research is for peaceful purposes.

Are they both true or false? And if only one is true then why are they lying?

Unfortunately, all too many simply cannot place themselves into the shoes of foreigners who have experienced the heavy boot of the British Empire and the U.S. Empire.

If I were Iranian I would see the world in this way.

All we hear from U.S. officials is how aggressive Iran is — how it is threatening the world with its aggression — how it’s trying to get WMDs to initiate a nuclear war against the United States — how necessary it is to spend billions of dollars on a missile defense system in Europe to protect against an Iranian attack.

It’s all a bunch of propagandistic crock.

Is Iran surrounding the United States with troops in Mexico and Canada? Are Iranian naval vessels patrolling the coastlines along the eastern and western United States and in the Gulf of Mexico? Is Iran imposing sanctions on the United States, covertly assassinating American scientists, and covertly engaging in cyber attacks on American computer facilities? Is it Iran that is flying spy planes over the United States? Is it Iran that has invaded and occupied two countries in the last 10 years? Is it Iran that has embarked on an international program of kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret international prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial execution?

No, it’s the other way around. It is the U.S. Empire that has Iran surrounded, with imperial troops around the region. It is the U.S. Empire whose foreign policy is committed to violent regime change operations in nations like Iran — either covertly as the CIA did with Mossadegh or overtly like the Pentagon did with Saddam Hussein. It is the U.S. Empire that has invaded and occupied two countries in the past 10 years. It is the U.S. Empire that is undoubtedly engaged in covert operations in Iran. It is the U.S. Empire that has spy drones flying over Iranian air space. It is the U.S. Empire that is characterized by kidnapping, torture, assassination, secret prisons, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, and extra-judicial executions—the things that would be considered state terrorism if they were being done by Iran or any other nation.

And, of course, it’s the British government, harkening back to its halcyon days as an empire, that tags along, doing whatever the U.S. Empire does in the hopes of basking in its imperial glory.

Don’t get me wrong. The Iranian people are suffering under a cruel dictatorship. No doubt about that. But the dictatorship is no more cruel than it was under the Shah, whom Britain and the United States installed into power, after violently ending Iran’s attempt at democracy. But the fact that Iranians are governed by a cruel dictatorship doesn’t mean that the dictatorship is bent on worldwide conquest.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

So there goes the myth that Iran does not attack other countries.

I am and was fully aware of the instances in the 1980s that led to the destruction of the Iranian Navy by U.S. Forces. What should be looked at however is how this can lead to further distrust and resentment of America by various people in the region.

Although I do agree on Iran attacking first.

Plus this proves a point to Iran, the U.S. has done it before, they will be ready to do it again. With the type of regeime in charge at the moment, I am not one bit surprised that they are seeking more araments and tools of warefare.

Recent police action in Libya and proposed actions against Syria do nothing but irritate this.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The US forces in Iraq are all gone. There is no threat from Iraq to Iran, on the contrary, the two countries like each other very well.

Yes the major U.S. footprint in Iraq is gone, but American Eyes and Ears in Iraq are most likely not, nor will be for a long time. Also Iraq is freindly with more than Iran, such as on a business standpoint the U.S. and I am not talking about Oil.

Contracts for the purchasing and maintiaing of the new Iraqi armed forces equippment is being handled by American enterprises.

So not much has changed there. Take a look at Iraqi arms inventories and equiptement and cross reference some of it with it's place of manufacture, much of it is built on American soil.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

US forces invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, not because of Iran. Iran does supply the Taliban with weapons.

Again, on a map although this is true, Afghanistan is right on Iran's border, and American influence goes against any Iranian regional policy plans they had or have for this area.

Having a foreign military power right next to you changes region movements a bit.

As with the recent U.S. drone incident it's already apparent the U.S. is scoping over the border.

If for example China or Russia had observation points in Mexico for instance, it would be a riot with conservatives the nation over if this were in North America.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah (Lebanon is the world's biggest ammunition depot) and Hamas, which covenant demands the destruction of Israel.

The U.S. supplied Iran's enemies in the Iran Iraq war, so why would it be so alien a concept with the same western powers calling Iran out on, who also did the exact same thing against Iran in the 80s?

Although I think U.S. foreign policy makers often don't want to admit this, but the U.S. has a very loose tolerance of where it channels arms of any type, this has been a recuring factor and even reigniting new wars like in the instance of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

America has also supplied weapons to countless revolutionary organizations in the 20th century that resulted in the overthrowing of mulitple goverments.


In this case a lot of what this has to do with is who is manning the TV and Radio satelites and barks out the condemnation first, a real measure of who can shout the "history" and "news" the loudest over the Airwaves.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Iranian weapons shipments were intercepted by Israel, Turkey, Nigeria (13 containers!), Yemen, NATO troops in Afghanistan and US naval forces.
UN Security Council resolution 1747 bans arms export from Iran.

I do believe this should be continued, failed U.S. policies in the past already iterate that weapons are not bio degradable, and can be just as easliy be channeled into dangourous organizations that the arms were not intended for.

Intercepting them can help neutralize this type of situation in some respects and should be continued.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The Iranian Quds Force has been described as "tasked with exporting" Iran's Islamic revolution or "responsible for extraterritorial operations" In

How about operation Iraqi Freedom ? Or at least the U.S.'s version of Freedom, and other nostalgic words such as "liberty", and "justice" for all Iraqis.

I have no doubt these inentions are good, but it negates that fact that ideals that are suited for Americans have been shown to not be entirely shared by the nations that the U.S. military operates in.

You can't force feed on the tip of a bayonet your ideas of right and wrong, especially when dealing with a comptley different culture, it doesn't work.

You may like the color Blue, But if I like green another cool color along the same lines, I might not be in agreeance with you if you kicked in my front door an painted my walls Blue.

Your leaders have said :

1. That Israel, UK and the USA must be destroyed.
2. Nuclear research is for peaceful purposes.

Are they both true or false? And if only one is true then why are they lying?

I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.
Why the west countries have thousands nukes? they want those just for defence or they can use those as a threaten ?

Originally Posted by hamidreza

I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.
Why the west countries have thousands nukes? they want those just for defence or they can use those as a threaten ?

Because they had thousands of nukes before NPT was created. U.S/NATO, Russia, and China do not need nukes to threaten or defend against any nation except each other. I suggest you look at the track record U.S has when it comes to disarming its nuclear weapons.

I will have you know Russia and U.S (not sure about the other 3 countries) have been decreasing their nuclear arms steadily. You never want to fully destroy your nuclear stockpile when some other adversary country still has theirs. As I said earlier in this thread, if some country is getting a nuke (or believed to be getting a nuke), then the countries that already have it is going to have a hard time convincing it's people to go through with more disarming processes.

I do not know if Iran is in fact trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and I do realize the west could make this go a little easier, but Iran can also end it just as the west can. If you ask me, it is like Iran is begging for an airstrike. I am not sure if Israel will hold off long, especially after the U.S elections.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Because they had thousands of nukes before NPT was created. U.S/NATO, Russia, and China do not need nukes to threaten or defend against any nation except each other. I suggest you look at the track record U.S has when it comes to disarming its nuclear weapons.

Do you think for one moment that if NPT was in place at that time and Russia had hundreds of nukes that the US would not develop them?

It's all too easy now that the US has a stockpile capable of killing every living thing on earth several times over, to forbid other countries from wanting to have a mutually assured destruction defence against their enemies.