Rhetoric heats up as Iran nuclear talks resume

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
If Iran's nuclear facilities are only for generating electricity, why are they concealed under mountains ??

Also ask yourself why they'd go through all this for nuclear power when they have enough cheap oil for the next century.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Also ask yourself why they'd go through all this for nuclar power when they have enough cheap oil for the next century.

Ha, but you are wrong, black gold breath.

Iran is EMPTY.

OK.

De eesy oil days are ova.

[ELVIS]

Iran is not empty...

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Iran is not empty...

Tit's gonna be, and dat's why they're building da plants.

No more easy oil.

The biggest discovery in the world is the eastern sea shelf off South America to the Falklands.

Do you see any oil rigs out there?

NO.

No more easy oil.

It's gone.

It's under the sea now or under the ice.

You wanna go git it?

Iran can't go git it.

That's the truth.

But if I were Iranian I'd have no problem at all realizing that Israel HAS nuclear bombs already and they'd like to see me dead and the "Greater Israel" spread to Persia.

So... we know they do need energy in the future and we know they, not you and me, live with warring Israel, that has attacked every neighbor it has, in it's own backyard sandbox.

I don't blame them one bit. Israel is saying they're ready to attack Iran "or else."

Or else what?

They need the energy and they need the bombs, because we let Israel have the bomb.

It's that simple.

They get the bomb.

They know it and they (Iran) ain't taking no shit from the silly U.S..

OK.

Reserve your seats now.

The end of the world show.

It's live!

[Nickdfresh]

I'm just wondering if it would be legal to use nuclear weapons on the fucking worthless SHEEP at the VHLINKS? What a bunch of useless tools!

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm just wondering if it would be legal to use nuclear weapons on the fucking worthless SHEEP at the VHLINKS? What a bunch of useless tools!

You never know cuntil you try, Nicky.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Phil theStalker

So... we know they do need energy in the future and we know they, no you and me, live with warring Israel, that has attacked every neighbor it has, it our own backyard sandbox.

It wasn't Israel who was on the offensive in 1967...

Don't try to rewrite history...

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It wasn't Israel who was on the offensive in 1967...

Don't try to rewrite history...

Well, then why don't we go back to 1947 and the Jewish terrorists blowing up fakking hotels and people all over the land creating 800,000 refugees that were still refugees in '67.

How long would you live with a "boot" in your face from anybody, Jewish or Romans, or anybody? huh

Americans petitioned Britian for 20 years before they started the Revolutionary war.

You mean only Americans and peeps in the 18th century are the only peeps who can make war to RIGHT wrongs.

Right the wrongs.

It's funny how you jump into history right where it helps you make a false point ('67).

You take history out of context when you only start it in 1967.

Hey, Joey Rogan was only born in 1967. The world didn't start until 1967 when Joey wuz born in da manger in Jamaica Plains. Then they put Joseph in a little basket like Moses and floated Joey out on Jamaica Pond. The rest , as they say, is history.

You're smarter than that, ELVIS.

Slowdown t2onite, sex star.

[ELVIS]

I was born in 1967...

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I was born in 1967...

Well, then dat sexplains yer answer.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
You know, think about this for a minute. What kind of fucking moron hires a woman to be head diplomat when we are gonna be up to our eyeballs the next four years negotiating with A-rabs and Persians who have seen women as nothing more than possessions their whole lives? Who's going to take Condi seriously? That's just a terrible choice for SecState if you ask me. Again I'm just shaking my head at the idiocy of gw&friends.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS

The entire world takes Rice's words seriously...

Jesus H. Christ, how fucking moronic can you be???????????

The entire world huh?

Tell me, what does having your brain washed do to your hair? Is it more manageable, with more shine?


The entire world What a dolt.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian

Oh man, you got me there, because you know I was such a huge Clinton supporter when he was elected back when I was 14 and couldn't even vote

(BTW, I was aware of Albright)

[ODShowtime]

Iran Promises 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor

59 minutes ago World - Reuters

By Amir Paivar

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran.

"The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them," he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow blizzards, chanted "Death to America!."

Senior officials had called for a big turnout at the revolution anniversary parades to send a message to Washington which has toughened its stance on Iran in recent weeks.

President Bush said Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a very destabilizing force" and urged the West to work together to stop this happening.

"The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

Unlike North Korea, which Thursday openly declared it has made nuclear arms, Iran denies U.S. accusations it is building bombs under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program.

But Iran, too, has hardened its language in recent days, refusing to contemplate scrapping sensitive activities like uranium enrichment -- which can be used to make bomb-grade material -- and vowing to accelerate work on its program if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic plants.

HEADING FOR SECURITY COUNCIL?

Diplomats said that while the chances of a U.S. or Israeli attack were slim, Iran appeared to be on a collision course with the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.


"It's hard to see how they can avoid going to the Council, unless they substantially change their position," said a Western diplomat in Tehran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday Tehran must accept a deal being offered by the European Union -- to scrap potentially weapons-related work like enrichment in return for trade deals and other incentives -- or be referred to the Security Council.

But Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told Reuters in an interview this week there was nothing the West could offer Iran that would tempt it to give up its atomic fuel cycle.

Those at Thursday's annual demonstration, which tends to draw the hardcore supporters of Iran's clerical establishment, said Iran would not back down in the face of U.S. threats.

"The U.S. is after an excuse, if we stop atomic technology, they will find another excuse," said Habibollah Hosseini, a 68-year-old cleric carrying a walking stick in one hand and an umbrella in the other.


"They invaded Iraq although there were no weapons (of mass destruction). The best response to intimidation is unity and power. We are here to show this," he said.

Several carried effigies of Bush, one of which, carrying a banner which read "I Love war" was burned.


"America must fear the nation that does not fear death," said Mojtaba Hamedani, 45, a veteran of Iran's 1980-1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

"If there is a war, I will be the first one to go to the fronts and if I'm killed I will join my comrades who died fighting Saddam," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=2&u=/nm/20050210/wl_nm/iran_dc

[Nickdfresh]

Can the U.S. Defuse Iran?

TIME reports on the Iranian nuclear concern

By DANIEL EISENBERG


Posted Sunday, February 6, 2005
George W. Bush has staked his presidency on his reputation as a straight shooter, the kind of leader who presents a clear, decisive message to the nation's adversaries in the war on terrorism. But as the U.S. tries to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, the White House can't seem to make up its mind. First the President said he could not rule out future military action against Iran. Then Vice President Dick Cheney, just hours before the Inauguration, told radio host Don Imus that "the Israelis might well decide to act [militarily] first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

The intrigue deepened last week. In his State of the Union address, Bush cheered hawks pushing for regime change in Tehran, declaring that "as [Iranians] stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." But in the same breath, he offered something to the pro-diplomacy camp, stating that "we are working with European allies" who are at the negotiating table with Iran. Two days later, as she began her first trip as Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice said, "The Iranian regime's human-rights behavior is something to be loathed." But then she stressed that "the question [of attacking Iran] is simply not on the agenda." Really? Well, at least not "at this point."

Confused? That could be the intended effect, part of a psychological game to keep the Iranians off balance. The problem is that the Iranians—who deny they are pursuing nuclear weapons and insist that they have a sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful, civilian purposes—seem quite adept at playing their own games.

As it drags out the third round of negotiations with Britain, France and Germany with no hint of a resolution, Iran is doing little to build confidence in its good intentions. The country's top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Moussavian, reiterated late last month Tehran's refusal to agree to a permanent cessation of its uranium-enrichment program. Meanwhile, the IAEA has discovered that despite its agreement to temporarily suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, Iran was continuing to do maintenance work on a uranium-enrichment plant in southern Iran. At the same time, the Iranians have allegedly finished designing a prototype of a detonator for a nuclear bomb, according to an opposition group based in Paris.

Taking their cue from North Korea, the Iranians have seen "that you can extend a negotiating process and still build nukes," says Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.

Despite repeated entreaties from European government officials, the U.S. has so far refused to join the multilateral talks, which center on persuading Iran to shut down its uranium-enrichment work in exchange for a package of economic and political goodies. "You have to have a good cop and a bad cop [on every issue]," Mohamed el-Baradei, director of the IAEA, told TIME. "But they should share the same objective." In this case, however, the U.S. has little interest in getting too involved. It firmly believes that the Iranians have already made up their mind to go nuclear, and no amount of cajoling is going to change that belief. And the U.S. wants to avoid doing anything to bolster the legitimacy of Iran's ruling theocrats. As Rice said while embarking on her trip, "I don't think the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for either the Iranian people or for the region, [which] is going in quite a different direction."

Iran's refusal to agree to put an end to its uranium-enrichment activities could in time persuade Europe to take the entire matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. hopes to push for a gradual phase-in of multilateral sanctions. Although it is true that Russia and China, as two of Iran's key trading partners (and weapons suppliers), could pose formidable obstacles to passing any kind of resolution, Washington knows it has few good alternatives. For all the recent talk of U.S. commandos secretly staking out potential targets deep inside Iran, many experts question whether military strikes could be assured of taking out all the country's dispersed, well-hidden nuclear facilities. Intelligence on Iran's programs is inadequate, and the White House is mindful of violent reprisals against U.S. forces in Iraq by Iranian-backed militia. Israel, too, is reluctant to resort to the kind of pre-emptive blow it used to take out Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981. A similar strike against Iran would invite retaliation by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hizballah, which can rain missiles on Tel Aviv from its perch in southern Lebanon.

As a last resort, the Administration continues to hold out hope that regime change will come to Iran before a nuclear bomb does. Barring that, the U.S. may finally have to consider cutting a deal, accepting anything from a nonaggression pact or an end to its long-standing sanctions to Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization. That, of course, may not make the hard-liners in the White House very happy.

But as the Bush Administration is slowly learning, dealing with Iran may be one of those cases in which accepting a messy compromise, rather than sticking to a firmly held conviction, is the wisest course of action.

—Reported by Elaine Shannon/ Washington, James Graff/ Paris, Helen Gibson/ London and Nahid Siamdoust/Tehran