• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof Of Iran's Pro-terrorist Stance

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The following article clearly defeats all of the foolish people who were foolish enough to believe that Iran wanted peaceful nuclear power (Yes, Mustafa, you terrorist lover I am talking about you)

Middle East News


Iran two years from atom bomb - opposition
By Gareth Harding Aug 25, 2005, 17:13 GMT
printer friendly email this article

The following article can be viewed at: http://www.robhalford.com/quorum/showthread.php?t=60173


BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- Iran is "95 percent" on its way toward creating a nuclear bomb and could have its hands on missiles capable of reaching Western Europe within two years, one of the country`s leading opposition movements said Thursday.

At a news conference in Brussels, the National Council of Resistance of Iran released new information about a heavy water plant and 40 megawatt reactor in Arak, 150 miles south of the capital Tehran. The political wing of the People`s Mujahideen, a guerilla movement listed as a terrorist group by the European Union and the United States, also accused Iran`s rulers of attempting to smuggle nuclear material into the Islamic republic.

Under an agreement with Britain, France and Germany last year, Iran pledged to freeze work on its nuclear fuel processing program until a comprehensive trade agreement was reached with the European Union. Earlier this month, the so-called EU-3 offered new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a steady supply of nuclear technologies and fuels if Tehran agreed to permanently halt its nuclear activities. However, the conservative hard-liner rejected the package and the country resumed its attempts to enrich uranium at the Isfahan plant on Aug. 8.

"While the international community has been focused on stopping the clerical regime`s fuel cycle involving uranium enrichment, Tehran has been working at full speed to obtain a heavy water reactor in Arak and plutonium as the main element for a nuclear bomb," said Ali Safavi, a member of the NCRI`s foreign affairs committee.

Arak was not included in the November 2004 deal with the EU-3 and has not been subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iranian government officials told the Vienna-based body the plant would not be ready until 2014, but the NCRI says this is a "sheer lie" and that Arak was on course to produce 31 pounds of plutonium by 2007 -- enough to make one or two nuclear bombs.

The opposition grouping, which is engaged in a fierce lobbying campaign to get the Mujahideen removed from EU and U.S. blacklists, also revealed details of Tehran`s attempts to get its hands on tritium -- a substance that greatly increases the explosive power of a bomb. The IAEA has barred Iran from obtaining the material, but the NCRI claims the clerical regime has set up a front company to smuggle it in from South Korea.

The NCRI has revealed 15 nuclear sites in Iran since 2000 and information gathered by its high-placed "moles" within the regime has been used by intelligence services in Europe and the United States. However, the group`s latest allegations appear to be flatly contradicted by a recent IAEA report which found that traces of highly enriched uranium found on centrifuge parts had entered the country on imported equipment from Pakistan and did not result from Iranian enrichment activities.

Safavi accused the IAEA of failing to follow up on nuclear intelligence tip-offs provided by the grouping. He also slammed the EU for trying to do a deal with the mullahs in Tehran and for labeling the Mujahideen a terrorist organization.

"If we want to prevent the world`s most dangerous terror sponsor from acquiring the world`s most dangerous weapon, we must abandon the policy of appeasement in its totality."

Safavi said that since Ahmadinejad was elected in late June, there had been 30 hangings and 25 people -- including seven minors -- sentenced to death in Iran. "This shows how effective the EU`s human rights dialogue has been," he told United Press International.

The NCRI representative also catalogued Tehran`s involvement in the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, claiming the hard-line government had spent over $5 billion funding guerillas in the U.S. occupied neighboring state and had 11,000 Iraqi insurgents on its payroll.

The Paris-based opposition grouping wants Iran referred to the United Nations Security Council for breaching IAEA rules. However, it is against any military intervention in the oil-rich republic. "The choice is not between war and appeasement," said Safavi. "There is a third option, which is democratic change by Iranian people themselves."

Copyright 2005 by United Press International
__________________
Behold ‘tis I the Commander..

As I have been saying from the very begining, Iran MUST be stopped at all costs. Iran is a nation dominated by a terrorist faction of Islamic extremeists that are never to be trusted.

IRAN MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!!!
:3oops:


 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
yup, doesn't matter though, we can't do ****, cause Bush is a retard. Maybe if we still had a military we could use to protect ourselves with...

If you thought about this logically instead of with partisan nonsense, you'd realize that right now our military has Iran bracketed, geographically with Iraq and Afghanistan as its Western and Eastern borders.

Many people cried 'why Iraq?'. Look at the situation now, a situation that people with more intelligence and info saw coming, and know 'why Iraq'.
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
yup, doesn't matter though, we can't do ****, cause Bush is a retard. Maybe if we still had a military we could use to protect ourselves with...

You need to do much more research and not spew partisan hate. We have Iran isolated and need to act soon. We would be able to easier if people weren't crying about the war in Iraq.

And for the record Liberal Democrats oppose a big , good military and secret services.

On Oct 31st 1983 Ted Kennedy called for a vote on an immediate US nuclear freeze. Despite the fact the Soviets spent 1470 billion more that the us to modernize it's forces since we signed SALT 1. Other supporters of this freeze were Gore, Gephardt, and Biden.

Under Reagn we had 569 Navy ships under Clinton we had 315.

Defense Budgets under Reagan in 86
New Tanks Requested 840
New Aircraft Requested 399
New Naval Ships Requested 40

Defense Budget Under Clinton in 96
New Tanks Requested 0
New Aircraft Requested 34
New Naval Ships Requested 6
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
yup, doesn't matter though, we can't do ****, cause Bush is a retard. Maybe if we still had a military we could use to protect ourselves with...


Actually, it was Bill Clinton (D) who cut the crap out of the military and shut down so many bases. Bush (and the rest of us) was lucky there was even this incredibly thinned out remnant of a military left by the time Bill Clinton's liberal policies came back to creme us on 9/11 and made it necessary to start taking out terror regimes like the Taliban and Saddam (and now, Hammas ;) )

Nice try, but that old nerf version of an argument is a loser. Get a new schtick. This article best articulates the level of hypocrisy in your post:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11842.html
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I wonder if the left will vote for a war with Iran, before they vote against it.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
5,293
Reaction score
3,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bush was right when he called Iran part of the "axis of evil," but he shouldn't have said that. Oh how he shouldn't have said that.

Since then, we've had North Korea, Syria, and Iran aggressively stepping up their defenses. Iran and Syria are basically allies if either are attacked by the West. We just invaded one of the five countries on that list based on intelligence the President himself said was wrong, who could blame the others for being scared shitless?

Oh, and I'm not sure how having nuclear ambitions constitutes a pro-terrorist stance. Could you elaborate on that?
 
Last edited:

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, and I'm not sure how having nuclear ambitions constitutes a pro-terrorist stance. Could you elaborate on that?
Ill take a stab at this one.

having nuclear ambitions, and outwardly calling for the destruction of any other country, makes you a danger to world peace. add being an Islamic state, where your book calls for the destruction of anyone that doesnt follow Islam.......well, IMO, that makes you a terrorist.

this of course is only my opinion.
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ProudAmerican said:
I wonder if the left will vote for a war with Iran, before they vote against it.

57% of Americans already favor military action against Iran. 86% percent of that 57% is Republican support, while 49% is Democrat.

Link to this article...

I will have to admit that I don't much believe in polls as to their accuracy of telling the complete story, but I did find it surprising that such a number of those polled was in favor of military action.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
VTA said:
57% of Americans already favor military action against Iran. 86% percent of that 57% is Republican support, while 49% is Democrat.

Link to this article...

I will have to admit that I don't much believe in polls as to their accuracy of telling the complete story, but I did find it surprising that such a number of those polled was in favor of military action.

I remember a time when Congress was in favor of military action against Iraq. I remember a time when John Kerry was. I remember a time when many on the left were.

The fact is, some people just dont have the stomach for war once the bombs start flying.

I bet those poll numbers will change drastically if we decide to take action.

but with any luck I will be wrong, and those polls will be right.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
5,293
Reaction score
3,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ProudAmerican said:
I remember a time when Congress was in favor of military action against Iraq. I remember a time when John Kerry was. I remember a time when many on the left were.

The fact is, some people just dont have the stomach for war once the bombs start flying.
Yeah, I was in favor of military action against Iraq, even after we invaded. Right up until I learned how the President cherry-picked intelligence to build a biased case, at the expense of allowing Osama bin Laden to remain at large. Oh, I have the stomach for war when it's necessary, but I also have a brain. :2razz:
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Yeah, I was in favor of military action against Iraq, even after we invaded. Right up until I learned how the President cherry-picked intelligence to build a biased case, at the expense of allowing Osama bin Laden to remain at large. Oh, I have the stomach for war when it's necessary, but I also have a brain. :2razz:

I wont debate the Iraq issue again. Im tired of that argument. I believe the president laid out a clear plan with multiple reasons, ONE of which hasnt YET been proven. Some people dissagree. OK, fine.

I also dont believe we ever stopped looking for Osama....but some people thing we did. OK, fine.

I also believe the very same oponents of Iraq will have a problem with doing something about Iran.
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ProudAmerican said:
I remember a time when Congress was in favor of military action against Iraq. I remember a time when John Kerry was. I remember a time when many on the left were.

The fact is, some people just dont have the stomach for war once the bombs start flying.

I bet those poll numbers will change drastically if we decide to take action.

but with any luck I will be wrong, and those polls will be right.

Yeah I know; once it proves itself to be a war and not as easy as it seems on TV, there'll be those who change their tune. But in reality, polls aren't going to dictate policy. We're maintaining a presence in that region for a reason and it's already set in motion what's going to happen.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
5,293
Reaction score
3,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ProudAmerican said:
I wont debate the Iraq issue again. Im tired of that argument. I believe the president laid out a clear plan with multiple reasons, ONE of which hasnt YET been proven. Some people dissagree. OK, fine.

I also dont believe we ever stopped looking for Osama....but some people thing we did. OK, fine.

I also believe the very same oponents of Iraq will have a problem with doing something about Iran.
If you honestly believe the entire anti-war movement is just because some people don't have the stomach for war, then you haven't debated the issue with anyone worth debating with. You don't have to agree with the arguments against this war, but at least acknowledge them as being central to the anti-war argument, and don't pretent that some imagined state of cowardice once the bullets start flying is the primary reason. Trying to pass that off as the truth only shows how ignorant you are about the critics of this war and the points they have made. It's one thing to disagree, but it's completely another to ignore the entire argument and paint it instead to be something it's not. That's called a straw man, and it's dishonest.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
If you honestly believe the entire anti-war movement is just because some people don't have the stomach for war, then you haven't debated the issue with anyone worth debating with. You don't have to agree with the arguments against this war, but at least acknowledge them as being central to the anti-war argument, and don't pretent that some imagined state of cowardice once the bullets start flying is the primary reason. Trying to pass that off as the truth only shows how ignorant you are about the critics of this war and the points they have made. It's one thing to disagree, but it's completely another to ignore the entire argument and paint it instead to be something it's not. That's called a straw man, and it's dishonest.


Im not ignoring anything. The oponents of this war have staked everything on WMDs that have not yet been found, but most CERTAINLY did exist. They have completely ignored every other reason put forth by the administration.

I believe the liberals side (and im not claiming you are a liberal...I have no idea) has proven to be innefective throughout history in defending this nation.

I also know that those same so called critics were much more silent when Bill Clinton was giving half assed attempts at war in order to raise poll numbers and get a good photo op.

IMO the reasons for this war far outweigh any reasons against it.

and yes, I will paint with a broad brush here. It is my opinion that for the most part (note I said for the most part) the antiwar crowd is full of complete cowards and pacifists that have absolutely no clue what it takes to defend a nation from terrorists, or any other enemy.

unfortunately, there is no doubt that eventually one of these cowards will again end up running the country. I know.....lets re-elect Jimmy Carter.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
Im not ignoring anything. The oponents of this war have staked everything on WMDs that have not yet been found, but most CERTAINLY did exist. They have completely ignored every other reason put forth by the administration.

I believe the liberals side (and im not claiming you are a liberal...I have no idea) has proven to be innefective throughout history in defending this nation.

I also know that those same so called critics were much more silent when Bill Clinton was giving half assed attempts at war in order to raise poll numbers and get a good photo op.

IMO the reasons for this war far outweigh any reasons against it.

and yes, I will paint with a broad brush here. It is my opinion that for the most part (note I said for the most part) the antiwar crowd is full of complete cowards and pacifists that have absolutely no clue what it takes to defend a nation from terrorists, or any other enemy.

unfortunately, there is no doubt that eventually one of these cowards will again end up running the country. I know.....lets re-elect Jimmy Carter.
Your whole arguement hinges on the assumption that Iraq was a threat. Which was the biggest lie of the Bush Administration. There were no mushroom clouds. They were far from it. Attacking Hussein because he is a bad dictator doesn't wash either. For two reasons, 1) its against International Law and 2) we knew about him long ago and did nothing. Plus there are many evil dictators that we have helped be put in power.

I think attacking Iraq is the most cowardly act the United States has ever done!
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Your whole arguement hinges on the assumption that Iraq was a threat. Which was the biggest lie of the Bush Administration. There were no mushroom clouds. They were far from it. Attacking Hussein because he is a bad dictator doesn't wash either. For two reasons, 1) its against International Law and 2) we knew about him long ago and did nothing. Plus there are many evil dictators that we have helped be put in power.

I think attacking Iraq is the most cowardly act the United States has ever done!

I dont think you and I have much more to say to one another on this topic.

it really is a waste of bandwidth at this point.
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
2) we knew about him long ago and did nothing.

Our hands were tied by the coalition that we had. Other Muslim countries in our coalition against Iraq the first time were adamantly against attacking another muslim country. That was one of George H. W Bush's biggest regrets, he knew he should have taken out Sadaam then.

Sadaam was commiting genocide, and used WMD's against his own people. Women and Children.

He would have husbands watch their wives being tortured and killed, and then torture them. Yeah, you're right Sadaam was a good guy, he would never try to develop nuclear weapons, and if he did he wouldn't use them because he has strong morals. He also supported terrorists, there is a clear link to that.


http://www.husseinandterror.com/
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Paul:
Our hands were tied by the coalition that we had. Other Muslim countries in our coalition against Iraq the first time were adamantly against attacking another muslim country. That was one of George H. W Bush's biggest regrets, he knew he should have taken out Sadaam then.

Sadaam was commiting genocide, and used WMD's against his own people. Women and Children.

He would have husbands watch their wives being tortured and killed, and then torture them. Yeah, you're right Sadaam was a good guy, he would never try to develop nuclear weapons, and if he did he wouldn't use them because he has strong morals. He also supported terrorists, there is a clear link to that.
I'm going farther back than that.
When he was fighting his war with Iran.

rummy4ro.jpg
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I always laugh when a liberal posts that picture.

like it somehow means saddam wasnt supporting terrorists or killing people with chemical weapons.

tell us Billo,

have you ever had a friend that later turned out to be an enemy. most of us have.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I always laugh when a liberal posts that picture.

like it somehow means saddam wasnt supporting terrorists or killing people with chemical weapons.

tell us Billo,

have you ever had a friend that later turned out to be an enemy. most of us have.
I thought we were not going to waste bandwidth on each other? If you want to get down, you want to cha-cha, lets go.
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
yup, doesn't matter though, we can't do ****, cause Bush is a retard. Maybe if we still had a military we could use to protect ourselves with...

You are an idiot. Bush does nothing but make our military stronger. Afghanistan was a much worse breeding ground for terror and we took care of that. Iraq would have had to be dealt with now or later. The longer we waited the worse it was going to be.

And if you are implying that we should have invaded iran you are an idiot. Public support is behind their leader. There is no dissafected majority of people to rely on after the government falls like there was with iraq. Iran would be 200 times worse as far as security than Iraq could ever be.

Keep your screwed up anarchist viewpoints to your terrible blogger that no one ever reads. We don't want any.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by FreeThinker:
Bush does nothing but make our military stronger
You got to be kidding.
Rand says Army overstretched by Iraq
United Press International July 13th, 2005


WASHINGTON -- The Army is so strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan it would have a hard time responding to a new major crisis, a new report said.

The report by the Rand Corporation said the Army should consider using the National Guard and Reserves even more than it does now for overseas deployments to reduce the burden.

Rand says the proposal would require billions of dollars annually to outfit, train and operate the forces, but ...


http://www.ivaw.net/index.php?id=154
You call this helping?
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by FreeThinker:
No. I call that using the military we are paying for.

And I call this helping: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1778681.stm
I think the amount of money we spend on defense is totally obscene. China spends the second most money on defense in the world. They spend 44 billion. We are No.1 in spending on defense. We spend over 400 billion. To be safe? Maybe it would be cheaper if this country didn't have so many cowards living in fear.
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
I think the amount of money we spend on defense is totally obscene. China spends the second most money on defense in the world. They spend 44 billion. We are No.1 in spending on defense. We spend over 400 billion. To be safe? Maybe it would be cheaper if this country didn't have so many cowards living in fear.

Maybe if the UN got off its fat ass and fulfilled their charter we wouldn't have to constantly do their jobs for them.

I have to sleep now. byeeeee.
 
Top Bottom